The Pros And Cons Of Judicial Activism

Judicial Activism is a case where the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution in a manner not previously covered either by precedent or by law, thereby changing what was once considered to be legal or illegal, depending on the circumstances of the case. Basically, it is going against the set precedent. This is a view point most often held by reformists, ones that want to change the current standards of society. On the other hand, Judicial Restraint is the antithesis of Judicial Activism, where the Supreme Court follows previous precedents, laws, or interpretations of the constitution, I.E., stare decisis, or let the decision stand in Latin. This means that there are no changes involved here, and all matters in regards to that specific law stay as they are. This viewpoint
believes in the judges limiting their powers, and only using them to “strike down the most unjust of laws”. According to Oyez.org case briefs, the big question of the case of District of Columbia v Heller is “Whether provisions of the D.C.
Code generally barring the registration of handguns, prohibiting carrying a pistol without a license, and requiring all lawful firearms to be kept unloaded and either disassembled or trigger locked violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes.” In a 5v4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Heller, loosening gun control restrictions. This case went against previous cases in regards to the usage and interpretation of the Constitution. According to previous interpretations of the 2nd amendment, in relation to the 1975 Firearm Control Act, the right to bear arms according to the 2nd amendment was mainly reserved for the militia, and did not cover any unusual weaponry, therefore, the general populace was not granted protections according to this law. However, according to this interpretation, an individual is afforded the rights to bear and maintain firearms, mainly within and for the purpose of protecting their
homes. Next, this decision goes against all 3 previously established Washington DC laws/statutes in relation to this case. Before, it was such that 1) handguns were banned after 1976, 2) a ban disallowing the carrying of handguns (created and obtained before 1976) from room to room without a permit, which could not be obtained, and 3) the requirement that rifles and shotguns be unloaded and disassembled or trigger locked while in the house. Going in order, the first restriction was possibly lifted due to the issue that a handgun is actually no less lethal than a shotgun or a rifle, if anything, it is less likely to kill. The second was lifted possibly due to the rashness of that restriction, making it so if one’s home were to be encroached upon by undesired parties, one would lack the means to repel them unless they stepped within a certain room. As for the third law/statute, it was disallowed since if one’s home is invaded, the invader would not necessarily wait for the individual to assemble and load their guns, which of course could take considerable time, leading to the individual and their family being put in unnecessary danger. On the same token though, this can also be classified as Judicial Restraint. While many aspects of the laws were altered, a few core concepts were maintained. One such concept is restricting the flow of firearms to mentally impaired or underage people, as they do not have the mindset and mentality required to allow themselves and those near them to be safe if they have possible access to a gun. Another thing that was not changed was the requirement of an individual to receive a permit in order to have access to these guns, which at the same time, can be used as a background check to prevent those with criminal histories from receiving one.