What if no lower court judges participate in a “Second Amendment Revolution”
Thanks to How Appealing, I saw this article in the latest issue of the Harvard Law Record headlined “Profs: District of Columbia v. Heller is a ‘Second Amendment Revolution.'” Here is how the piece begins:
Calling the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller a “Second Amendment revolution,” Profession Cass Sunstein ’78 declared in a panel discussion about the landmark Supreme Court decision on Tuesday, November 18. Sunstein was joined by fellow HLS Professor Lani Guinier and Yale Law School Professors Akhil Amar and Reva Siegel. The panel was sponsored by the Harvard Law Review, whose November 2008 issue focuses on Heller, which struck down the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns. Sunstein stated, “For better or for worse, there has been a sea change with respect to the right to bear arms comparable to civil rights, sex discrimination, and gay rights.”
With all due respect, Professor Sunstein, I blogged through a Sixth Amendment revolution with BlakelyBlakely was revolutionary because lower courts started striking down all sorts of federal and state laws based on BlakelyHeller is no Second Amendment revolution.
Pardon the weak effort to paraphrase Senator Lloyd Bentsen’s famous debate line, but I continue to be annoyed and aggravated by all the aggrandizement of Heller and its so-far-inconsequential Second Amendment holding. As I have suggested in prior posts, I will only believe Heller is important and revolutionary if/when lower court judges start striking down or limiting the reach of broad federal and state gun laws and restrictions based on its Second Amendment ruling. Until then, I do not think many serious practicing lawyers should put much stock in lots of law professors opining about how significant the Heller decision is.
Some related posts on the Heller‘s (lack of) importance:
- Is anyone (other than me) discussing the apparent insignificance of Heller?
- District Court rejects Second Amendment claim from misdemeanant
- Another (too?) brief opinion rejecting misdemeanant’s Second Amendment claim
- Still more proof that federal courts have no real interest in gun rights
- Has there been a single pro-gun-rights rulings in lower courts since Heller?
- Justice Scalia sells out felon gun rights, but on what basis exactly?
- An argument that the Second Amendment and Heller should help Weldon Angelos
UPDATE: Not minutes after finishing this post I noticed that Eugene Volokh has posted here on another lower court ruling that basically declares that Heller provides no impediment to federal efforts to prohibit and criminally punish any sort of gun possession by anyone addicted to any controlled substance. How revolutionary!