Post-Heller gun purchase limits?

[Hopi]

Considering the Heller decision, how susceptible are we to new legislation that limits gun purchases? 1/month or 1/year as examples.....

[tetris]

Heller more or less just establishes that the 2A is an individual right that is subject to reasonable restrictions. It grants the right to own arms that are "commonly used at the time". Courts will have to decide at what point gun rationing interferes with the right to keep arms for self defense, hunting, sport.

However, courts are generally very skittish/skeptical about striking down legislative acts unless some great harm is being done. Courts don't want to be seen as sidestepping the democratic process. Also, they don't want to be seen as meddlers, and are often strict about standing (the need to demonstrate legitimate harm inflicted).

That said, its fairly difficult to argue that gun-a-month laws cause any legitimate harm to anybody. If the legislature believes that such laws are effective in preventing death, I find it very hard to believe that the courts will rule in favor of the desires of mere collectors/enthusiasts. That said, I think the gun-a-month law is ineffective and ridiculous, but that's not the court's concern.

On the other hand, it is easy to imagine a case where some guy buys a pistol. 7 days later, the pistol breaks through a manufacturing defect. He tries to return it: no luck. He tries to buy a new one: gets denied. Another week goes buy, armed robber breaks into home and ends up causing serious bodily injury. This man would probably have standing and could claim that the gun-a-month law violated his second amendment right to keep arms for self-defense.

By the way, if your get your C&R FFL from the ATF and apply for a Certificate from the CA DOJ, you can bypass the one-gun-a-month law.

[aileron]

That said, its fairly difficult to argue that gun-a-month laws cause any legitimate harm to anybody.

Took less then a second to think of this scenario.

"I have five kids, I have recently taken up shooting and would like to involve my kids. I want them to get into competitive shooting, but found out I can only buy one handgun a month; it will take me 6 months to outfit us all with a gun, so we can enjoy the sport together as a family. I was really hoping to go to Arizona next month and get training as a family at FrontSight for our vacation this year."

Not to mention it seems to be violating commerce and not just the firearm, but also the downstream impacts from use of facilities and ammo.

I like your scenario better from a standing issue, but still, it does have an impact outside of defense, and is still wrong. During the LA riots the 15 day wait was a charming piece of legislation to watch in action at the gun store down the street when I went in to stock up on ammo. People were pissed they couldnt walk out of the store with a gun. And if we have another incident like that, people wanting two handguns one for the wife and one for themselves will also show its colors, besides having to wait for it of course. LOL.

[hoffmang]

I'm not sure rationing can survive even rational basis review as I think about it. The only thing rationing can be argued to legitimately target is off the records gun running. However, that's already covered by the multiple purchase report to ATF. The easy case against rationing is that there is real reason to wish to buy collector pairs or a specific model for more than one person as a bonafide gift at the Holidays.

-Gene