Can Gun Control Survive the Supreme Court?

I ponder the implications of 2CA upholding the core of the post-Sandy Hook gun control legislation passed by the New York and Connecticut legislatures:

Given the supreme court’s reasoning, it was not difficult for Monday’s opinion, written by Judge José A Cabranes, to find the core provisions of the New York and Connecticut laws constitutional. The ban, as Judge Cabranes observed, does not eliminate the right to personal self-defense that was guaranteed by Heller: “citizens may continue to arm themselves with non-semiautomatic weapons or with any semiautomatic gun that does not contain any of the enumerated military‐style features.” Cabranes relied heavily on an opinion by the influential DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which reached similar conclusions.

This is far from the end of this constitutional question, however. The US supreme court will soon decide whether to hear an appeal of a 7th Circuit decision upholding an Illinois ban on semiautomatic weapons. The top court may decide to stay its hand, as there is not yet a direct contradiction among the circuit courts for the state to resolve.

If the US supreme court does decide to take the case, it’s unclear what will happen, as this is relatively uncharted territory in American constitutional law. Heller was focused on establishing an individual right to bear arms and did not do a great deal to clarify that right’s precise scope. What constitutes a “dangerous” and/or “unusual” weapon is not a self-evident question.

The fact that gun control laws are Democratic policies coming before a Republican-dominated court is not a good sign, but it’s certainly possible that Chief Justice John Roberts or Justice Anthony Kennedy could be persuaded to uphold the bans, or at least some aspect of them. (Despite the moderate language of Heller, I wouldn’t have much hope for the increasingly partisan Scalia.)