The Second Amendment has been a heated topic for decades, and people have come at it from a myriad of directions. Now lawyers are bringing in ancient British laws to beef up their arguments. That’s right. English laws dating back all the way to 1328 will soon determine whether or not people can carry concealed handguns. The Founding Fathers definitely looked to English common law when writing the Constitution, but why exactly are we referencing another country’s ancient laws in 2015?
This legal journey goes back to 2008 when the Supreme Court overturned D.C.’s complete ban on handguns, saying the ban infringed on the Second Amendment. The court ruling allowed for people to now keep handguns in their houses, but it didn’t address whether people could also carry guns outside their homes. D.C.’s current law states that people can only carry handguns if they have a specific need; like, for instance, if someone had threatened a person’s safety. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia announced that though decision overturned the overall ban on handguns, the court’s decision did not contradict “longstanding” firearms regulations that are allowed in the Constitution. However, he didn’t define what the justices meant by “longstanding.”
Though a controversial move, it’s actually not uncommon for the Supreme Court to look to current and historical foreign law for guidance in their decision-making. So, when the Supreme Court announced their decision, lawyers took to task the fact the justices didn’t define “longstanding” and hit the history books to see who could find the best legal precedent, going all the way back to medieval England. The current case, Wrenn v. D.C., sets the two arguments head-to-head.
Counsel from the District of Columbia argue that the 1328 Statute of Northampton, passed during Edward III’s reign, shows that weapons weren’t allowed to be carried in certain highly populated areas. The statute is actually based on an earlier 1285 law that made it illegal “to be found going or wandering about the Streets of [London], after Curfew…with Sword or Buckler, or other Arms for doing Mischief” and a 1313 law not allowing “Force [or] Armour” in Parliament. D.C. argues that guns would necessarily be included in the category of weapons banned and, therefore, shows that limited gun carry laws fit within “longstanding” legal precedent.
Gun rights advocates, however, point out that these laws were introduced before guns had even arrived in Britain. They say gun control proponents argue too narrow a view of the rule and point to the 1686 story of Sir John Knight, who was tried according to the 1328 law but later acquitted by a jury of bringing a gun into a church during service. Acquitted despite the fact Sir Knight brought the gun into a church to intentionally “terrify the King’s subjects.”
Wrenn v. D.C. now sits in front of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and though it deals only with the capital’s laws, experts expect it to go to the Supreme Court. This means the ruling will have far-reaching consequences, especially as nine other states have limited handgun carry laws similar to D.C.’s.
No one can argue that the Founders drew from English common law when writing the American Constitution, but the big question remains: should we be going back to medieval English law? And if we are going to go back to such old laws, why stop at medieval England? Surely the Romans had something to say about carrying weapons around cities, too.
See original