- Days left
The Supreme Court's decision today to overturn 69 years of case law on gun issues was not really a surprise, given its down the middle voting record. They went for something kind of middle of the road, weaselly really: they claim that the individual has a right to bear arms, but that it's somehow not an absolute right; the government can put reasonable restrictions on that right.

This ambiguity is inviting a boatload of challenges from anybody facing a gun charge in any jurisdiction across the country. When the Bush administration started throwing around the theory that the Second Amendment gave individuals the right to own any gun they wanted, the New York Times covered how defense lawyers immediately took up the cause, clogging the courts with Second Amendment challenges. Even the most hardened members of groups like Gun Owners of America, which thinks the NRA is weak, may pause before wiping out every weaponry law. Do we want felons owning machine guns? If the court had suddenly decided that the right to bear arms was both individual and absolute, imagine what would happen to our entire justice system?

I'm not going to get into debating the Second Amendment. I could write a book on the subject. And have. I do think the the justices, while giving in to the idea of individual right to gun ownership, also gave into reasonable regulation of guns. The justices write that "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." Then they say that other courts have already decided it's OK to ban carrying guns, bringing guns to school or "laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." While other rights only have small restrictions (you can't cry fire in a crowded theater, etc.), the restrictions they're putting on the right to bear arms are pretty large. Imagine if they thought the same way about religion (The government might say Catholicism was okay, but snake-handling was going too far.) The decision might be the right one for a political compromise and might even reflect the ambivalence we feel as a country, but if you're running a state or local government, you better get ready to spend some money defending your gun laws.

Increase your money and finance knowledge from home

Intro to Retirement

Get started early planning for your long term future.

View Course »

Managing your Portfolio

Keeping your portfolio and financial life fit!

View Course »

TurboTax Articles

What is Form 1095-C: Employer-Provided Health Insurance Offer and Coverage

The Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, requires certain employers to offer health insurance coverage to full-time employees and their dependents. Further, those employers must send an annual statement to all employees eligible for coverage describing the insurance available to them. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) created Form 1095-C to serve as that statement.

What is IRS Form 8379: Injured Spouse Allocation

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has the power to seize income tax refunds when a taxpayer owes certain debts, such as unpaid taxes or overdue child support. Sometimes, a married couple's joint tax refund will be seized because of a debt for which only one spouse is responsible. When that happens, the other spouse is said to be "injured" and can file Form 8379 to get at least some of the refund.

What are 1095 Tax Forms for Health Care?

The Affordable Health Care Act, also known as Obamacare, introduced three new tax forms relevant to individuals, employers and health insurance providers. They are forms 1095-A, 1095-B and 1095-C. These forms help determine if you need to comply with the new shared responsibility payment, the fee you might have to pay if you don't have health insurance. For individuals who bought insurance through the health care marketplace, this information will help to determine whether you are able to receive an additional premium tax credit or have to pay some back.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum