More and more, people are beginning to see the opportunities for gun violence prevention in the Heller decision.

Former D.C. prosecutor and current Prince George’s County, Maryland, state’s attorney Glenn Ivey has a piece in today’s Washington Post offering his perspective:

The Supreme Court decision last month overturning the District’s handgun ban, though controversial, may have ended a long-standing political logjam. As a local law enforcement official, I hope this decision will allow a working coalition to transcend partisan disagreements and support strategies proven to reduce gun violence.

The ruling left almost entirely intact the gun restrictions in Maryland and most other jurisdictions. Still permitted are: licensing requirements, bans on concealed weapons, prohibitions on felons and the mentally ill possessing handguns, bans on carrying handguns in “sensitive places such as schools and government buildings” and conditions on the commercial sale of firearms.

It’s time to move forward. We must develop more rational policies to reduce gun violence….

…

I hope the ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller forces this debate to the middle. Boston, New York, Cincinnati and other cities have dramatically reduced gun violence through a combination of tough guns laws, longer prison terms for violators, reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, and intervention and prevention programs that target at-risk youths.

But states and localities could use more federal help. The government should:

· Restore funding for local crime-fighting programs such as the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants, as well as for Community Oriented Policing Services, both of which were cut deeply by the Bush administration last year. This would enable localities to hire more police officers and supply them with needed technology.

· Close the gun show loophole, ban “dangerous and unusual” firearms such as assault weapons, require microstamp identifiers on fired cartridges, and allow local law officials to access federal gun-trace data used to track illegal gun dealers.

· Fully fund the new Second Chance Act, which would help ex-offenders with the employment and education assistance they need to become productive citizens. Also, provide more funds for school and community programs proven to reduce youth violence.

· Increase federal prosecutions of gun cases, especially in states that lack or do not impose stiff sentences for gun offenders.

By assuring law-abiding citizens’ right to own guns but leaving intact most restrictions on owning and carrying guns, the court may have taken away the red meat for extremists on both sides. Perhaps now the federal government can strengthen its political partnership with localities and states to stop gun violence.

[more]

Brady Vice President and Legal Director Dennis Henigan was graciously invited by the Cato Institute to participate in a discussion of the legal and political effects of the Heller decision.

Joining Robert Levy, Prof. Erwin Chemerinsky and Dave Kopel, Dennis posted the initial reply to the lead entry written by Mr. Levy. You can read full reply here, after these extended excerpts:

… First, it is clear that there are not five votes on the Supreme Court for applying a “strict scrutinyâ€� standard to gun laws. This was an important setback for Heller and a great victory for public safety.

Second, the majority took the highly unusual step of commenting on the constitutionality of numerous laws not at issue in the case, making it clear that a wide range of gun control laws remain “presumptively lawful.� These include (1) prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons (which the Court found were held lawful under early state Second Amendment analogues); (2) prohibitions on firearms possession by felons and the mentally ill; (3) laws forbidding firearms in “sensitive places� like schools and government buildings; (4) laws imposing “conditions and qualifications� on the commercial sale of arms (which could include background checks, waiting periods, licensing, etc.); (5) bans on “dangerous and unusual weapons� (which could include machine guns and assault weapons); and (6) laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents. Then, in a telling footnote, the Court adds that its list of “presumptively lawful regulatory measures. . . does not purport to be exhaustive.�

…

One of the gun lobby’s core arguments against reasonable gun laws is that every new restriction on guns is but a step down the “slippery slope� to gun confiscation and thus is a threat to ordinary gun owners. The “slippery slope� is key to the National Rifle Association’s strategy to make the gun issue a “cultural� or “wedge� issue politically. It frames gun control as an attack on a valued personal possession and, indeed, on a way of life symbolized by that possession.

In short, the gun lobby needs the debate to be about banning guns that are commonly used by law-abiding Americans. By erecting a constitutional barrier to a broad gun ban, the Heller ruling may have flattened the gun lobby’s “slippery slope,� making it harder for the NRA to use fear tactics to motivate gun owners to give their time, money and votes in opposing sensible gun laws and the candidates who support those laws. This is especially true since the majority of gun owners support reasonable gun control proposals on their merits. A recent poll shows that 83% of gun owners support closing the “gun show loophole� by extending Brady background checks to private sales at gun shows. Conversely, the ruling may make it easier for advocates of stronger gun laws to ensure that gun control is viewed as the public safety issue that it is, rather than as a divisive, cultural issue.

[more]

Dennis’s post has already generated discussion at The Plank in the The New Republic, and at Reason Magazine’s Hit & Run blog in an entry by Damon Root (that follows his piece yesterday in Reason Online embracing the Supreme Court’s judicial activism as a good thing).

More recognition of the key salutary effect of the Heller decision on the gun violence prevention movement.

From Janet Pearson in the Tulsa World:

… What’s next? Does the court’s ruling mean gun controls are a thing of the past?

Hardly. Even nonlawyers would conclude after reading the Heller decision that, if anything, it enthusiastically embraces and endorses reasonable controls.

“All regulations that touch upon Second Amendment rights will get a well-deserved constitutional look. Instant background checks and felon-in-possession laws will survive. Laws meant to harass gun possession, while at best advancing only a hypothetical public benefit, will not,” said Alan Gura, one of the attorneys who argued the Heller case before the Supreme Court, on reasononline.

There is general agreement that in addition to measures banning ownership by potentially dangerous people, laws governing licensing, commercial sales and probably concealed-carry measures likely will survive. That will be welcome news to many residents of the 40 states that have enacted concealed-carry laws.

Even the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence found a silver lining to Heller, noting that the “decision clearly suggests that other gun laws are entirely consistent with the Constitution.”

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center, said Heller means the gun lobby’s “slippery slope” argument — that gun-control measures will eventually lead to an all-out ownership ban — is now moot.

Helmke added that “lifesaving proposals” such as background checks, limits on bulk sales and measures targeting corrupt dealers “can now be debated on their merits without distractions of fear or ideology.”

[more]

In the Washington Post today:

… D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) aptly called the Firearms Control Emergency Amendment Act of 2008 a “negative bill,” made necessary by the court’s unwelcome decision on June 26 to invalidate the city’s 32-year-old ban on handgun ownership. The measure is the result of work by Mr. Mendelson, chairman of the public safety committee, and Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D). Likely to be enacted today by the council on an emergency basis, it would permit only handguns in homes for self-defense. Sawed-off shotguns, machine guns and short-barreled rifles would still be banned. To register handguns, residents would have to complete an application, pass a written firearms test, provide a photo and proof of good vision, and be fingerprinted — all sensible requirements that are generally seen as being able to pass court muster.

[more]

More coverage in the Post here.

See the Washington Times story here.

In the Washington Post:

District residents will be able to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense but that right would be limited to the home and not outside it, city leaders said today, announcing new gun regulations in response to the Supreme Court’s recent ruling striking down the city’s handgun ban.

Gun owners will have to pass vision and written tests, provide a photo with their application to register a gun, and submit their weapon for ballistics testing. Guns will also still require trigger locks.

Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) and interim Attorney General Peter J. Nickles announced the regulations alongside D.C. Council Chairman Vincent G. Gray (D), Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) and several other council members.

The regulations are an effort to maintain some gun control while complying with the Supreme Court’s 5 to 4 ruling last month.

“We think we have struck the delicate legal balance,” Fenty said. “While we will have lawsuits, we think we stand on solid legal ground.”

In a news release announcing the restrictions, Fenty said: “We continue to take every step we can to minimize handgun violence in the District. We must prevent handguns from falling into the wrong hands or being misused.”

[more]

See also Mike Debonis’ City Desk blog at the Washington City Paper:

… As to where you can load that gun, given a “reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm,â€� it’s only in your home. Not your yard. Not your car, which might be parked in front of your home, but in your home. Now, as for the use of the gun once it’s loaded, the statute will say nothing about that; use of a weapon in self-defense is governed by reams of case law, Nickles says.

The District’s proposed standard is likely to attract additional legal scrutiny from folks who feel that the policy in not in full compliance with the Heller decision, but Nickles says it was drafted to comply fully with the holding. “When you do almost anything in this city, you get a lawsuit,� he said.

[more]