Second Amendment ruling on the last day of Supreme Court session

In the final decision of the Supreme Court of the United States this session, the Supreme Court position on gun control has been clarified. To a point, the ban on ownership of handguns has been struck down. The McDonald vs. Chicago decision is a clarification to last year’s striking down of the Washington D.C. handgun ban.

Article source: Supreme Court Rules on gun control in Second Amendment case by Personal Money Store

Gun ownership by the Supreme Court

In the last three years, the Supreme Court has rendered two decisions on the constitutionality of gun bans. McDonald vs. Chicago challenged Chicago’s very restrictive ban on individuals owning handguns. A few years ago, the Supreme Court gun ruling indicated that Washington D.C., a federal district, could not ban handgun ownership. This second ruling confirms the very same standard applies to states and cities. Writing for the 5-4 majority, justice Samuel Alito stated that “self-defense is a basic right… individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment.”

Supreme Court leaves door open for gun legislation

Gun-limiting legislation is not entirely unconstitutional, though – the ruling does leave open a possibility of future legislation. The original 2008 ruling was repeated when the majority decision stated “recognized the right to keep and bear arms is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for no matter what purpose.” In other words, cities, states and the federal government does still have the right to legislate and limit guns. The right to own guns, though, may still supersede the right of the government to limit that ownership.

The other things the court ruled on today

The Supreme Court handed down multiple decisions today. The SCOTUS declared the Public Company Accounting Board is unconstitutional in its current incarnation. The failure of Enron and WorldCon spurred the creation of this board in 2002. If the SEC gets more control over the board, though, it could be constitutional. Strategies for limiting risk cannot be patented, according to the decision in Bilski v. Kappos.