Opinion: Supreme Court's Gun Ban Ruling Will Have Limited Impact

(June 28) -- It is not surprising that the same five justices of the U.S. Supreme Court who ruled that the District of Columbia's handgun ban was unconstitutional two years ago have now ruled that similar bans, whether enacted by Chicago or any other state or city, are similarly not permitted. Most observers thought the Chicago Cubs had a better chance of ultimately prevailing than Chicago's handgun ban.

What may be surprising to many people is that the McDonald v. Chicago case will likely have a limited direct impact. The Supreme Court's ruling defined a very narrow right. It held only "that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense." While bans on handguns in the home are no longer permitted, the Chicago and Oak Park, Ill., ordinances at issue in McDonald were the last of their kind in the nation. There are no more gun ban dominoes to fall in subsequent litigation.

Another View
The court’s decision is not just correct on constitutional grounds, it can also help cut murder and violent crime rates, John Lott Jr. says. Read why.

The gun pushers' lobby must also be disappointed that the court in McDonald restated that the right extends only to possession of guns in the home, and reaffirmed its statements in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment continues to allow for a wide variety of reasonable gun laws.

The court pointedly rejected "doomsday proclamations" that its decision would "imperil every law regulating firearms." On the contrary, the court quoted with approval the statement from one brief that "[s]tate and local experimentation with reasonable firearms regulations will continue under the Second Amendment."

That is not to say that the court's incorporation of the Second Amendment is harmless. The McDonald decision will inspire the gun lobby and gun criminals to try to strike down vital, lifesaving gun laws throughout the country, just as they brought more than 260 challenges to gun laws after Heller.

Those challenges were virtually all rejected by the courts, and a similar fate should await the new round of post-McDonald claims. These challenges, however, strain precious taxpayer resources and court time.

And once gun laws are in the hands of the courts, there is always the risk that an activist judge will rule that the Second Amendment is far broader than what the Supreme Court has ruled.

Paul Helmke is president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

To submit an op-ed or letter to the editor, write to opinion@aolnews.com. If you intend your letter to be published, please specify that and provide your name and location (city and state).