List of firearm court cases in the United States explained

Firearm case law in the United States is based on decisions of the Supreme Court and other federal courts. Each of these decisions deals with the Second Amendment (which is a part of the Bill of Rights), the right to keep and bear arms, the Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause, and/or other federal firearms laws.

United States Supreme Court cases

The Supreme Court has occasionally interpreted the Second Amendment and has also mentioned the Second Amendment when ruling on other legal matters.

Interpreting the Second Amendment

The Court also noted that the Second Amendment only restrained the government from regulating gun ownership, not other private citizens:

We think it clear that there are no sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

In the decision, the Court said:

Mentioning the Second Amendment

Federal court rulings

Firearm Owners Protection Act court rulings

Commerce Clause challenges to firearm laws

State courts

Bliss v. Commonwealth

Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. 90 (1822)[18] addressed the right to bear arms pursuant to Art. 10, Sec. 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799):[19] "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned." This was interpreted to include the right to carry a concealed sword in a cane. Bliss has been described as about "a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons [that] was violative of the Second Amendment."[20] Others, however, have seen no conflict with the Second Amendment by the Commonwealth of Kentucky's statute under consideration in Bliss since "[t]he Kentucky law was aimed at concealed weapons. No one saw any conflict with the Second Amendment. As a matter of fact, most of the few people who considered the question at all believed amendments to the U.S. Constitution did not apply to state laws."[21]

Bliss stated, "But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the [Kentucky] constitution."[22]

The case prompted outrage in the Kentucky House, all the while recognizing that Section 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799) did guarantee individuals the right to bear arms. The Bliss ruling, to the extent that it dealt with concealed weapons, was overturned by constitutional amendment with Section 26 in Kentucky's Third Constitution (1850) banning the future carrying of concealed weapons, while still asserting that the bearing of arms in defense of themselves and the state was an individual and collective right in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. This recognition, has remained to the present day in the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Fourth Constitution enacted in 1891, in Section 1, Article 7, that guarantees "The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons." As noted in the Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium: Rights in Conflict in the 1980s, vol. 10, no. 1, 1982, p. 155, "The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."[23] [24]

The importance of Bliss is also seen from the defense subsequently given against a murder charge in Kentucky against Mattews Ward, who in 1852 pulled out a concealed pistol and fatally wounded his brother's teacher over an accusation regarding eating chestnuts in class. Ward's defense team consisted of eighteen lawyers, including U.S. Senator John Crittenden, former Governor of Kentucky, and former United States Attorney General. The defense successfully defended Ward in 1854 through an assertion that "a man has a right to carry arms; I am aware of nothing in the laws of God or man, prohibiting it. The Constitution of Kentucky and our Bill of Rights guarantee it. The Legislature once passed an act forbidding it, but it was decided unconstitutional, and overruled by our highest tribunal, the Court of Appeals." As noted by Cornell, "Ward's lawyers took advantage of the doctrine advanced in Bliss and wrapped their client's action under the banner of a constitutional right to bear arms. Ward was acquitted."[25]

Aymette v. State

In Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. 154, 156 (1840), the Tennessee Supreme Court construed the guarantee in Tennessee's 1834 Constitution that " 'the free white men of this State, have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence.' " Explaining that the provision was adopted with the same goals as the Federal Constitution's Second Amendment, the court wrote: "The words 'bear arms' ... have reference to their military use, and were not employed to mean wearing them about the person as part of the dress. As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured, is of general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defence, so the arms, the right to keep which is secured, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment."

Nunn v. Georgia

The Georgia Supreme Court ruled in Nunn v. Georgia (1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)) that a state law ban on handguns was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. This was the first gun control measure to be overturned on Second Amendment grounds.[26] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court said Nunn, "Perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthered the purpose announced in the prefatory clause."[27]

The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta!

State v. Buzzard

In contrast, in State v. Buzzard (1842 Ark.), the Arkansas Supreme Court adopted a militia-based, political right, reading of the right to bear arms under state law, and upheld the 21st section of the second article of the Arkansas Constitution that declared, "that the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defense",[28] while rejecting a challenge to a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.[29] Buzzard had carried a concealed weapon and stood "indicted by virtue of the authority of the 13th section of an act of the Legislature prohibiting any person wearing a pistol, dirk, large knife or sword-cane concealed as a weapon, unless upon a journey, under the penalties of fine and imprisonment." Justice Lacy, in a dissenting opinion in Buzzard, summarizing the majority viewpoint to which he disagreed, declared:

That the words "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State", and the words "common defense" clearly show the true intent and meaning of these Constitutions [i.e., Ark. and U.S.] and prove that it is a political and not an individual right, and, of course, that the State, in her legislative capacity, has the right to regulate and control it: This being the case, then the people, neither individually nor collectively, have the right to keep and bear arms.[28]

Joel Prentiss Bishop's influential Commentaries on the Law of Statutory Crimes (1873) took Buzzard's militia-based interpretation, a view that Bishop characterized as the "Arkansas doctrine" (that the State may regulate the manner in which arms are carried[30]), as the orthodox view of the right to bear arms in American law.[28] [31]

Political scientist Earl Kruschke has categorized both Bliss and Buzzard as being "cases illustrating the individual view."[32] Professor Eugene Volokh revealed, in the California Political Review, that a statement in a concurring opinion in Buzzard was the only support for a collective right view of the right to keep and bear arms in the 19th century.[33]

Wilson v. State of Arkansas

In Wilson v. State of Arkansas (1878 Ark.),[34] the Arkansas Supreme Court dealt with a conviction arising under an Arkansas state law which prohibited a person from carrying a pistol except upon his own premises or when on a journey, or when acting as or in aid of an officer, the same law addressed in the Buzzard[28] decision of 1848.

At trial, Wilson was indicted and convicted of the act, and appealed to the state supreme court. The court reversed the trial court's decision citing an array of state decisions which permitted the state to regulate the manner of carrying a concealed weapon, but that the law at issue restricting such action to one's own premises, while on a journey, or when acting in aid of an officer was constitutionally invalid. The Wilson decision effectively overturned the prior holding in Buzzard. The opinion, authored by Chief Justice English, included the following assertion:

No doubt in time of peace, persons might be prohibited from wearing war arms to places of public worship, or elections, etc. But to prohibit the citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm, except upon his own premises or when on a journey traveling through the country with baggage, or when acting as or in aid of an officer, is an unwarranted restriction upon his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.[34]

Salina v. Blaksley

In 1905, the Kansas Supreme Court, in Salina v. Blaksley,[35] became the first court to interpret the right to keep and bear arms as being only a collective right.[36] The Kansas high court declared: "That the provision in question applies only to the right to bear arms as a member of the state militia, or some other military organization provided for by law, is also apparent from the second amendment to the federal Constitution, which says: 'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'"

In 2010, Salina v. Blaksley was overruled by the passage of an amendment to the Kansas State Constitution. The amendment provides:

People v. Diggins

In 2009, the Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Diggins[37] held that the defendant, who had been issued a Firearm Owners Identification Card (FOID) could not be charged with violating the Illinois Unlawful Use of a Weapon[38] statute requirement for firearms to be “unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container" for having stored two unloaded handguns in the Center Console of his vehicle.

People v. Holmes

In 2011, the Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Holmes[39] found that an Indiana resident who had been issued a License to Carry a Handgun could not be charged with violating the Illinois Unlawful Use of a Weapon[40] statute, as he could not, as an Indiana resident, obtain a Firearm Owners Identification Card, or (FOID). They also, citing Diggins, remanded his conviction for having his loaded handgun stored in the rear center console of his vehicle.

People v. Aguilar

In 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Aguilar held that a total ban on carrying firearms outside the home violated the Second Amendment and was unconstitutional. Applying Heller, McDonald, and Moore v. Madigan (a Seventh Circuit decision), the Illinois Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Aguilar, stating that the right to self-defense was at the core of the Second Amendment.[41]

See also

External links

Notes and References

  1. Web site: McDonald - A Victory for the Second Amendment. Gura. Alan. June 28, 2010. SCOTUSblog. 29 June 2010.
  2. Web site: Root . Damon . 2022-06-23 . In Landmark 2nd Amendment Ruling, SCOTUS Affirms Right ‘To Carry a Handgun for Self-Defense Outside the Home’ . 2024-06-27 . Reason.com . en-US.
  3. Web site: 2023-02-18 . Turmoil in courts on gun laws in wake of justices' ruling . 2024-06-27 . AP News . en.
  4. Web site: 2024-02-06 . One Year Post-Bruen: An Empirical Assessment - Virginia Law Review . 2024-06-27 . virginialawreview.org . en-US.
  5. Book: Kopel, David B.. The Supreme Court's Thirty-five Other Gun Cases: What the Supreme Court Has Said about the Second Amendment. 17 March 2013. 1999. Independence Institute.
  6. Web site: Howe. Amy. April 27, 2020. Opinion analysis: Court sends New York Second Amendment case back to lower courts without ruling on the merits. June 9, 2020. SCOTUSblog.
  7. Web site: Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942) .
  8. Web site: United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 | Casetext Search + Citator .
  9. https://openjurist.org/907/f2d/1041 907 F.2d 1041
  10. https://openjurist.org/5/f3d/1378 5 F.3d 1378
  11. https://web.archive.org/web/20200220140027/https://www.constitution.org/2ll/court/fed/us_v_rock_island.htm 773 F.Supp. 117
  12. Web site: Stevens v. United States, 440 F.2d 144 | Casetext Search + Citator .
  13. https://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/us_v_rybar.txt U.S. v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273
  14. https://www.leagle.com/decision/19971102105f3d9971936 U.S. v. Kirk, 105 F.3d 997
  15. https://www.leagle.com/decision/199586170f3d7911719 U.S. v. Kirk, 70 F.3d 791
  16. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0210318p.pdf
  17. http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2006/06/30/0210318.pdf?openelement
  18. Web site: Bliss v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 1822. www.constitution.org. 2019-03-12.
  19. Web site: Kentucky's Second Constitution (1799). 2012-05-22. dead. https://web.archive.org/web/20100313211007/http://courts.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/E5470543-A249-4265-8EDD-0C0DDD6A7212/0/2ndKYConstitution.pdf. 2010-03-13.
  20. United States. Anti-Crime Program. Hearings Before Ninetieth Congress, First Session. Washington: U.S. Government Print. Off, 1967, p. 246. quote: "... all citizens had the unabridgable right to bear arms for self-protection as well as for militia purposes and that a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons was violative of the Second Amendment (see Bliss v. Commonwealth, 2 Litt. (Ky) 90, 13 Am. December 251 (1822)) ...
  21. Book: Weir, William. A Well regulated militia: the battle over gun control. Archon Books. North Haven, CT. 1997. 35–36. 0-208-02423-9.
  22. Right to Keep and Bear Arms, U.S. Senate. 2001 Paladin Press. .
  23. Pierce. Darell R.. Second Amendment Survey. Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium: Rights in Conflict in 1980s. 10. 1. 1982. 155.
  24. Two states, Alaska and Vermont, do not require a permit or license for carrying a concealed weapon to this day, following Kentucky's original position.
  25. Book: Cornell, Saul. A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA — The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America. Oxford University Press. New York City. 2006. 147–149. 978-0-19-514786-5.
  26. Book: Ph.D.. Gregg Lee Carter. Carter. Gregg Lee. Guns in American Society. 9 March 2013. 2012-05-31. ABC-CLIO. 9780313386701. 647–.
  27. Book: Ph.D., Gregg Lee Carter. Guns in American Society. 19 March 2013. 2012-05-04. ABC-CLIO. 9780313386718.
  28. The State v. Buzzard. 4. Ark. (2 Pike). 18. 1842. https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/supremecourt/en/item/286570/index.do.
  29. Book: American Constitutionalism Volume II RIghts and Liberties. Gillman. Howard. Graber. Mark A.. Keith Whittington. Whittington. Keith E.. Oxford University Press. 2013. 978-0-19-975126-6. Oxford. 235.
  30. Book: Bishop, Joel Prentiss. Commentaries on the Criminal Law. 23 September 2014. 1859. Little, Brown. 81–. A point of some embarrassment has been, whether these statutes are constitutional. The constitution of Kentucky declares, that "the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned;" and a majority of the court held this statutory provision to be in violation of this constitutional guaranty, wherefore they pronounced it void. The learned judge who delivered the opinion said: " To be in conflict with the constitution, it is not essential that the act should contain a prohibition against bearing arms in every possible form; it is the right to bear arms in defence of the citizens and the State that is secured by the constitution, and whatever restrains the full and complete exercise of that right, though not an entire destruction of it, is forbidden by the explicit language of the constitution." On the other hand, a similar clause in the Arkansas constitution was declared by the Arkansas court not to be violated by this enactment,—the object of which is, the court considered, not to prevent the carrying of weapons in self-defence, but only to regulate the manner of carrying them." And the Arkansas doctrine is the one approved generally by the American tribunals.".
  31. Book: Cornell, Saul. A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA – The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America. Oxford University Press. New York City. 2006. 188. 978-0-19-514786-5. Dillon endorsed Bishop's view that Buzzard's "Arkansas doctrine," not the libertarian views exhibited in Bliss, captured the dominant strain of American legal thinking on this question..
  32. Book: Kruschke, Earl R.. Gun control: a reference handbook. ABC-CLIO. Santa Barbara, Calif. 1995. 140–143. 0-87436-695-X.
  33. Volokh. Eugene. Testimony of Eugene Volokh on the Second Amendment, Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, September 23, 1998. California Political Review. November–December 1998. 23. A recent exhaustive study reveals that there was exactly one statement in the 1800s cases or commentaries supporting the collective rights view, a concurring opinion in an 1842 Arkansas state court case..
  34. Wilson v. State of Arkansas. 34. Am. Rep.. 52. 1878. https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/supremecourt/en/item/253120/index.do?r=AAAAAQBWSWYgY293YXJkbHkgYW5kIGRpc2hvbm9yYWJsZSBtZW4gc29tZXRpbWVzIHNob290IHVuYXJtZWQgbWVuIHdpdGggYXJteSBwaXN0b2xzIG9yIGd1bnMB.
  35. City of Salina v. Blaksley. 72. Kan.. 230. 1905. http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/salina_v_blaksley.txt.
  36. Book: Cornell, Saul. A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA – The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America. Oxford University Press. New York City. 2006. 258. 978-0-19-514786-5. ... the Kansas Supreme Court had used a similar formulation of the right to bear arms a decade earlier, describing this right as one that "refers to the people as a collective body..
  37. Web site: People v. Diggins. law.justia.com. 2023-10-12.
  38. Web site: 720 ILCS 5/24-1. ilga.gov. 2023-10-12.
  39. Web site: People v. Holmes . law.justia.com . 13 October 2023.
  40. Web site: 720 ILCS 5/24-1. ilga.gov. 2023-10-12.
  41. Court says gun law invalid,, Sept. 20, 2013.