imported post
Walleye wrote:
Can someone explain how this is going to affect 2A issues throughout the USA?
The question I'm left asking is just because the SCOTUS affirms certain parts of the constitution, what's to keep states, counties, and muncipalities from ignoring their interpretation of it?
Well, they can't ignore it because it's SCOTUS. Every government in the country is subject to their rulings. Now, to be sure, states have tried. Brown v Board, which re-integrated schools, was heavily resisted by local board members, mayors and even governors; one governor called out the National Guard to prevent integration, and those troops soon found themselves confronted with the 101st Airborne Division sent by Eisenhower to ensure SCOTUS's order was followed. If the Guard wasn't also under the authority of the feds, we could have seen another battle for states' rights fought on the steps of every school in the state of Alabama.
However, in general, states abide by the ruling because that's the system they agreed to when they petitioned for statehood. Being able to ignore a SCOTUS ruling indefinitely, and get away with it, would involve a breakdown on multiple levels of government; if a city or county fails to apply proper law, the local judiciary will set them right. If they ignore it, they can be held accountable by the State. if the State doesn't care, the federal judiciary and executive layers become involved. If the situation isn't resolved by then, keep your guns close and your ammo closer cause a government that cant enforce its own rules is a government about to fall.
As for Heller affecting gun rights issues throughout the U.S., the application of this ruling is still hazy. A footnote of the opinion states that two precedents, U.S. v Cruikshank and Presser v Illinois, state that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal government, notwithstanding any later judgement regarding the incorporation of other BoR Amendments using the Fourteenth. That could mean that Heller, dealing with a Congressional district not belonging to any State and existing solely under the Federal government, may not be applicable to State governments.
On top of that, the opinion clearly states that it is not intended to be used as a broadsword against long-standing gun-control measures such as the GCA, NFA, and FOPA, and also specifically stated that concealed carry was reasonable, and that the States did have the power torestrict or protect certain aspects of gun ownership and use as they saw fit.
Despite all that, the language of the ruling is quite clear that a U.S. legal resident who is not a felon or mental defective has the right to buy his own guns and keep them himself for his own use. In addition, Heller's most specific complaint was that D.C. was, at its discretion, denying him a license to register and carry a handgun. The language of the ruling, and precedents cited, strongly indicate that challenges to may-issue policies for registration and concealed carry would likely result in overturning them in favor of shall-issue policies. Similarly, licensing requirements that effectively prohibit most citizens from legally possessing a handgun would not pass muster even if the policy was shall-issue once they were met.
I predicted this from the time I heard they were taking the case.