Gun Laws : Ohio and Federal: US Supreme Court Cases

The Court held that the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

US Supreme Court says that ATF's ban on bump stocks overstepped its regulatory authority.

The Court ruled that the Second Amendment was incorporated against state and local governments, through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.

Held that the Gun Free Schools Act was unconstitutional because it regulated actions that did not involve interstate commerce. The Act was modified to make clear that it would only prosecute gun crimes in schools that involved interstate commerce.

US Supreme Court upholds 18 USC 922 which prohibits possession of firearms while subject to a domestic violence-related restraining order.

8/8/23 The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily reinstated regulations set forth by the Biden administration pertaining to “ghost gun” kits and parts.

4/22/24

US Supreme Court decided in 2024 that the First Amendment does not a government regulator to threaten regulated entities with adverse regulatory actions if they do business with a controversial speaker, as a consequence of (a) the government’s own hostility to the speaker’s viewpoint or (b) a perceived “general backlash” against the speaker’s advocacy.

NBC News 10/20/23