In recent weeks, the US Supreme Court has handed down a series of major decisions affecting some of the most controversial issues currently dominating the American political landscape including access to abortion, immigration, affirmative action, and gun control.
While the decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt concerning abortion rights garnered most of the headlines (Click here for commentary on that case in the previous PILA bulletin), the decision in Voisine v. United States has flown somewhat under the radar. It is arguably just as significant a victory for advocates of greater gun control as Whole Women’s Health is for proponents of a woman’s right to choose.
In Voisine, the majority of the Court ruled 6-2 that persons convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanour can be prevented from acquiring firearms. It was held that such regulations do not violate a person’s 2nd Amendment right ‘to bear arms.’ The case involved two men from Maine (Stephen Voisine and William Armstrong) who argued that their previous convictions for domestic violence should not preclude them from purchasing firearms.
This ruling could have enormous implications for the fight for greater regulation of guns in America as it potentially marks a jurisprudential shift on the part of the Court from its controversial 2008 Heller v. District of Columbia a decision, where the second amendment was construed to guarantee an individual right to acquire and use firearms. The Court in that case failed to sketch out, with any great precision, what the scope of the right was and what kind of limitations on the right, if any, would have been permissible.
Since the Heller decision in 2008, the issue of gun control has been thrown into sharp focus by numerous mass shootings, like the ones in SandyHook, where twenty school children were murdered, and most recently the killing of 49 people at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, amongst many others. These tragedies have ignited serious political debate about the need for greater restrictions on gun ownership.
However, legislative action on the issue from Congress has not been forthcoming owing to the deeply polarised, partisan environment, responsible for the current gridlock on Capitol Hill between Democrats and Republicans.
Thus, this decision will provide renewed impetus and hope to the campaign for greater gun control in America as it signals that should Congress decide to legislate to impose restrictions on the ‘right to bear arms’, the Court is likely to uphold them as being constitutional. The Court’s decision in Voisine will also encourage individual States that are so inclined to introduce stronger regulations governing gun ownership.