Impact of Firearms Laws on Airports (2016) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 7-14
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 7... ...
7airport's decision to prohibit the possession of firearms in the airport does not contravene a clearly established constitutional right.
|
From page 8... ...
8[a] lthough we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.28 Justice Scalia's discussion of gun control laws and their continued viability supports the view that a majority of the justices deciding the Heller case believed that "the right to possess handguns in the home is materially different" than in other places.29 Although the Second Amendment now means that an individual has a right to a firearm "in defense of hearth and home," the opinion in Heller provides "little guidance on restrictions regarding the possession of handguns outside the home, or on the types of firearms (other than handguns)
|
From page 9... ...
9not stating that the Ninth Circuit should have applied a standard of review other than the one of intermediate scrutiny, Justice Thomas wrote that "when a law burdens a constitutionally protected right, we have generally required a higher showing than the Court of Appeals demanded here."43 Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, dissented again when on December 7, 2015, the Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari in Friedman v. City of Highland Park.44 In Friedman, the Seventh Circuit "upheld categorical bans" by the City on assault weapons, as defined in the Highland Park city ordinance at issue, and on large capacity magazines that held more than 10 rounds of ammunition.45 The Seventh Circuit observed that two circuit courts of appeals "have applied a version of ‘intermediate scrutiny' and sustained limits on assault weapons and large capacity magazines."46 The appeals court stated that the Supreme Court in the Heller and McDonald cases had set limits on the regulation of firearms, but that within those limits the Court had left "matters open."47 Thus, in a 2–1 decision the Seventh Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the ordinance, because "when there is no definitive constitutional rule, matters are left to the legislative process."48 C
|
From page 10... ...
10 Heller Court.59 The Fourth Circuit in United States v. Carpio-Leon60 upheld the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C.
|
From page 11... ...
11 held that there was no basis for concluding that the Second Amendment did not "extend…to lawful permanent residents."80 One reason for the inclusion of lawful permanent resident aliens is that denying Second Amendment rights to them "would present state equal protection problems subject to strict scrutiny."81 Although the court held that the Second Amendment applies to lawful permanent resident aliens, the court did not decide whether the Second Amendment applies to all lawfully admitted aliens.82 In deciding whether the Massachusetts firearms law at issue violated the Second Amendment, the court held, first, that the test of intermediate scrutiny is the one that applies.83 Nevertheless, there is at least one situation in which the test of strict scrutiny applies: "any law that would burden the ‘fundamental,' core right of self-defense in the home by a law-abiding citizen…."84 The court explained that [u] nder intermediate scrutiny, defendants must show that the Massachusetts firearms regime is supported by some form of strong showing, necessitating a substantial relationship between the restriction and an important governmental objective….
|
From page 12... ...
12 unincorporated area and ammunition for the gun is not immediately accessible."92 In striking down the law largely on the basis of the Supreme Court's decision in Heller, the appeals court stated that it could not "ignore the implication" in Heller "that the constitutional right of armed self-defense is broader than the right to have a gun in one's home."93 On the other hand, the court stated that it is not clear in what places public authorities may ban firearms altogether without shouldering the burdens of litigation. The notion that self-defense has to take place wherever [a]
|
From page 13... ...
13 that reveal the scope of the right.111 Based on the number of concealed carry licenses that Florida had issued, the court found that the Florida "licensing statute does not effectively act as an exclusionary bar to the right to bear arms in lawful self-defense outside the home."112 Thus, the state's ban on open carry does not infringe on the "central component" of the right of self-defense.113 As for whether to apply a test of intermediate or strict scrutiny, the court analyzed other decisions and held that intermediate scrutiny is the proper standard.114 The state had demonstrated that its interest in public safety is a compelling reason for banning open carry and that there is a "reasonable fit" between the statute and the legislature's objectives.115 As for the right to carry a firearm outside the home, the court stated that "no decision interpreting the Second Amendment can be cited for the proposition that a state must allow for one form of carry over another."116 Thus, the court in Norman, although recognizing recent cases stating that "the right to bear arms does encompass the right to carry a gun outside the home,"117 upheld Section 790.053 of the Florida Statutes that generally prohibits the open carrying of firearms.118 In a third case, a federal district court struck down a ban on carrying a firearm in recreational areas in Idaho administered by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
|
From page 14... ...
14 does not violate the Second Amendment.131 A federal district court in Delaware, although declining to decide whether a common area in an apartment complex is a sensitive place, did hold that the Wilmington Housing Authority's policy prohibiting firearms in common areas did not violate the Second Amendment.132 Although some commentators have argued that airports are sensitive places, there is a dearth of judicial authority on whether an airport is a sensitive place where firearms may be regulated.133 In People v. Ferguson,134 in which the defendant was charged with possession of a firearm, as well as a knife, in a New York airport, a New York criminal court stated: "[T]
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.