Does McDonald Confer a Fundamental Right to Arms?

The opinion by Justice Alito seems to suggest that the right to arms is fundamental, but does that fundamental designation mean that the standard of review in gun rights cases will be strict scrutiny? I put the question to a lawyer, and the response: " Normally, that would (and should) imply strict scrutiny, but actually deciding that will require further decisions by the courts."

I had sought clarification because if in fact the court had conferred fundamental right status on gun rights, that should have been the central theme of many subsequent commentaries, and that has not been the case.

As stated above, strict scrutiny is the standard of review when courts have to address a fundamental right. Under strict scrutiny, the government has to show that a restriction on a fundamental right is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest. From what I have read and heard, that is a very substantial burden for the government, and it mostly loses.

When it comes to guns, I have a feeling that for many judges, the right to arms is dangerous, and therefore, a lower form of strict scrutiny may evolve for gun cases. I think one can find seeds of this danger in the dissents of Breyer and Stevens.

McDonald v. Chicago

Breyer's dissent

Stevens' dissent