110 CHAPTER 4|CIVIL LIBERTIES
In 2008 a landmark ruling recognized for the fi rst time an individual right to
bear arms for self-defense and hunting.^62 The decision struck down the District of
Columbia’s ban on handguns, while noting that state and local governments could
enforce ownership restrictions, such as preventing felons or the mentally impaired
from buying guns. The Court did not apply the Second Amendment to the states in
this decision but did so two years later in striking down a gun control ordinance
in Chicago, while reaffi rming the ownership restrictions noted in the Washington,
D.C., case.^63
Given the strong public support for gun ownership (there are about 200 mil-
lion privately owned guns in the United States) and the Supreme Court’s endorse-
ment of an individual right to bear arms, stronger gun control at the national level
is highly unlikely. However, extensive litigation will be necessary to defi ne the
acceptable boundaries of gun control and to identify which state and local restric-
tions will be allowed to stand.Law, Order, and the Rights of Criminal Defendants
Every advanced democracy protects the rights of people who have been accused of
a crime. In the United States the due process rights of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth,
and Eighth Amendments include the right to a fair trial, the right to consult a law-
yer, freedom from self-incrimination, knowing what crime you are accused of,
the right to confront the accuser in court, and freedom from unreasonable police
searches. Diffi culties in applying these abstract principles to concrete situations
indicate how hard it is to defi ne due process, especially in a way that protects civil
liberties without jeopardizing order.
The diff erence between abstract principles of due process and their specifi c
application also raises diffi cult political questions. Most people endorse the prin-
ciple of “due process of law” and general ideas such as requiring that police legally
obtain any evidence used in court. However, when the Court applies these prin-
ciples to protect the rights of criminal defendants, there is a public outcry that too
many suspects are going free on “legal technicalities” (such as having to inform
a suspect of his or her right to talk to an attorney before being questioned by the
police).The Fourth Amendment: Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
The Fourth Amendment says, “The right of the people to be secure in their per-
sons, houses, papers, and eff ects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated.” Over the years the Court provided strong protections against
searches within a person’s physical space, typically defi ned as his or her home.
With the introduction of new technology—telephones and wiretapping, then more
sophisticated listening and searching devices—the Court had to confront a broaddue process rights The idea that
laws and legal proceedings must
be fair. The Constitution guaran-
tees that the government cannot
take away a person’s “life, liberty,
or property, without due process
of law.” Other specifi c due process
rights are found in the Fourth, Fifth,
Sixth, and Eighth Amendments,
such as protection from self-
incrimination and freedom from
illegal searches.
DESCRIBE THE
PROTECTIONS PROVIDED
FOR PEOPLE ACCUSED
OF A CRIME