The Meaning of 'HOME' with regards to the Heller Case

[spc]

I got this in my morning mailing from SPWenger.

spc

The Frederick News-Post Online - Frederick County Maryland Daily Newspaper
The Frederick News-Post Online - Frederick County Maryland Daily Newspaper


Home > Opinion > Columnist Increase text sizeDecrease text size
Don Kornreich
The Second Amendment, self defense, and the meaning of 'in the home'
Originally published July 13, 2008


Bill Baisey KIA


In District of Columbia v. Heller (decided June 26), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess and use a firearm, including a handgun, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

The court also said that the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table, including the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. (The full text of the Heller decision may be found at SCOTUSblog.com)

As Heller involved a District of Columbia law, it remains to be seen to what extent its holding will be applied, under our federal system, to state and local laws. The National Rifle Association already has sued several cities -- including San Francisco and Chicago -- to challenge the constitutionality of their firearm laws. (For comprehensive reportage of laws concerning the Second Amendment, see Handgunlaws.us)

The purpose of this column is to explore some of the issues stemming from the Court's linkage of self-defense with the home.

In its decision, the Court stated that, like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited: "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for any whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues."

The court recognized the power of a state or local jurisdiction to prohibit the concealed carry of handguns; other states and local jurisdictions have authorized concealed carry. How will that power be balanced with the now affirmed constitutional right of an individual to possess a handgun for self-defense in the home?

For starters, to what does "in the home" apply? It is clear that it applies to a person's residence, whether a single family house or apartment. Would it apply to a room rented by a boarder in a dwelling occupied by other boarders and/or an owner and family?

While "home" presumably, applies to a second residence such as a vacation house; would it apply to a hotel or motel room? What about a cabin at a campsite; or a tent or sleeping bag at such site? Would it matter if the camp site were on federal, state, or private land?

What about a motor home or similar vehicle used as a temporary or permanent residence?

If an individual has a constitutional right to possess a handgun for self-defense, would any or all of these "residing places" qualify as the equivalent of a "home" under the Heller case?

Should an individual be able to transport a firearm from one "residing place" to another for self-defense? If so, would that ability clash with previously recognized limitations on concealed carry?

The court (and the lead dissent) relied heavily on interpreting historical events and the "originalist" meaning of the Second Amendment. At the time of the drafting and adoption of the Second Amendment, people who traveled usually did so by coach, wagon or horse, and stayed in inns, boarding houses, or open fields. Many times their safety would be more at risk, and their need for self-defense greater, while traveling than when in their homes.

To what extent, if any, should the Supreme Court rely on those contemporaneous realities and experiences in deciding future cases involving self-defense and "in the home"?

It appears that only more litigation will provide answers to these questions.