Supreme Courts Gun ruling will have repercussions beyond Second Amendment

Are you a "state's rights" believer? A Second Amendment advocate? Ever think you would have to choose between the two?

The Supreme Courts hearing today of McDonald v. Chicago could effectively gut many gun control laws, while empowering the Federal Government. Any future federal rulings that favor gay marriage or other groups could then bind the states.

In other words, are states bound by the Bill of Rights, or do they simply bind the Federal Government. If it is the former, then future rulings can virtually wipe out state rights and end the argument once and for all in favor of a powerful Federal Goverment. If it is the latter, then Second Amendment advocates must allow that some states and local governments have the authority to implement gun control laws.

George Washington University Professor Jonathan Turley prognosticates the possibilities in a Roll Call opinion piece today.

Turley says, "Since most rules affecting gun ownership are municipal and state laws, the decision could make it difficult to ban outright possession of handguns and other types of weapons. However, there is an even more significant constitutional question in the case that could have ramifications far beyond gun rights — an issue that has divided both the liberal and conservative alliances in the case."

The Washington Post argues, "It would seem incongruous at best and legally indefensible at worst to deny to those beyond the nation's capital a right that the justices have ruled is embedded in the federal Constitution.

"That is not to say, however, that a recognition of individual rights should foreclose the possibility of regulation. Writing for the five-justice majority in Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia acknowledged that "like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." Indeed, even First Amendment rights of free speech and association have been subject to restrictions when the government proves it has a compelling reason. The court should rearticulate this important principle."