You have the right to keep and bear arms, but it’s hanging by a heartbeat.
In May 2016, the National Rifle Association endorsed Donald Trump for president. Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, said the group rarely endorsed a candidate so far in advance of an election, but that precedent was overridden by the members’ concern that the Second Amendment might not survive a Hillary Clinton presidency. Trump himself said, “The only way to save the Second Amendment is to vote for a person named Donald Trump.” Cox told the members gathered for the NRA’s Annual Meetings in 2016 that the “Second Amendment is on the ballot this November.” Of course that wasn’t literally true; constitutional amendments can’t be overturned in an election. What Trump and the NRA were saying is that the next president would appoint judges who could interpret away the Constitution’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms, or protect it. Trump told the group “they could trust” him to appoint judges who understand and respect Second Amendment rights. Now, we’re there. Now, we’ll see. Trump appointed three justices to the U.S. Supreme Court and the result is that the court has finally agreed to decide a Second Amendment case after a decade of turning them away. It was in 2008 that the court issued its ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, holding that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms, no militia required. Then in 2010, the justices held in McDonald v. Chicago that this is a fundamental right, meaning that it also applies to the states unless a state can show a compelling reason that a restrictive law is necessary, and narrowly tailored, to accomplish a permissible purpose. That left a gray area roughly the size of Antarctica. Could states refuse to issue concealed carry permits, or limit gun owners from transporting their firearms, or ban commonly owned weapons, or limit ammunition sales? The Supreme Court did not want to talk about it.
