Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

APPEARS IN Second Amendment

The State of Heller

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Untitled Document

Does the Second Amendment apply to state and local governments? The Supreme Court has not definitively ruled, but in Nordyke v. King, decided just before this issue of America’s 1st Freedom went to press, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Second Amendment does bind state and local governments. The Ninth Circuit covers the nine westernmost states, including California.

Most laymen, and quite a few lawyers, too, are surprised to find out that the Bill of Rights does not automatically apply to state and local governments. There’s a long and complicated history behind this, but here’s the bottom line:

All of the provisions of the Bill of Rights are direct restrictions on the federal government. Likewise, directly limited is an entity whose powers exist only because they were granted from the federal government. For example, under the Constitution, the federal government is in charge of the District of Columbia. The D.C. Council’s powers exist solely because Congress delegated to the Council some of Congress’ authority over the District.

As the D.C. v. Heller case recently affirmed, the Second Amendment prohibits the federal government, and federal entities such as D.C., from banning handguns for self-defense.

As Justice Scalia’s opinion in Heller stated, the decision did not resolve the separate question of whether the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments. The Fourteenth Amend-ment, enacted during Reconstruction, provides: “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law … .”

Under modern Supreme Court doctrine, the Fourteenth Amendment’s “due process” clause protects both “procedural” and “substantive” due process. Procedural due process involves the fairness of how the government acted; for example, before the government took away someone’s driver’s license, did the person have an opportunity to present his side of the story to a neutral decision-maker?

Substantive due process involves what the government did. And some things that a government might do would involve an unjust deprivation of constitutional liberty, even if the procedures were fair. Suppose a state passed a law that said, “Anyone who reads a book criticizing the state’s governor will be imprisoned for one year.” And also suppose that for prosecutions under the law, there were all the usual procedural protections: that is, a defendant had a right to a jury trial; the defendant could cross-examine prosecution witnesses; the prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant really had read the book; and so on. Even with all the procedural protections in place (procedural due process), the law would be a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because there are just some ways in which a government may never deprive a person of liberty (substantive due process).

How does this affect the Bill of Rights? The Supreme Court has ruled that some, but not all, of the provisions of the Bill of Rights are “incorporated” in the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. The incorporated provisions of the Bill of Rights are thereby made enforceable against state governments. They’re also enforceable against local governments, since local governments’ powers are derived from the state.

Most of the Supreme Court’s cases on Fourteenth Amendment incorporation were decided between the 1930s and the 1960s. By the time the court was done, almost all of the provisions in the Bill of Rights had been incorporated, except: the Second Amendment right to arms; the Third Amendment right not to have soldiers quartered in one’s home; and the Fifth Amendment right to a grand jury indictment before being prosecuted. Also incorporated, of course, is the Tenth Amendment, which affirms that the people and the states retain powers not granted to the federal government.

So once Heller definitively affirmed that the Second Amendment protects the individual rights of ordinary citizens, the next question was whether the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments. There are some old cases from the 19th century suggesting that it does not, but those involved another provision of the Fourteenth Amendment (the “privileges or immunities” clause), not the due process clause.

Some state trial courts in Massachusetts, Missouri and New York have already treated the Second Amendment as applicable to the states. But other courts have disagreed. Based on the Supreme Court’s articulated standards for “selective incorporation” into the Fourteenth Amendment, the argument for incorporating the Second Amendment is very strong, as George Mason University law professor Nelson Lund explained in a recent issue of the Syracuse Law Review. (The article is availablehere. Click the word “Download” which appears above the article title.)

However, the question will not be definitively resolved until the U.S. Supreme Court issues a decision. From the pro-rights perspective, the sooner the Supreme Court takes a Second Amendment incorporation case, the better, since President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominees are unlikely to look favorably on the Second Amendment.

Nordyke v. King might be the case that the high court takes. The “King” in Nordyke v. King is Alameda County, Calif., Supervisor Mary King. She authored a 1999 ordinance that banned firearms on all county property. She wrote to the county attorney that she had “been trying to get rid of gun shows on county property” for “about three years.” She was, she wrote, angered by “spineless people hiding behind the Constitution.”

At a press conference touting the ban, King declared that the county government should no longer “provide a place for people to display guns for worship as deities for the collectors who treat them as icons of patriotism.”

The Nordyke family, which promotes gun shows throughout California, sued. Their lead lawyer is Donald Kilmer, a California attorney with extensive experience in gun law cases. He has been assisted by Don Kates, a Washington state lawyer with a very long and eminent record of Second Amendment scholarship and litigation. After many twists and turns, the Nordyke case was argued before a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit in January 2009.

The panel consisted of Circuit Judges Arthur L. Alarcón (appointed by President Carter in 1979), Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain (Reagan, 1986) and Ronald M. Gould (Clinton, 1999).

An amicus (friend of the court) brief on behalf of the NRA and the California Rifle & Pistol Association was filed by Chuck Michel of California and Stephen Halbrook of Virginia.

On April 20, the three-judge panel issued a unanimous decision written by Judge O’Scannlain: the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments. But, the court ruled, the ban on county property is not a violation of the Second Amendment. (The decision is available here.)

Applying the Supreme Court test for selective incorporation, the N

TRENDING NOW
Seattle’s Gun Tax: A Textbook Case on the Law of Inverse Consequences

News  

Monday, March 27, 2023

Seattle’s Gun Tax: A Textbook Case on the Law of Inverse Consequences

The law of inverse or unintended consequences refers to outcomes that are the reverse of the planned or expected results. As described in another context, “the law of unintended consequences could create a perverse effect contrary to ...

Florida: House Passes Constitutional Carry

Friday, March 24, 2023

Florida: House Passes Constitutional Carry

Today, the House voted 76-32 to pass House Bill 543, the constitutional carry bill.

This is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things… In San Francisco

News  

Monday, March 27, 2023

This is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things… In San Francisco

Most Americans understand that our country has had a problem with a surge in crime over the last couple of years. In response, there has been a surge in gun purchases, and millions of law-abiding citizens ...

Updates to ATF Final Rule on Stabilizing Braces

News  

Monday, January 30, 2023

Updates to ATF Final Rule on Stabilizing Braces

On Monday, January 30, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ (ATF) published the final Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces” rule for public inspection in the federal register.

Colorado: Assault Weapon Ban Committee Hearing Scheduled!

Monday, March 27, 2023

Colorado: Assault Weapon Ban Committee Hearing Scheduled!

On March 29, the House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on House Bill 23-1230 (“HB 23-1230”), which bans the manufacturing, importing, purchasing, selling, offering to sell, or transferring ownership of what the drafters have defined as ...

Biden’s Executive Order Targeting Gun Ownership

News  

Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Biden’s Executive Order Targeting Gun Ownership

On Tuesday, Joe Biden issued an executive order on gun control that could accurately be described as a mile wide and an inch deep.

Florida: Senate’s Constitutional Carry Passes Committee

Thursday, March 9, 2023

Florida: Senate’s Constitutional Carry Passes Committee

Today, the Senate Fiscal Policy Committee voted 11-6 to approve Senate Bill 150, constitutional carry, with an amendment aligning the language with the House’s version. It will now go to the full Senate for further consideration.

Bloomberg and His Anti-Gun Apparatus Continue to Mislead Voters

News  

Monday, March 27, 2023

Bloomberg and His Anti-Gun Apparatus Continue to Mislead Voters

It’s no deep secret that anti-gun billionaire Mike Bloomberg will do anything, and at any cost, to promote his agenda of eradicating the Second Amendment. He launched an anti-gun organization, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, then ...

North Carolina: VETO OVERRIDDEN

Wednesday, March 29, 2023

North Carolina: VETO OVERRIDDEN

Today, March 29, the House voted 71-46 to override Governor Cooper’s veto of Senate Bill 41, a bill that recognizes law-abiding citizens’ right to self-defense while attending a church with a school attached and also repeals the ...

Florida: 2023 Session Convened, Senate Committee Hearing Constitutional Carry

Wednesday, March 8, 2023

Florida: 2023 Session Convened, Senate Committee Hearing Constitutional Carry

Yesterday, March 7th, the Florida Legislature began the 2023 legislative session. Tomorrow, at 9:00AM, the Senate Fiscal Policy Committee will hear Senate Bill 150, the Senate’s constitutional carry bill.

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -

More Like This From Around The NRA

NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.