User:SaltyBoatr/ParkerSandbox

Controversy and commentary
Various experts have expressed opinions of this decision.

Duke Law School Professor Erwin Chemerinsky argued that the District of Columbia's handgun laws could be justified even under an "individual rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment, and that the ruling therefore had "no basis in constitutional law" and that the ruling does not answer the question as to the level of scrutiny to be used in evaluating gun control laws. Chemerinsky argues that the regulation of guns should be treated similar to other regulation of property under modern constitutional law and be allowed so long as it is rationally related to achieving a legitimate government purpose. 

Cato Institute senior fellow Robert Levy, co-counsel to the Parker plaintiffs, agreed with the court's ruling but conceded that his interpretation of the Second Amendment would not preclude all governmental regulation of private ownership of weapons.

Robert Hardaway, professor of law at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, describes in an editorial that the Supreme Court is likely to review this case but a powerful argument can be made that the right of law-abiding citizens to self-protection is a basic human right implied in the Ninth Amendment not the Second Amendment. With the Ninth Amendment providing a much more flexible and reasonable application of the right of self defense.

Chris Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, has indicated support of federal legislation which would repeal the D.C. gun ban and render the Parker case moot, and effectively eliminate the possibility that the case would be heard by the Supreme Court..