must know second amendment court cases
NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION v. BRUEN (2022)
June 23, 2022:
SCOTUS hands down landmark decision ruling that New York State’s licensing regime violates the Second Amendment and that the Second Amendment demands states enact shall issue licensing for concealed carry.
Read the full brief here.
The Second Amendment’s Champion:
Dick Heller
DC v. Heller (2008): For the first time in American history, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own firearms. Detailed legal brief
McDonald v. Chicago (2010): The U.S. Supreme Court yet again ruled in favor of the Second Amendment by applying the Heller ruling to all 50 states through the 14th Amendment. Detailed legal brief
Ezell v. Chicago (2011): Held: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Chicago’s ban on firing ranges was unconstitutional.
The majority concluded that the zoning provisions on manufacturing districts and the distance rule are so restrictive that they “severely limit[] Chicagoans’ Second Amendment right to maintain proficiency in firearm use via target practice at a range.” - 2017. (7th Circuit held their previous decision from 2011 when Chicago passed sweeping regulations to virtually prevent any ranges from operating after their loss in 2011).
Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Attorney General of New Jersey. No. 19-3142 (3d Cir. Sept. 22, 2020).
Held: Third Circuit rejects constitutional challenges to New Jersey law limiting large-capacity magazine firearms.
In 2018, New Jersey made it illegal to possess a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. N.J. Stat. 2C:39-1(y), 2C:39-3(j). Prior to that, it had been illegal in New Jersey to possess magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds of ammunition. Owners of large-capacity magazines (LCMs) could modify their LCMs, render firearms with LCMs or the LCM itself inoperable, register firearms with LCMs that could not be modified; transfer the firearm or LCM to an individual or entity entitled to own or possess it; or surrender the firearm or LCM to law enforcement.
The Third Circuit previously affirmed an order denying a preliminary injunction and directly addressed the merits of the constitutionality of the Act. The court held that the Act did not violate the Second, Fifth, or Fourteenth Amendments. On remand, the district court ruled on summary judgment that it was bound by that decision and upheld the constitutionality of the Act. The opponents of the law appealed again, arguing that the district court erred in treating the prior panel’s opinion as binding. The Third Circuit rejected that argument and affirmed.