{"id":839,"date":"2011-05-26T11:30:44","date_gmt":"2011-05-26T15:30:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www3.law.harvard.edu\/journals\/hlpr\/?p=839"},"modified":"2015-10-02T15:57:05","modified_gmt":"2015-10-02T15:57:05","slug":"effects-of-heller-become-more-apparent","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/2011\/05\/26\/effects-of-heller-become-more-apparent\/","title":{"rendered":"Effects of Heller Become More Apparent"},"content":{"rendered":"

Michael Stephan\u00a0<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

The Supreme Court\u2019s controversial decision in\u00a0District of Columbia v. Heller<\/a><\/em>\u00a0(2008) drew speculation from both sides of the gun-rights debate as to what our Second Amendment means today.\u00a0 The Second Amendment, which was largely unexplored by the Court until\u00a0Heller<\/em>, was held to protect individuals\u2019 rights to possess firearms and to use those firearms for traditionally lawful purposes unrelated to service in a militia.<\/p>\n

Now, three years later, we are still unclear about the contours of our Second Amendment as courts grapple with\u00a0Heller<\/em>\u00a0and its progeny.\u00a0 That may soon change, however, as courts reconsider run-of-the-mill constitutional law cases as Second Amendment cases.\u00a0 A recent Ninth Circuit case, for instance, does just that.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

In\u00a0Nordyke v. King<\/a><\/em>, the Ninth Circuit allowed pro-gun litigants to add a Second Amendment claim to their decade-old lawsuit challenging a California county ordinance that bans firearms on county property.\u00a0 The plaintiffs, two long-time gun show promoters, originally filed their challenge in 1999 and alleged that the county\u2019s ban was intended to prohibit gun shows rather than reduce gun-related violence.\u00a0 The plaintiffs challenged the ban on First Amendment grounds, arguing that the county\u2019s efforts to ban gun shows unconstitutionally burdened members of the \u201cgun culture\u201d from expressing their views about firearms.<\/p>\n

The plaintiffs lost on their First Amendment claim. \u00a0But during the many years that their case was being heard and appealed, the Supreme Court issued its landmark decisions in\u00a0Heller<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0McDonald v. Chicago<\/a><\/em>(2010), two cases that \u201c[created] all of the Supreme Court\u2019s modern Second Amendment case law.\u201d\u00a0 Because the plaintiffs filed their complaint without the benefit of\u00a0Heller<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0McDonald<\/em>, the Ninth Circuit held, they may not have alleged facts or made arguments that would now substantiate a Second Amendment claim.\u00a0 Thus, the plaintiffs were \u201cgiven the opportunity to further amend their complaint\u201d in light of\u00a0Heller<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0McDonald.<\/em><\/p>\n

While the\u00a0Nordyke<\/em>\u00a0case itself might eventually elucidate the modern meaning of our right to bear arms, it also gives precedential support to pro-gun litigants seeking to bolster their existing lawsuits with otherwise omitted Second Amendment claims.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Michael Stephan\u00a0 The Supreme Court\u2019s controversial decision in\u00a0District of Columbia v. Heller\u00a0(2008) drew speculation from both sides of the gun-rights […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-839","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-blog"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/peZQka-dx","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/839","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=839"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/839\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=839"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=839"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=839"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}