Of guns, abortions, and the unraveling rule of law

Virginia Law Review

Volumn 95, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 253-323

  Wilkinson III, J Harvie ^a  

^a United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 66249145770     PISSN: 00426601     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (424)

1. 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008).
2. 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
3. See, e.g., Brown v. Bd. of Educ, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
4. See, e.g., Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).
5. New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
6. Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process 141 (1921),
7. quoted in Robert A. Sedler, The Constitution, the Courts and the Common Law, 53 Wayne L. Rev. 153, 157 n.11 (2007).
8. Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 76 (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting).
9. See generally Tom R. Tyler, Why People Obey the Law (2006). 9 410 U.S. 179 (1973).
10. Roe, 410 U.S. at 164-165 11 388 U.S. 1 (1967).
11. 268 U.S. 510 (1925).
12. 262 U.S. 390 (1923).
13. The cases all overturned laws that represented the worst sort of bias toward racial (Loving), religious (Pierce), or ethnic (Meyer) minorities. It would be odd for defenders of Heller or Roe to use them as a basis for substantive rights creation. I am also not persuaded by the argument that because the Court prior to Roe announced certain non-textual rights - see, for example, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942) that the Court in Roe and thereafter was free to embark upon a course of loose substantive rights recognition.
14. Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905).
15. Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179,221-222 (1973) (White, J., dissenting).
16. Roe, 410 U.S. at 172 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
17. 476 U.S. 747 (1986).
18. Id. at 787 (White, J., dissenting) (emphasis added).
19. Id. at 789.
20. Id. at 790.
21. 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
22. Id. at 951-952 (Rehnquist, CJ., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part).
23. Id. at 953
24. (quoting Webster v. Reprod. Health Servs., 492 U.S. 490, 518 (1989) (plurality opinion)).
25. 497 U.S. 502 (1990).
26. Id. at 520 (Scalia, J., concurring).
27. 492 U.S. 490 (1989).
28. Id. at 535 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment).
29. 497 U.S. 417 (1990).
30. Id. at 480 (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part).
31. Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 980 (1992) (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part).
32. See, e.g., Walter Dellinger & Gene B. Sperling, Abortion and the Supreme Court: The Retreat from Roe v. Wade, 138 U. Pa. L. Rev. 83 (1989);
33. Ronald Dworkin, Unenumerated Rights: Whether and How Roe Should Be Overruled, 59 U. Chi. L. Rev. 381 (1992);
34. Philip B. Heymann & Douglas E. Barzelay, The Forest and the Trees: Roe v. Wade and Its Critics, 53 B.U. L. Rev. 765 (1973).
35. See, e.g., Robert M. Byrn, An American Tragedy: The Supreme Court on Abortion, 41 Fordham L. Rev. 807 (1973);
36. Charles E. Rice, The Dred Scott Case of the Twentieth Century, 10 Hous. L. Rev. 1059 (1973).
37. Gerald Günther, Commentary, Some Reflections on the Judicial Role: Distinctions, Roots, and Prospects, 1979 Wash. U. L.Q. 817,819.
38. Alexander M. Bickel, The Morality of Consent 28 (1975).
39. Richard A. Epstein, Substantive Due Process by any Other Name: The Abortion Cases, 1973 Sup. Ct. Rev. 159, 180.
40. John Hart Ely, The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade, 82 Yale L.J. 920, 947 (1973).
41. Id. at 935-936 (footnote omitted).
42. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Essay, Some Thoughts on Autonomy and Equality in Relation to Roe v. Wade, 63 N.C. L. Rev. 375, 381 (1985).
43. Id. at 382.
44. See What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (Jack M. Balkin ed., 2005).
45. Erwin Chemerinsky, Rationalizing the Abortion Debate: Legal Rhetoric and the Abortion Controversy, 31 Buff. L. Rev. 107, 126-128 (1982).
46. See Donald H. Regan, Rewriting Roe v. Wade, 77 Mich. L. Rev. 1569 (1979).
47. See Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Speaking in a Judicial Voice, 67 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1185, 1199-1200 (1992).
48. See, e.g., Robin West, Concurring in the Judgment, in What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said, supra note 41, at 121, 121-135
49. Cass R. Sunstein, Comment, in What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said, supra note 41, at 248, 249.
50. U.S. Const. amend. II.
51. See Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2817-2818
52. Id. at 2788.
53. See Roe, 410 U.S. at 129-141 (concluding that recent regulations on abortion were more restrictive than historical regulations).
54. See D.C. Code §7-2507.02 (2001);
55. Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2817-2818
56. Specifically, the Court only held that citizens have the right to keep an operable handgun at home for self-defense. Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2818-2819
57. See Roe, 410 U.S. at 164-165
58. Stuart Taylor Jr., Torn by the Past: D.C. Gun Case Shows Shortcomings of Originalism, Legal Times, July 7, 2008, at 44, 44.
59. Id. at 45.
60. Id. at 44.
61. See Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English Dennis E. Baron, Ph.D., Richard W. Bailey, Ph.D. and Jeffrey P. Kaplan, Ph.D. in Support of Petitioners, District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (No. 07-290) [hereinafter Linguists' Brief].
62. Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2789.
63. Id. at 2790.
64. Id. at 2826 (Stevens, J., dissenting) ("That is not how this Court ordinarily reads such texts, and it is not how the preamble would have been viewed at the time the Amendment was adopted.").
65. Id. (quoting Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2790 (majority opinion)).
66. See id. at 2789-90 (majority opinion) (citing Fortunatus Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268-69 (Platt Potter ed., 1871);
67. Theodore Sedgwick, A Treatise on the Rules Which Govern the Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42-45 (2d ed. 1874);
68. Eugene Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment, 73 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 793, 814-21 (1998));
69. Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2826 n.7 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (citing Dwarris, supra, at 268, 269;
70. 2A Norman J. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction § 47.04, at 146 (rev. 5th ed. 1992)).
71. Id. at 2791-97 (majority opinion) (citing, inter alia, An Act for the Trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, § 6, in 1 The First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (John D. Cushing ed., 1981 (pt. I));
72. Pa. Declaration of Rights § XIII, in 5 The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws 3082, 3083 (Francis Newton Thorpe ed., 1909);
73. William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 55 (3d ed. 1769);
74. Timothy Cunningham, A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771);
75. William Hawkins, A Treatise of the Pleas of the Crown 26 (1771);
76. Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language 107 (5th ed. 1773);
77. Journals of the Continental Congress 349-51 (John C. Fitzpatrick ed., 1934);
78. Randy E. Barnett, Was the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Conditioned on Service in an Organized Militia?, 83 Tex. L. Rev. 237, 261 (2004)).
79. Id. at 2827-2830 (Stevens, J., dissenting)
80. (citing, inter alia, Linguists' Brief, supra note 57, at 19;
81. Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language (2d ed. 1755);
82. John Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language 37 (3d ed. 1794)).
83. Id. at 2797 (majority opinion).
84. Id. at 2798.
85. Id. at 2799.
86. Id. at 2798.
87. Id. at 2802-2803
88. Id. at 2834 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
89. Id. at 2833-2837
90. Id. at 2833.
91. Id. at 2833-2835
92. Id. at 2836.
93. Id. at 2805-07 (majority opinion) (citing, inter alia, 2 Blackstone's Commentaries 143 (St. George Tucker ed., 1803);
94. William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America 122 (1825);
95. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1891, at 747 (1833);
96. Joel Tiffany, A Treatise on the Unconstitutionality of American Slavery 117-18 (1849)).
97. Id. at 2809-11 (citing, inter alia, H.R. Rep. No. 41-37, at 7-8 (3d Sess. 1871) (statement of Rep. Butler);
98. Joint Comm. on Reconstruction, H.R. Rep. No. 39-30, pt. 2, at 229 (1st Sess. 1866) (Proposed Circular of Brigadier General R. Saxton);
99. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 1182 (1866) (statement of Sen. Pomeroy); id. at 1073 (statement of Rep. Nye)).
100. See id. at 2807-09 (citing Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846); State v. Chandler, 5. La. Ann. 489, 490-91 (1850);
101. United States v. Sheldon (Mich. 1829), in 5 Transactions of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Michigan 1825-1836, at 337, 346 (William Wirt Blume ed., 1940);
102. Aldridge v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. 447, 2 Va. Cas. 447, 449 (Gen. Ct. 1824)).
103. Id. at 2837 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
104. Id. at 2837 n.28.
105. Id.
106. (quoting Sullivan v. Finkelstein, 496 U.S. 617, 631-632 (1990) (Scalia, J., concurring in part)).
107. Id. at 2805 (majority opinion) (emphasis omitted).
108. 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
109. 116 U.S. 252 (1886).
110. 307 U.S. 174 (1939).
111. Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2812-2816
112. Id. at 2842-2846 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
113. Cf. Karl N. Llewellyn, The Common Law Tradition: Deciding Appeals 521-535 (1960) (describing contradictory canons of statutory interpretation as "thrusts" and "parries").
114. Mark V. Tushnet, Out of Range: Why the Constitution Can't End the Battle over Guns xvi (2007).
115. Id. at 116-117
116. 543 U.S. 551 (2005).
117. Id. at 617 (Scalia, J., dissenting).
118. Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2824 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (citations omitted).
119. See, e.g., Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843-845 (1984) (explaining that, in cases of ambiguity, deference is given to the interpretation of the agency with whom Congress has entrusted enforcement of the statute).
120. See, e.g., Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 470 (1991) (finding that the clear statement rule requires that the federal government speak with clarity if it intends to override the traditional prerogative of the states when acting pursuant to the Commerce Clause in addition to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment).
121. Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2816-2817 (majority opinion).
122. Id. at 2869-2870 (Breyer, J., dissenting).
123. Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 1000-1001 (1992) (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part) (emphasis omitted).
124. See Richard A. Posner, In Defense of Looseness, The New Republic, Aug. 27, 2008, at 32, 33 ("The idea behind the decision ... may simply be that turnabout is fair play. Liberal judges have used loose construction to expand constitutional prohibitions beyond any reasonable construal of original meaning; and now it is the conservatives' turn.").
125. Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549, 556 (1946).
126. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 323-324 (1962) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting).
127. Id. at 268 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting);
128. id. at 337 (Harlan, J., dissenting);
129. see also Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 624 (1964) (Harlan, J., dissenting) ("What is done today deepens my conviction that judicial entry into this realm is profoundly ill-advised and constitutionally impermissible.").
130. See Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267, 278-291 (2004) (plurality opinion).
131. See, e.g., Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007); Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of N. New Eng., 546 U.S. 320 (2006);
132. Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000); Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (1997);
133. Lambert v. Wicklund, 520 U.S. 292 (1997);
134. Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 833 (1992);
135. Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991); Ohio v. Akron Ctr. for Reprod. Health (Akron II), 497 U.S. 502 (1990);
136. Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990); Webster v. Reprod. Health Servs., 492 U.S. 490 (1989);
137. Thornburgh v. Am. Coll. of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986);
138. Simopoulos v. Virginia, 462 U.S. 506 (1983);
139. Planned Parenthood Ass'n of Kan. City, Mo. v. Ashcroft, 462 U.S. 476 (1983);
140. City of Akron v. Akron Ctr. for Reprod. Health (Akron I), 462 U.S. 416 (1983);
141. H.L. v. Matheson, 450 U.S. 398 (1981);
142. Williams v. Zbaraz, 448 U.S. 358 (1980);
143. Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980);
144. Bellotti v. Baird (Bellotti II), 443 U.S. 622 (1979);
145. Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379 (1979);
146. Poelker v. Doe, 432 U.S. 519 (1977);
147. Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464 (1977);
148. Beal v. Doe, 432 U.S. 438 (1977);
149. Planned Parenthood of Cent. Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976);
150. Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973);
151. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973);
152. see also NARAL Pro-Choice Am. Found., U.S. Supreme Court Decisions Concerning Reproductive Rights 1965-2007, http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/ assets/ files/Courts-SCOTUS-Choice-Cases.pdf (listing cases).
153. See Lynn D. Wardle, Rethinking Roe v. Wade, 1985 BYU L. Rev. 231, 238 & n.41 (1985) (noting that lower federal courts decided over 250 cases involving abortion between 1973 and 1985 alone).
154. See, e.g., Akron I, 462 U.S. at 444.
155. See, e.g., id. at 449-451
156. See, e.g., Hodgson, 497 U.S. at 422-423
157. See, e.g., Casey, 505 U.S. at 887-898
158. See, e.g., Bellotti v. Baird (Bellotti II, 443 U.S. 622, 643-644 (1979).
159. See, e.g., Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464, 466 (1977).
160. See, e.g., W. Side Women's Servs. v. City of Cleveland, 573 F. Supp. 504, 506, 523-524 (N.D. Ohio 1983).
161. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood Ass'n of Kan. City, Mo. v. Ashcroft, 462 U.S. 476, 494 (1983).
162. See, e.g., Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 132 (2007).
163. See, e.g., Akron Ctr. for Reprod. Health v. City of Akron, 651 F.2d 1198, 1211 (6th Cir. 1981).
164. Wardle, supra note 104, at 249.
165. Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 844, 900 (1992).
166. Id. at 876.
167. Id. at 899-900;
168. Ohio v. Akron Ctr. for Reprod. Health (Akron II), 497 U.S. 502, 510-19 (1990);
169. Hodgson v. Minnesota (Hodgson), 497 U.S. 417, 461, 497-501;
170. City of Akron v. Akron Ctr. for Reprod. Health (Akron I), 462 U.S. 416, 440 (1983);
171. Planned Parenthood Ass'n of Kan. City, Mo. v. Ashcroft, 462 U.S. 476, 490-94 (1983);
172. H.L. v. Matheson, 450 U.S. 398, 406-11 (1981);
173. Bellotti v. Baird (Bellotti II), 443 U.S. 622, 643-51 (1979);
174. Planned Parenthood of Cent. Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 72-75 (1976).
175. Danforth, 428 U.S. at 74.
176. Bellotti II, 443 U.S. at 643-651
177. Id. (striking down parental consent requirement because judicial bypass procedure did not satisfy this standard).
178. Hodgson, 497 U.S. at 420, 423 (upholding two-parent consent requirement with judicial bypass procedure).
179. Id. at 480 (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part).
180. Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 899-900 (1992).
181. For example, in the Court's most recent abortion decision, the Court decided whether a certain type of partial-birth abortion procedure is ever safer than other types of partial-birth abortion and, therefore, medically necessary to preserve the health of the mother. Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 161-167 (2007).
182. Casey, 505 U.S. at 986 n.4, 1002 (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part).
183. This also assumes that the Second Amendment will be incorporated against the states. For a full discussion of this assumption, see Section IV, infra.
184. Cass Sunstein has suggested that Heller, like Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), "is a narrow ruling with strong minimalist features."
185. See Cass R. Sunstein, Second Amendment Minimalism: Heller as Griswold, 122 Harv. L. Rev. (forthcoming) 3, 14, 20-21, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1204942. The whole point, however, is that Griswold did not remain confined to a right to use birth control in the bedroom, but foreshadowed the rise of Roe itself.
186. Heller 128 S.Ct. at 2822.
187. Id. at 2817-2818 The statute did not include a self-defense exception.
188. Id.
189. Id. at 2818. The Court emphasized the restrictiveness of the ban: "handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid." (emphasis added).
190. Id. at 2817-2818 (holding that the D.C. law would be unconstitutional under any standard for enumerated rights and therefore not specifying the appropriate standard).
191. Id. at 2817-2818 n.27 (rejecting rational basis). The Court also rejected Justice Breyer's interest-balancing approach. Id. at 2821.
192. Posting of Erwin Chemerinsky to CATO Unbound, The Heller Decision: Conservative Activism and its Aftermath, Reaction Essay, http://www.cato- unbound.org/ 2008/07/25/erwin-chemerinsky/the-heller-decision-conservative- activism-and-itsaftermath/ (2008, 11:31);
193. see also Glenn H. Reynolds & Brannon P. Denning, Heller's Future in the Lower Courts, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 406, 406 (2008) (noting that Heller did not specify a standard of review and therefore "litigants have a rare opportunity to write on a tabula much more rasa than is ordinarily the case in constitutional litigation").
194. Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2816.
195. Id. at 2816-2817
196. Id. at 2815-2817
197. Id. at 2818;
198. see also id. at 2817 (noting that handguns are the type of weapon "that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for [self- defense]").
199. See Posting of Dennis A. Henigan to CATO Unbound, The Heller Paradox: A Response to Robert Levy, Reaction Essay, http://www.cato-unbound.org/ 2008/07/16/ dennis-henigan/the-heller-paradox-a-response-to-robert-levy/ (2008, 10:01).
200. Complaint, McDonald v. City of Chicago, No. 08-3645 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2008);
201. see also Posting of Lyle Denniston to SCOTUSblog, http://www.scotusblog. com/wp/ new-case-tests-second-amendments-reach/ (June 27, 2008, 11:37).
202. Complaint, Nat'l Rifle Ass'n v. S.F. Housing Auth., No. 08-3112 (N.D. Cal. June 27, 2008);
203. Complaint, Nat'l Rifle Ass'n v. City of Chicago, No. 08-3697 (N.D. Ill. June 27, 2008);
204. Complaint, Nat'l Rifle Ass'n v. City of Evanston, No. 08-3693 (N.D. Ill. June 27, 2008);
205. Complaint, Nat'l Rifle Ass'n v. Village of Morton Grove, No. 08-3694 (N.D. Ill. June 27,2008);
206. Complaint, Nat'l Rifle Ass'n v. Village of Oak Park, No. 083696 (N.D. Ill. June 27, 2008);
207. see also Posting of Lyle Denniston to SCOTUSblog, http://www.scotusblog. com/wp/links-to-new-gun-rights-lawsuits/ (July 1, 2008, 17:52);
208. NRA Press Release, NRA Files Second Amendment Lawsuits in Illinois and California Following Supreme Court Ruling (June 27, 2008), http://www.nraila. org/ Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4053.
209. See Postings of Eugene Volokh to The Volokh Conspiracy, http://www.volokh.com/posts/chain-1215395769.shtml (July 7-Aug. 5, 2008) (listing post-Heller court orders and decisions).
210. See, e.g., U.S. v. Robinson, No. 07-CR-202, at *1 (E.D. Wis. July 23, 2008) (denying motion to dismiss and upholding 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) ban on possession of firearms by a felon).
211. See, e.g., U.S. v. Dorosan, No. 08-042, at *6 (E.D. La. June 30, 2008) (denying motion to dismiss and holding that Heller does not invalidate ban on firearms on U.S. Post Office property).
212. See, e.g., U.S. v. Fincher, 538 F.3d 868, 874 (8th Cir. Aug. 13, 2008) (holding that Second Amendment does not protect right to possess machine guns).
213. Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2816-2817 & n.26.
214. There were two other plaintiffs to the suit as well. See Complaint, Heller v. District of Columbia (Heller II, No. 08-1289 (D.D.C. July 28, 2008).
215. See also Posting of Lyle Denniston to SCOTUSblog, New Second Amendment case in D.C., http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/new-second-amendment-case-in-dc/ (July 28, 2008, 17:31).
216. See Local Rule 16.3 Report at 2, Heller II, No. 08-1289 (Oct. 2, 2008) (reflecting the parties' agreement that the Second Firearms Control Emergency Amendment Act of 2008, if enacted permanently, moots Counts I and III of the Complaint).
217. Complaint at 4-5, 8-9, Heller II, No. 08-1289.
218. Id. at 5-6, 9.
219. Id. at 6, 9-10.
220. Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2815-17
221. (discussing United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)).
222. D.C. Code §7-2501.01(10) (2001); see also Complaint at 4, Heller II, No. 08-1289.
223. Complaint at 3, Heller II, No. 08-1289.
224. Id. at 3,4-5, 8.
225. Id. at 5-6,9.
226. 158Id. at 5-6,7,9.
227. 159Id. at 6, 9-10. See also D.C. Code §7-2507.02 (as amended July 16, 2008 by the Firearms Control Emergency Amendment Act of 2008).
228. See Part III infra.
229. See D.C. Code §et seq. ("Second Firearms Control Emergency Amendment Act of 2008").
230. See Legal Community Against Violence, Regulating Guns in America: An Evaluation and Comparative Analysis of Federal, State and Selected Local Gun Laws ii (2008), available at http://www.firearmslawcenter.org/library/reports- analyses/ RegGuns.entire.report.pdf [hereinafter Regulating Guns in America].
231. See id., ii-xvii, 206 (summarizing gun control regulations by type and level of government);
232. see also NRA Institute for Legislative Action, Firearms Laws for [State] (various dates), available at http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/ (summarizing gun control regulations by state).
233. See 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(8), (9) (2008). See also Regulating Guns in America, supra note 162, at 88-89.
234. Federal law currently prohibits firearm possession by someone convicted of any offense that is a misdemeanor and involves "the use or attempted use of physical force" against a current or former spouse, child, or person with whom the offender has a child. 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(33)(A) (2008). Some state and local laws provide broader prohibitions. See Regulating Guns in America, supra note 162, at 89-104.
235. Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2846 n.39 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
236. 167Id.
237. Ely, supra note 37, at 922 (citing Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973)).
238. Id. at 926.
239. Id. at 923.
240. Roe, 410 U.S. at 174 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
241. Wardle, supra note 104, at 261-62.
242. Ely, supra note 37, at 935 n.89.
243. Roe, 410 U.S. at 173-74 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
244. Planned Parenthood of Cent. Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 64 (1976) (upholding a Missouri state law because it defined viability flexibly).
245. Id. at 75-79 (striking down a state law that prohibited abortion by saline amniocentesis after the twelfth week of pregnancy).
246. E.g., Stenberg, 530 U.S. at 930-932 (2000) (holding in part that a state statute was unconstitutional because it applied to dilation and evacuation and to dilation and extraction procedures).
247. Motion and Brief, Amicus Curiae of Dr. Eugene Diamond and Americans United for Life, Inc., in Support of [John C. Danforth, Attorney General of Missouri] at 126, Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976) (No. 74-1151).
248. 179Id. at 126-27.
249. Brief for Dr. David Acker et al., as Amici Curiae for Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri at 24-25, Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976) (No. 74-1151).
250. Id. at 30,35.
251. Danforth, 428 U.S. at 77-79.
252. Id. at 79.
253. Id. at 99 (White, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
254. City of Akron v. Akron Ctr. Reprod. Health (Akron I), 462 U.S. 416, 435-46 (1983).
255. Id. at 455-56 (O'Connor, J., dissenting).
256. Wardle, supra note 104, at 263 (citing Akron 1,462 U.S. at 431,434).
257. Id. at 262.
258. McCorvey v. Hill, 385 F.3d 846,853 (5th Cir. 2004) (Jones, J., concurring).
259. Id. at 850-51 (citing Affidavits of More Than One Thousand Post-Abortive Women; Affidavit of David Reardon, Ph.D.) (reporting clinical findings that link abortion to physical and emotional problems for women).
260. Roe, 410 U.S. at 163 ("[T]he attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated.")
261. McCorvey, 385 F.3d at 851 (Jones. J., concurring) (citing Affidavit of David Reardon, Ph.D.) (reporting that women receive little counseling at abortion clinics, and that counseling is heavily biased toward encouraging abortions).
262. Id. at 852 (citing David H. Munn et al., Prevention of Allogeneic Fetal Rejection by Tryptophan Catabolism, 281 Science 1191 (1998)).
263. E.g., Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §262.301-07 (Vernon 2002). See also McCorvey, 385 F.3d at 851-52 n.5 (collecting statutes).
264. Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833,857 (1992).
265. Id. at 867.
266. See United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144,152 n.4 (1938).
267. Ely, supra note 37, at 933-34.
268. See Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179,192 (1973) (describing the Georgia statute). The Court struck down these requirements.
269. Michael W. McConnell, How Not To Promote Serious Deliberation About Abortion, 58 U. Chi. L. Rev, 1181, 1200 n.43 (1991) (book review) (citing Mary Ann Lamanna, Social Science and Ethical Issues: The Policy Implications of Poll Data on Abortion, in Abortion: Understanding Differences 1, 4 (Sidney Callahan & Daniel Callahan eds., 1984)).
270. Ely, supra note 37, at 946.
271. Id. at 946-47.
272. Chemerinsky, supra note 42, at 107,109.
273. See Lynn D. Wardle, The Quandary of Pro-Life Free Speech: A Lesson from the Abolitionists, 62 Alb. L. Rev. 853, 876 (1999) ("The vice of judicial supremacy ... has been its progressive closing of the avenues to peaceful and democratic conciliation of our social and economic conflicts."
274. (quoting Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448, 491 (1980) (quoting Robert H. Jackson, The Struggle for Judicial Supremacy 321 (1941).
275. Robert Post & Reva Siegel, Roe Rage: Democratic Constitutionalism and Backlash, 42 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 373,374 (2007).
276. See Wardle, supra note 104, at 261.
277. See Scott L. Cummings, The Internationalization of Public Interest Law, 57 Duke L.J. 891, 961 (2008).
278. McConnell, supra note 200, at 1201-02.
279. See Cass R. Sunstein, Backlash's Travels, 42 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 435, 439 (2007)
280. (quoting Alexander Bickel, The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics 69 (2d ed., Yale Univ. Press 1986) (1962).
281. Id. at 448.
282. William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 62 (1765).
283. See The Federalist No. 78 (Alexander Hamilton) (quoting Baron de Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws 152 (Thomas Nugent Trans., Hafner Publ'g Co. 1949) (1748)).
284. See Roe, 410 U.S. at 173 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting) ("The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment undoubtedly does place a limit, albeit a broad one, on legislative power to enact laws such as this.").
285. Id. at 173-74 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
286. Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2818. Justice Scalia later crafts a more specific explanation of the core right: "the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home." Id. at 2821.
287. Adam Winkler, Scrutinizing the Second Amendment, 105 Mich. L. Rev. 683, 713 (2007)
288. (quoting Lawrence Gene Sager, Fair Measure: The Legal Status of Underenforced Constitutional Norms, 91 Harv. L. Rev. 1212, 1217 (1978).
289. Id. at 713-14 ("Judges do not want, and are not especially competent, to sort out such disputes and settle intensely debated issues of social science.").
290. Id. at 714 (citing Jeffrey Monks, Comment, The End of Gun Control or Protection Against Tyranny?: The Impact of the New Wisconsin Constitutional Right to Bear Arms on State Gun Control Laws, 2001 Wis. L. Rev. 249, 264 n.94).
291. 219Id.
292. D.C. Code §7-2507.02 (2001).
293. Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2817-18.
294. Id. at 2820.
295. Transcript of Oral Argument at 83-84, Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (No. 07-290).
296. See also Brief for American Public Health Ass'n, et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners at 26-27, Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (No. 07-290) (discussing trigger locks that can be removed in one to three seconds).
297. Transcript of Oral Argument, supra note 223, at 73-74.
298. Id. at 81 (Alan Gura, Esq. speaking).
299. Id. at 79.
300. See Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2794, n.9 (citing State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489,489-90 (1850); Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243,250-51 (1846)).
301. See, e.g., John R. Lott, Jr., More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws (1998);
302. John R. Lott, Jr., Straight Shooting: Firearms, Economics and Public Policy (2006);
303. John R. Lott, Jr., The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control is Wrong (2003);
304. John R. Lott, Jr. & David B. Mustard, Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns, 26 J. Legal Stud. 1 (1997).
305. See Ian Ayres & John J. Donohue III, Shooting Down the "More Guns, Less Crime" Hypothesis, 55 Stan. L. Rev. 1193 (2003).
306. Stephen Teret, Critical Commentary on a Paper by Lott and Mustard, The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research (1996), http://www.asahi-net. or.jp/~zj5jgttl/teret.htm.
307. See also Mark Duggan, More Guns, More Crime, 109 J. Pol. Econ. 1086 (2001);
308. Jens Ludwig, Concealed-Gun-Carrying Laws and Violent Crime: Evidence from State Panel Data, 18 Int'l Rev. L. & Econ. 239 (1998).
309. Jeffrey M. Drazen et al., Editorial, Guns and Health, 359 New Eng. J. Med. 517, 517 (2008).
310. Id. (citing David Hemenway, Private Guns, Public Health (2004);
311. Matthew Miller et al., Household Firearm Ownership and Rates of Suicide Across the 50 United States, 62 J. Trauma 1029-35 (2007)).
312. See Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 991 n.6 (1992) (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part).
313. City of Akron v. Akron Ctr. for Reprod. Health, Inc., 462 U.S. 416, 458 (1983) (O'Connor, J., dissenting).
314. See, e.g., Paul Duggan & Mary Beth Sheridan, D.C. Legislation Would Remove More Gun Limits, Wash. Post, Sept. 13, 2008, at Al (explaining that legislators' proposed changes to the D.C. gun laws "result from a careful review of [Heller]" and would result in "a dramatic shift in public policy" from D.C.'s long-standing policies on gun restrictions).
315. 236NRA-ILA Website, Who We Are, And What We Do, http://www.nraila.org/ About/.
316. See Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Website, About Us, http://www.csgv.org/site/ c.pmL5JnO7KzE/b.3509221/.
317. Maurice Carroll, American Voters Oppose Same-Sex Marriage, 2008 Quinnipiac U. Polling Inst. 1, available at http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/ polling/us/ us07172008.doc.
318. Mental Health Measures Broadly Backed, But Culture Gets More Blame than Guns, http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/1037alVaTechGuns.pdf.
319. Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 636 (1996) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
320. Id. at 652.
321. See Jeffrey M. Dražen et al., supra note 231, at 517 (citing C. Loftin et al., Effects of Restrictive Licensing of Handguns on Homicide and Suicide in the District of Columbia, 325 New Eng. J. Med. 1615-20 (1991).
322. See Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 741 (2000) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (quoting Madsen v. Women's Health Ctr., Inc., 512 U.S. 753, 785 (1994) (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part)).
323. See Cass R. Sunstein, supra note 128, at 16 (arguing that Heller can be understood as a recognition of a changing "national consensus" on firearms regulation).
324. See Hill, 530 U.S. at 741 (Scalia, J., dissenting).
325. See Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 222 (1973) (White, J., dissenting) ("[The abortion] issue, for the most part, should be left with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs.").
326. Webster v. Reprod. Health Services, 492 U.S. 490, 532 (1989) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment).
327. Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 1002 (1992) (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part).
328. See, e.g., Wardle, supra note 104, at 232 (recognizing that abortion traditionally had been "the exclusive province of the states to regulate");
329. see also Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 42 (2005) (O'Connor, J., dissenting) ("The States' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens.").
330. Roe, 410 U.S. at 174-75 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting); id. at 116 (majority opinion) ("The Texas statutes under attack here are typical of those that have been in effect in many States for approximately a century.").
331. Clarke D. Forsythe & Stephen B. Presser, Restoring Self-Government on Abortion: A Federalism Amendment, 10 Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. 301, 338 (2006) [hereinafter Forsythe & Presser, A Federalism Amendment];
332. see also Clarke D. Forsythe & Stephen B. Presser, The Tragic Failure of Roe v. Wade: Why Abortion Should be Returned to the States, 10 Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. 85, 162 (2006) [hereinafter Forsythe & Presser, Tragic Failure] (noting that the states were actively enforcing, reaffirming, or reforming their prohibitions on abortions in the years preceding Roe).
333. Terrance Sandalow, Federalism and Social Change, 43 Law & Contemp. Probs. 29, 35 (1980); Wardle, supra note 104, at 232.
334. Sandalow, supra note 252, at 33; id. at 35 (noting that the opinions in Roe did not "consider the relevance of federalism to the appropriate decision").
335. Michael W. McConnell, Federalism: Evaluating the Founders' Design, 54 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1484,1487 (1987) (book review).
336. See Roe, 410 U.S. at 174-77 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
337. 256Thornburgh v. Am. Coll. of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747, 793 (1986) (White, J., dissenting).
338. Id. at 793-94 & n.3 (White, J., dissenting).
339. See McConnell, supra note 254, at 1493-94. For general discussions of this benefit of federalism and those that follow,
340. see, for example, Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 458 (1991), and McConnell, supra note 254.
341. See Robert H. Bork, The Judge's Role in Law and Culture, 1 Ave Maria L. Rev. 19, 24 (2003) (arguing that abortion should have been left "to the
342. Earl M. Maltz, Individual Rights and State Autonomy, 12 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 163, 184 (1989).
343. See Roderick M. Hills, Jr., The Individual Right to Federalism in the Rehnquist Court, 74 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 888, 900 (2006).
344. Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 995 (1992) (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part); see also McConnell, supra note 200, at 1202 (observing that abortion policy-absent Roe-could exhibit "significant variations in the approaches taken from state to state").
345. Sandalow, supra note 252, at 36.
346. Lynn D. Wardle, "Time Enough": Webster v. Reproductive Health Services and the Prudent Pace of Justice, 41 Ea. L. Rev. 881, 936 (1989);
347. see also Casey, 505 U.S. at 995 (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part) ("Roe's mandate for abortion on demand... required the entire issue to be resolved uniformly, at the national level.");
348. Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 222 (1973) (White, J., dissenting) ("[Roe] impos[ed]... an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States.");
349. Maltz, supra note 259, at 187 & n.110.
350. New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
351. 265See, e.g., Forsythe & Presser, A Federalism Amendment, supra note 251, at 329 ("The states are in the best position to experiment and create the optimal policy with regard to abortion....").
352. Roe, 410 U.S. at 116; id. at 139-40 (acknowledging that four states recently had repealed their criminal penalties for abortions performed early in the pregnancy, and fourteen other states had adopted some form of the less stringent Model Penal Code abortion statute).
353. See Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464 (1977).
354. See Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
355. Id. at 877 (opinion of O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter, JJ.).
356. See Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 978-79 (2000) (Kennedy, J., dissenting); Forsythe & Presser, Tragic Failure, supra note 251, at 159-60.
357. The Federalist No. 51, at 323 (James Madison) (Isaac Kramnick ed., 1987).
358. See, e.g., Maltz, supra note 259, at 173 (arguing that the Court's approach in Roe "exemplifies its general disregard for federalism concerns in individual rights cases"). Contra Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law 1351 (2d ed. 1988) (asserting that abortion is too fundamental a liberty to be left to the states).
359. See McConnell, supra note 254, at 1503.
360. "For example, in 1971, the second year New York's liberalized abortion law was in effect, 60% of the women having abortions in New York were nonresidents." Ginsburg, supra note 39, at 380 n.36. Mobility is subject to financial and other constraints, of course.
361. See Chemerinsky, supra note 42, at 117-18; Ely, supra note 37, at 936 n.94.
362. See McConnell, supra note 254, at 1503.
363. See, e.g., Forsythe & Presser, Tragic Failure, supra note 251, at 162-63 ("[Roe] made the abortion debate more divisive because it prevented resolution through the normal give and take of political and legislative discourse and decision");
364. Ginsburg, supra note 44, at 1208 ("Roe... halted a political process that was moving in a reform direction and thereby, I believe, prolonged divisiveness and deferred stable settlement of the issue");
365. Wardle, supra note 263, at 927, 936 (arguing that Roe terminated
366. the process by which a national consensus might have emerged on abortion when the Court mandated a national abortion policy).
367. See Roe, 410 U.S. at 116 ("We forthwith acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires....Our task, of course, is to resolve the issue by constitutional measurement, free of emotion and of predilection.");
368. Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 867 (1992) (asserting that decisions like Roe "call[] the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution").
369. Casey, 505 U.S. at 995 (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part).
370. See, e.g., United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000);
371. City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997); United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
372. See, e.g., Chemerinsky, supra note 135; Robert A. Levy, District of Columbia v. Heller: What's Next?, Lead Essay, July 14, 2008, http://www.cato-unbound.org/ 2008/07/14/robert-a-levy/district-of-columbia-v- heller-whats-next/ (agreeing that the Second Amendment "will no doubt be incorporated" against the states).
373. With respect to the Court's jurisprudence on incorporating the Bill of Rights against the states, see, for example, Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 147-48 (1968).
374. Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2813 n.23.
375. Id. at 2815; see also supra text accompanying notes 136-146.
376. Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2816-17 & n.26.
377. Lopez, 514 U.S. at 566.
378. See Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2813 ("States, we said, were free to restrict or protect the right under their police powers.") (citing United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875) (holding that the people must look to the states' powers of "internal police" to protect the right to keep and bear arms); Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 247 (1976) ("The promotion of safety of persons and property is unquestionably at the core of the State's police power----")).
379. See Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2793-94, 2802-03 (recognizing early state constitutional provisions protecting gun rights); id. at 2819-20 (early regulations).
380. But see, e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§921-930 (2006) (federal criminal statutes relating to firearms); 26 U.S.C. §§5801-5872 (2000) (federal statutes imposing excise taxes and registration requirements on limited categories of firearms); Legal Community Against Violence, Federal Law Summary (2008), http://www.firearmslawcenter.org/ content/Federallawsummary. asp#keycongressionalacts (describing federal firearms laws).
381. See Lopez, 514 U.S. at 567 (holding that the Commerce Clause did not empower Congress to regulate guns in schools and that the opposite holding would have granted to Congress a "general police power of the sort retained by the States").
382. See Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2825-26 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (pointing out the difference in meanings between the state and federal provisions).
383. Id. at 2796 (majority opinion).
384. See id. at 2795-96;
385. see also id. at 2828-30 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (responding to the majority's attack on this point).
386. See id. at 2819-20 (majority opinion);
387. id. at 2848-50 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (discussing these regulations and questioning the majority's recognition of self-defense exceptions in the statutes).
388. See id. at 2827 (Stevens, J., dissenting) ("[T]he ultimate purpose of the [Second] Amendment was to protect the States' share of the divided sovereignty created by the
389. Constitution."); id. at 2822, 2831-36 & n.27 (same);
390. Brief for N.Y. et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners at 4, District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) (No. 07-290) ("A principal purpose of the Second Amendment is to function as a bulwark against federal intrusion into state sovereignty over militias. That purpose would be undermined, rather than supported, by interpreting the Amendment to authorize federal judicial review of state laws regulating weapons.").
391. Heller, 128 S. Ct: at 2804.
392. See Richard A. Posner, In Defense of Looseness, The New Republic, Aug. 27, 2008, at 32;
393. see also Dražen et al., supra note 231, at 517-18 ("Given the diversity of geography and population in the United States, lawmakers throughout the country need the freedom and flexibility to apply gun regulations that are appropriate to their jurisdictions.").
394. See Regulating Guns in America, supra note 162, at 20-21. Hawaii and Maryland ban assault pistols; the other five states ban assault weapons generally, The term "assault weapons" refers to "a class of semi-automatic firearms designed with military features to allow rapid and accurate spray firing." Id. at 19.
395. See Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence, 2007 Brady Campaign State Scorecard Rankings, http://www.stategunlaws.org/xshare/pdf/scorecard/2007/ 2007-scorecard-rankings .pdf; Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, New Brady Scorecard Shows Most States Lack Common Sense Gun Restrictions (Jan. 31, 2008), http://www.stategunlaws.org/xshare/pdf/scorecard/2007/2007-national-release.pdf (describing the methodology of the state rankings and the categories of gun laws analyzed).
396. See Regulating Guns in America, supra note 162, at 259-64 (presenting a table summarizing the gun regulations in the states and certain cities).
397. See id.
398. deg;Seeid.
399. Id. at 40.
400. Id. at 40 & nn.19,21. San Francisco's handgun ban has been held to be preempted by state law, although that ruling appears to have an appeal pending. See id. at 40 n.21.
401. See id. at 206-08.
402. See id. at 212-13.
403. See, e.g., Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2857 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (citing studies demonstrating these differences between urban and rural environments).
404. Id. at 2855 (discussing the crime statistics in the District that prompted the initial passage of the handgun ban).
405. Id. at 2860.
406. See id. at 2818 (majority opinion);
407. but see id. at 2851 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (not ing that the District's prohibition was tailored more narrowly than the examples citei by the majority).
408. See id. at 2861 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (arguing that cities "must be allowed a rea sonable opportunity to experiment with solutions to admittedly serious problems (quoting Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41,52 (1986).
409. See supra text accompanying notes 213-48.
410. See Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2859 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (noting the difficulty of the causation issue).
411. Cf. id. at 2858 (citing studies that analyzed the results of particular experiments, including "a substantial drop in the burglary rate in an Atlanta suburb that required heads of households to own guns," and a "decrease in sexual assaults in Orlando when women were trained in the use of guns").
412. Gary Fields, Going After Crimes-and Guns, Wall St. J., Aug. 5, 2008, at A12 (describing Richmond's efforts to achieve 100% prosecution of gun crimes through cooperation between local, state, and federal officials, and noting that other jurisdictions had instituted similar efforts).
413. Id. ("Other cities, including Springfield and Peoria in Illinois have visited to see what Richmond is doing.").
414. Regulating Guns in America, supra note 162, at 5 & n.16. While some of the beneficial effects of local innovation may be muted in the large number of states that preempt local gun regulation, such state preemption laws are simply another dataproducing policy experiment, see id. at 11-16.
415. Winkler, supra note 216, at 702-03.
416. See Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2822.
417. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 581-83 (1995) (Kennedy, J., concurring).
418. Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2868 (Breyer, J., dissenting) ("And litigation over the course of many years, or the mere specter of such litigation, threatens to leave cities without effective protection against gun violence and accidents during that time.").
419. See supra text accompanying notes 148-160.
420. Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 995 (1992) (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part).
421. See, e.g., E.J. Dionne Jr., Originalism Goes Out the Window, Wash. Post, June 27,2008, at A17 (statement of Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence) ("[Heller] will make gun control less of a 'wedge issue ....'"); Henigan, The Heller Paradox, supra note 140 (predicting that Heller "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.").
422. See Home Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 483 (1934) (Sutherland, J., dissenting).
423. Casey, 505 U.S. at 1002 (1992) (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part).
424. See Learned Hand, The Contribution of an Independent Judiciary to Civilization, in The Spirit of Liberty 163-64 (3d ed. 1960).