Supreme Court decision protects self defense rights, but what about hunting?

[kernman]

The decision allows you a gun for self defense in the home, but where in the decision does it say it would protect hunters rights to carry guns to their hunting destination? I heard on the news it protects hunters but I can't find any evidence for this.

Can any armchair lawyers - or real lawyers - comment on this?
 

[deltecs]

The only issue decided by the Supreme Court is that the federal government cannot infringe on the individuals right to own, possess and have accessible firearms in the home.  In the opinion, the justices cited State Constitutional clauses adopted at the time of the framers, which indicated the framers intent of the 2nd Amendment.  Several States Constitutions have arms rights clauses that include Hunting as a protected right in that State.  Most did not.  So, the Supreme Justices did not address the issue whether States have the ability to prohibit or restrict firearms.  They only said the US fedreral government did not have the right.  So I would think since hunting is managed by the States', no protection is guaranteed under DC v Heller decision.  This does not mean that it may not be a legal activity using firearms, which is protected.  Also, the decision did not address the issue whether the 2nd Amendment has 14th Amendment protection against those States that would enact laws which prohibit or restrict keep and bear arms by individuals.  Complicated issue when dealing with politicians who parse the word "is".

[kernman]

Deltecs,

You raise an important issue: can the federal government restrict firearms rights? Yes, as long as law-abiding individual's rights to own guns for self defense are not infringed.

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is the Supreme Court decision would overrule any state laws that deny gun owners to defend self themselves in the home. Supreme Court decision overrule state's rights, if they violate the constitution.

So hunting rights are granted by states? Then the second amendment does not specifically protect our right to carry guns to the field?

I hope I'm making sense.

[PA-Joe]

They were not asked to rule on that issue. What is going to be interesting is the revised ordiance that DC must produce within 21 days and whether the Court will over rule them to. The proposed banning of semi-auto handguns is something that the Court should overturn. Then there is the safe storage issue.

[dukkillr]

The ruling DID NOT produce a standard by which all laws will be judged.  The ruling did provide language about how the second amendment produces and individual right (and overturned some old case law in doing so).  What's going to happen now is that individual laws will start working their way through the courts.  Eventually various challenges will let us know where the line is drawn.

[deltecs]

The Supreme Court decision is limited to what the federal government can restrict regarding firearms.  It also, was clear this decision did not invoke the 14th Amendment that would require States to comply with the decision.  It only says individuals are allowed to own, possess and use in self defense a handgun under federal jurisdiction, not State.  That is why all the lawsuits now against San Fran, Chicago and its suburban communities.   The outcome of these cases under State Law and this Supreme Court decision will determine what, where, when, and how firearms may be restricted under law.  Not that I agree with any anti gun positions, but to clarify this decision.  And this is only my understanding of the decision and not legal advice or interpretation. 

[alsatian]

Deltecs seems to be on track with his reply.  Generally the US constitution is a guide or a code of conduct for the federal government, not the state governments.  By virtue of the 14th amendment and its interpretation by the US Supreme Court, some of the constraints of the US constitution are extended to the states by an interprative extension -- there is a techical term for this extension which I cannot recall at this moment.  This extension has been ruled on with respect to most but not all of the amendments of the Bill of Rights.  It has NOT been ruled on with respect to the second amendment.  The narrow interpretation of the recent Supreme Court ruling is that the governance of Washington DC is a federal matter, hence the DC gun ban was created under federal powers and the court says the federal government cannot infringe the right to keep and bear arms specifically as was done by the DC gun ban.  Nothing was said or implied about whether Chicago or San Francisco could do this.  That is a matter yet to be determined.  To me it would seem that, for all the same reasons that the states cannot deny citizens their right to free speech, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, etc., states ought not be able to deny citizens their second amendment rights.  On the other hand . . . I'm neither an attorney or a judge so what worth is my opinion?!

Remember the recent case did not stomp out all regulation or controls on guns.  The issue with the DC gun ban was it was so complete and air tight, it really left no right to keep and bear arms to DC citizens whatsoever.  A more modest and limited ban might have been ruled constitutional.