Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research.
J Law Med Ethics. 2013 Mar;41 Suppl 1:84-7. doi: 10.1111/jlme.12047.
In District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own handguns in the home for protection, invalidating a Washington, D.C. law banning most handgun possession. The Heller decision, however, provided lower courts with little guidance regarding how to judge the constitutionality of gun laws other than handgun bans. Nevertheless, lower courts have upheld the vast majority of federal, state, and local gun laws challenged since Heller. One area in which some lower courts have disagreed has been the constitutionality of laws regulating the ability to carry firearms in public. This issue may be the next to be addressed by the Supreme Court under its evolving Second Amendment jurisprudence. Courts should carefully consider the negative public health and safety implications of gun carrying in public as they weigh the constitutionality of these laws.
在哥伦比亚特区诉海勒案中，美国最高法院裁定，第二修正案保护个人在家中拥有枪支用于保护的权利，从而使华盛顿特区禁止拥有大多数手枪的法律无效。然而，海勒案的裁决并未向下级法院提供多少指导，以判断除手枪禁令之外的枪支法律的合宪性。尽管如此，自海勒案以来，下级法院仍维持了绝大多数联邦、州和地方枪支法律的有效性。在一些下级法院存在分歧的一个领域是，监管在公共场所携带枪支的能力的法律的合宪性。根据其不断发展的第二修正案判例法，这一问题可能是最高法院下一步要处理的问题。法院在权衡这些法律的合宪性时，应仔细考虑在公共场所携带枪支对公共健康和安全的负面影响。
