And yes, this gets its own thing after all! Happy Thanksgiving!
District of Columbia v. Heller
Often times, there are large landmark cases that define and set a path for the nation within the judicial system. While the Gore administration has had a fair bit over the years, including the case with gerrymandering, one of the biggest was none other than the
District of Columbia v. Heller. The case revolved around the handgun ban and ordinance regarding certain other firearms within Washington DC. The case was a bit tenous as the driving force behind it was the CATO Institute, a Libretarian think tank and was doing so in order tot ry and challenge firearm bans and result in the 2nd Amendment being proven of protecting firearms rights for the individual. However, matters certainly changed over the years as the Supreme Court swung decidingly to the left, which left the Institute in a bit of a pickle as the case was being moved further on up to the Supreme Court.
Additionally, the increase of school shootings and the growing demand for gun control laws unsurprisingly brought this case a large number of views and opinions, especially with this being an election year. However, the Fair Coverage doctrine meant that the entirely thing was covered on both sides and additionally, pundits noted that for the entire issue to be decided on a court case is messed up given how it's not just about the guns, but on the details regarding everything else. When the case was being moved up, Al Gore met up with Congress to prepare some laws on gun control. Namely in background checks, safety training, licenseing and other issues such as making it illegal to wield guns while drunk. Regardless of the case, they would need to be prepared. After all, the House and Senate were still primarily controlled by the Democrats and while they and the GOP were a little more big tent than they have been in several years, there was still underlying factors. Gore noted how the driving force was the CATO Institution, driven by the Koch brothers, who had spats over with the Gore Administration's green policies.
From how it was covered, the case was divided into its two base parts. On the ban of handguns and on the equirement that lawfully owned
rifles and
shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a
trigger lock" violated this guarantee. That both of these things violated the Second Amendment. Within the Supreme Court cast itself, it was the second part that was decided relatively quickly. After all, the "well-regulated" part was noted and having gun be in basic safety was viewed as common sense. However, what stood out from this relatively smooth process was in arguing its inconvienence. Counteracting this argument was the presence of the US military, who was asked how firearms were kept for them. As was noted: "In the Army, firearms are stored under lock, key, and sometimes guard, and god help you if one goes missing—the post shuts down and a frenzied search bordering on a religious quest begins. After basic training, soldiers are required to go through a few hours of refresher training with practical drills before they are even allowed on a range for individual shooting qualification." As such, the notion that keeping the rifles and shotguns disassembled or with trigger locks was unconsitutional was utterly dismantled. Even "originalist" proponents were counteracted with how guns worked back then, with black powder and bullets and how they were maintained. After all, if a trained military person can do this on the field of battle following strict rules, then a citizen with basic training should be able to do it with less stringent rules.
Though that left the first part, in regards to the banning of handguns. And namely, the focus remained more on the rammifications. If they noted the 2nd amendment didn't protect it, the backlash would be massive to say the least and there would be plenty of questioning and legal problems. Of course, there was the issue of how far banning arms and what are considered arms should go. There was also the natue of the ban. The ban was in possession though examining the Second Amendment noted that while the language did note on keeping and bearing arms, nothing was mentioned on actually
building or
buying them.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court came down with a surprising decision for alot of people. That banning the
possession of handguns was a violation of the 2nd Amendment (many people were initially confused on the emphasis at first) while the ordinance over keeping rilfes and shotguns unloaded/disassembled or trigger-locked was not a violation of the 2nd Amendment (noting the "well-regulated" part along with the historical context.)
The result was unsurprisngly startling. There was the fact that firearms used for protection of the individual were indeed guranteed by the Constitution was upheld by a liberal Supreme Court; it was something that blew more than a few minds and stereotypes. The ordinances being maintained was attempted to be appealed though the appeal would en up failing in part because of the miltiary's standards being measured.
Not long after the ruling, the Gore Administration proposed a few gun control bills. While differing in a few details, they all proposed the same basic principles: stringent background checks, high-capacity magazine limitations and licensing processes among a few others, such as dealing with drunk shooting. For the most part, it was still a bit difficult despite the ruling. Namely, some argument toward states rights and whatnot, though the 2nd Amendment was held above that, plus the fact was that so close to election year that no one wanted to jeopardize anything, especially as the past tragedies done by firearms, especially in schools, haunted the zeitgeist. After all, regulations and proper safety were part of the Second Amendment as much as being able to use those arms in the first place. Denying the responsabilities that came with the rights was a disservice and the the conditions proposed werre certainly not as stringent as the military's though a few Democrats cheekily proposed if they should apply the same sort of standards. There was enough agreement for the bills to pass, though the most noteworthy was on how people with a history of domestic abuse/animal abuse be barred from being able to purchase firearms. Other details included on pay and processing in dealing with the licensing as well as crime and fees for gunshops, shooting ranges and other places that violated the rules.
With rights came responsability and with the constitutional right of individual citizens being able to possess firearms came the constitutional-mandated responsability of being well-regulated with them. With the decision would come the hope of reducing violent crime and allowing people to best protect themselves.