Second Amendment Victory in Court

This is more a 14th Amendment case, but the State Appeals Court tossed a conviction for having an unlicensed gun, arguing that it violated equal protection, and his right to bear arms. Eugene Volokh notes:

This independent focus on the Second Amendment is important because the Supreme Court has read the Equal Protection Clause as barring most (but not all) state discrimination against noncitizens; the federal government remains generally free to discriminate against noncitizens. But if the Washington Court of Appeals is right that legal aliens are protected by the Second Amendment, that means that even the federal government may not ban them from owning guns.

This would basically mean that anyone who’s in the country legally has a right to bear arms. Current federal law severely curtails the right for non-resident aliens, so this could be interesting if it makes its way to federal court.

3 thoughts on “Second Amendment Victory in Court”

  1. Well, if the right to bear arms is a natural right rather than one given by the government, then it would make sense that it attaches by being a person regardless of any other status. Just a thought.

  2. Yes, it should apply to all people, but citizens of other countries who are here legally or otherwise are still governed by the laws of their native countries, are they not?

    Not real “up” on international law so I could be wrong.

  3. As a tourist to the US (eight trips in ten years), I confess to feeling somewhat vulnerable on occasion.
    Having read of the attacks on tourists in Florida after the mugging of locals became a little more dangerous, I wondered about the possibility of legally buying and carrying a gun. Everyone I asked said it wasn’t possible to pass a NICS check as a tourist, so I kind of gave up on it.

    Just to clarify, I do own both rifles and hand-guns in Oz, although carrying one for self-defense is illegal.

Comments are closed.