Anthony Heller was a special police officer in the District of Columbia (D.C.). He was authorized to carry a handgun during his duty. Upon application for a year’s license to acquire a gun that he wanted to keep at home, his request was denied. Thus, Heller sued the D.C. seeking an injunction against the implementation of specific parts of the handgun possession regulatory code based on the argument that they violated the provision of the Second Amendment to keep a functional gun in his home without licensure. Heller’s complaint was dismissed by the District Court but was later reversed by the United States Court of Appeal in the D.C. Circuit, asserting that the Second Amendment allows the keeping of guns within homes for self-defense purposes. Hence, the court named above established that D.C.’s determination that firearms held at home are non-functional is a violation of the provision of the Second Amendment explained above ("District of Columbia v. Heller," n.d.). Therefore, the court’s decision in favor of Heller has confounded the application of the Second Amendment with regard to firearm ownership laws, resulting in an ongoing debate in the legal and scholarly domains.
This paper will explore the views of scholars including Christopher Johnson, Olesya Salnikova and Robert Levy as expressed in the studies they have published exploring the implications that D.C. vs. Heller decision has had on various aspects of law enforcement since its implementation. A summary of the main points that the scholars have explored will be provided and an analysis of the same offered. Consequently, the interpretations, findings, and viewpoints of the named researchers will be supported or disputed, and sufficient reasons for the decisions made provided. Also, the shortcomings of the three authors mentioned above will be explored based on the information presented in their published works and their arguments critiqued. Finally, the paper will be concluded with a determination of the implications of the Heller case based on the assimilation of the views of the scholars named above.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Analysis of Christopher Johnson’s Paper
Johnson’s study on the Heller case focuses on the determination of whether it is constitutionally sound to implement laws that restrict the purchase of firearms, specifically handguns, based on an individual’s age. He asserts that the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller I have resulted in many challenges concerning federal restriction of the right of adult citizens, who abide by the law, to keep and carry guns. The author explains that the case law that is provided by the Second Amendment continues to evolve as other aspects of the “who” component of § 922 are consistently challenged. Additionally, he asserts that the contention of restriction of gun ownership based on age is expected to persist in the future and the broad prohibitions may lose their constitutional value. Johnson proposes that instead of letting the courts finalize the matter, Congress should expand the scope of the relief-from-disabilities programs to permit the law-abiding citizens to purchase guns, while maintaining accountability to strict government supervision. The impact of the application of Johnson’s suggestion is the increase in the protective aspects of the Second Amendment, as well as those of protective rights (Johnson, 2017). Hence, Congress’ participation in narrowing the broad provision of the law is vital to increasing its ability to protect citizens.
The successful implementation of the law relies on its specificity to the matters of concern. Individuals living in a region that is governed by laws, as is the case with the United States, rely on the regulations to inform them, a factor that highlights why applying specific legal requirements is vital. Thus, the deterrent and forward-looking aspects of the law become effective when they are formulated as precise rules (Werle & Jessberger, 2014). The said specifications affirm Johnson’s (2017) argument stating that when applying strict scrutiny, the court should determine whether the government’s rationale for the laws implemented is compelling. In the case of restricting gun purchase by age, the government aimed at increasing the safety of the community and reducing suicide rates among young adults aged 18 to 20 years. Therefore, it banned the acquisition of handguns from FFLs by all individuals between the ages stated above. The age restriction parameters of the purchase of guns are broad and have no elements of narrowing them down. Thus, the lack of their specificity makes it easy to contest their viability, primarily based on their direct impact on the realization of the pre-determined government objectives outlined when instituting the law. Tailoring the age-based restriction of gun purchase to specify narrower terms of its applicability is the only way to heighten its uncontested implementation, especially in relation to the provisions of the Second Amendment.
Johnson (2017) explores the stipulations of the Second Amendment to bear arms as a fundamental right owing to the association of gun possession with the need to defend oneself. In the Heller case, the court determined that an individual can carry a gun or possess a weapon in case of confrontation, a factor that is ascertained by the historical application of the Second Amendment ("Concealed Carry | Right-to-Carry," 2019). However, Johnson’s provision that the age-based restrictive law should be regulated based on abiding by the law is insufficient. Young adults between the ages of 18 to 20 may have clean records, qualifying them as law-abiding citizens, because of the lack of extensive experience with the world outside the school and home settings.
Nonetheless, if their law-abiding quality is the only qualifier for possession of a firearm, some of the subjects eligible for the acquisition may pose a danger to both themselves and others because of their incapacity to control their emotions. Psychological studies show that individuals between the ages of 18 and 20 are considered to be in the late adolescent stage of life. Adolescence is generally associated with emotional instability because of the myriad of changes that an individual experiences. Before becoming 21, an individual is still struggling to gain their emotional stability, which gradually develops throughout their teen years ("Normal Development: Late Adolescence (18-20 Years Old),” 2011). Thus, the magnitude of the implications of issuing a firearm to an emotionally unstable individual is similar to that of allowing a mentally defective person to keep or bare a weapon. Therefore, because of the restrictions of the 18 U.S.C. § 922(d), covering mental health, may not facilitate the limitation of firearm ownership based on the stability of an individual’s emotional state, Congress must consider the necessity of emotional stability among young firearm owners when narrowing the age-based restrictions of acquiring firearms (Rozel & Mulvey, 2017). The issuance of guns to young adults between the ages of 18 to 20 should also be dependent on the exploration of their emotional state to determine its stability and minimize the adversities that may result from allowing an emotionally unstable individual to possess a firearm. Typically, the instability of one’s emotional state may disrupt their mental health.
Analysis of Olesya Salnikova Paper
Salnikova (2013) explores the applicability of “the people” clause that was redefined in the Heller case to take a political meaning. He analyses the impact it has had on the right of foreigners that live in the US illegally to bear firearms. The author uses the United States vs. Portillo-Munoz case as the focal point of the development of his argument. He establishes that the questionability of “the people” that are protected by the Second Amendment still prevails even after the ruling in the Heller case. However, in the Portillo-Munoz case, the court determined that illegal foreigners in the US cannot enjoy the protection of the Second Amendment based on the argument that aliens residing in the US illegally are not part of “the people.” Thus, they are not subject to the constitutional right to possess firearms. Salnikova explains that the Heller case limited the definition of “the people” to a political rather than national community, a factor that assigns the right to carry firearms to “law-abiding” Americans.
Also, in instances that illegal citizens fall within the categorization of “the people,” the US government may restrict their Second Amendment right because they are not considered as a suspect class based on the Equal Protection provision of the law. Thus, both the Heller and Portillo-Munoz cases restrict the rights of illegal aliens, primarily under the Fourteenth, First and Fourth Amendments. Moreover, the author establishes that the protection of individuals living in the US illegally by the constitutional provisions of the country has been inconsistent because by inhabiting America without the necessary permissions they have already broken the law. Therefore, they do not fall in the category of those that may face dire consequences of constitutional rights. Salnikova (2013) asserts that it is possible for the Supreme Court to strengthen the rights of illegal aliens in the future, but currently, the affected individuals are subject to the generally prevalent provisions of the law.
The author’s findings and analysis are agreeable because he highlights the controversial issue of illegal immigrants in the US and their eligibility for protection by American laws. Salnikova (2013) explains that a crucial element of the decision that the court made on the Heller case is the definition of “the people” as those belonging to the political community and are affiliated to abiding by the law and playing their part as responsible citizens of the United States. Hence, by being in the US illegally, the affected foreigners violate the country’s lawful provisions, a factor that discriminates them from being categorized among “the people.” Therefore, the courts in the country are hesitant about extending the requirements of the Second Amendment to illegal aliens, who are considered to lack legal status in the US (Fazel-Zarandi, Feinstein & Kaplan, 2018). Staying in the United States illegally is a risk that foreigners take, and by knowingly violating the migration laws of the country, the aliens predispose themselves to the hardship that comes with not fitting into “the people” categorization.
However, Salnikova’s (2013) analysis of the issue of the applicability of the Second Amendment to illegal immigrants does not offer solutions to the inconsistencies that have been observed in the way courts treat the foreigners that have broken the country’s immigration laws. The reasons behind breaking American legal requirements to inhabit the land vary, including the illegal crossing of the border and staying beyond the assigned visa period (Fazel-Zarandi et al., 2018). Therefore, to reduce the blurred lines that are associated with law implementation in cases that involve illegal aliens, it is necessary that Congress implement measures to facilitate the legalization of illegal immigrants.
The legalization of aliens can be achieved by incorporating a tiered system of lawful assimilation into the American society offering options for cheap and fast legalization without the possibility of attaining citizenship against a lengthier and more expensive path to becoming an American citizen. Also, Congress can offer rolling legalization to illegal immigrants that have established sufficient connections with the US to legalize their stay continually without applying a termination date. In doing so, the applicability of the US laws to illegal immigrants will increase following their induction to become part of “the people” (Nowrasteh & Bier, 2019). Thus, through the legitimization of the illegal immigrants, the affected can become eligible for protection by the Second Amendment, especially considering that regardless of their lack of citizenship, they are likely to face similar dangers as those that necessitate the possession of a weapon by American citizens.
Analysis of Robert Levy’s Paper
Levy (2010) explores the provisions of the gun law regulations to determine the ones that remain permissible after the Heller case. He highlights that based on the decision made in the mentioned case, the applications of the Second Amendment are not absolute. Justice Scalia’s decision on the case positions the right to bear and keep firearms in the purview of specifically itemized laws, signaling that the Court will raise the standards by which it reviews gun laws. The author proposes that it is necessary that courts be actively engaged in protecting Americans against the executive and legislative impulses that violate civil rights, which are secured by the constitution. Secondly, he explores whether the Second Amendment will be reinforced by the state government and determines that state affairs are subject to alteration if the Supreme Court revises the Immunities or Privileges Clause. The way the Court handles the Second Amendment may reinforce libertarian believes that liberties accorded by the US constitution should not be divided into fundamental and non-fundamental components, because such a move does not align with the Fourteenth Amendment.
Finally, Levy (2010) analyzes the paradox of the Heller case to determine who the ‘real’ winners were. He explains that even though it appears that the gun controllers were the victors, the argument thereof is flawed because the Heller case sought that three D.C. provisions be declared unconstitutional. The decision made has resulted in the implementation of vital measures to restore Washington’s sensibility. Thus, the effect of Heller will have a nationwide impact because of the binding force of the Fourteenth Amendment among all states, resulting in a win for the American constitution.
Levy’s determination of the lack of absoluteness of the Second Amendment is justifiable. In the Bill of Rights provided within the American constitution, the regulation that bars the government from altering protected rights is covered in the First Amendment, to which the right to bear and keep arms is not part of. Since the Heller case decision is the most vital one that has been made so far on the matter of carrying and owning firearms, its specified determination of limits of the Second Amendment was crucial. Thus, despite the ruling of the case in favor of Heller, the court clarified that its aim was not to stop the government from regulating the gun ownership right reasonably (Denniston, 2014). Regardless, debate on whether the government has the power to regulate gun laws continues to date because there is no consensus on the “rational aspects” of the Second Amendment that should be adopted.
However, Levy’s (2010) determination that the paradox arising from the Heller case results in a win for the constitution is flawed. The decision made by the court did not address the critical issue of the applicability of the Second Amendment to state and local governments because it involved laws enacted by the Washington federal enclave. The case determined that the provisions of the Second Amendment applied only to the federal government, as determined by court decisions made in the 18 th Century. Nonetheless, Heller contested the previously held assumption about the applicability of the named amendment claiming that at the time the decision was made, the components of the Fourteenth Amendment were not applied ("The Heller Decision and What It Means,” 2018). The Due Process Clause is an essential component of the “incorporation doctrine” used to synchronize the requirement of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Hence, by highlighting the need for the Supreme Court to revise the clause covering immunities and privileges, Levy (2010) determines that following the Heller case decision, a constitutional win has still not been attained, but is a possibility in the future if specific alterations on legal provisions are made.
Conclusion
The court’s decision in the Heller case has raised numerous debates on the applicability of the Second Amendment in matters concerning the ownership and bearing of guns. The issues, thereof, have been explored by both scholarly and legal experts, to provide deeper insights on the implications of the Heller case on gun possession. Based on the analysis of the papers by Johnson, Salnikova, and Levy, it is evident that Congress must implement additional regulations following the Heller case decision to specify the parameters of the applicability of the Second Amendment in matters concerning the possession of firearms. The Heller case marked a redefining moment in the history of the law of the United States, but for the full effect of its implications to be felt, reinforcing legal provisions must be implemented.
References
Concealed Carry | Right-to-Carry. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.nraila.org/get-the-facts/right-to-carry-and-concealed-carry/
Denniston, L. (2014). Constitution Check: Are there no limits on Second Amendment rights? - National Constitution Center. Retrieved from https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/constitution-check-are-there-no-limits-on-second-amendment-rights/
District of Columbia v. Heller. Retrieved from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290
Fazel-Zarandi, M. M., Feinstein, J. S., & Kaplan, E. H. (2018). The number of undocumented immigrants in the United States: Estimates based on demographic modeling with data from 1990 to 2016. PloS one , 13 (9), e0201193.
Johnson, C. M. (2017). Second-class: Heller, age, and the prodigal amendment. Colum. L. Rev. , 117 , 1585.
Levy, R. A. (2010). Second Amendment redux: Scrutiny, incorporation, and the Heller paradox. Harv. JL & Pub. Pol'y , 33 , 203.
Normal Development: Late Adolescence (18-20 Years Old) | Teen Care | southeast Michigan | Wayne State Family Care | Wayne State University Physicians Group. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.wsupgdocs.org/family-medicine/WayneStateContentPage.aspx?nd=1602
Nowrasteh, A., & Bier, D. (2019). Three New Ways for Congress to Legalize Illegal Immigrants.
Rozel, J. S., & Mulvey, E. P. (2017). The link between mental illness and firearm violence: implications for social policy and clinical practice. Annual review of clinical psychology , 13 , 445-469.
Salnikova, O. A. (2013). The People of Heller and Their Politics: Whether Illegal Aliens Should Have the Right to Bear Arms after United States v. Portillo-Munoz. J. Crim. L. & Criminology , 103 , 625.
The Heller Decision and What It Means | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. (2018). Retrieved from https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/the-second-amendment/the-supreme-court-the-second-amendment/dc-v-heller/
Werle, G., & Jessberger, F. (2014). Principles of international criminal law . OUP Oxford.
