I'm not sure what you mean by Individual Mandate with respect to gun ownership. You mean the second amendment right to own a firearm? The Individual Mandate typically refers to the section of the Affordable Care Act which compels health insurance coverage under a tax penalty. Not quite. You can't own a sawed off shotgun per the Supreme Court. But nonetheless, you're right that personal firearm ownership is a broad right. I'm with Sam Harris on the subject of gun ownership. It should be incredibly difficult to get a gun license. Think pilot license-level of training, scrutiny, and regulation. But it's such an intractable mess of history and politics right now that I'm not to hopeful for any imminent resolution, even in the next generation. I just want to hear an honest gun advocate come out and say it: mass shootings are the social cost of the ease with which people can buy and own firearms in this country. I resent that that cost is hoisted upon us, but it's not up to me.The Supreme Court has ruled that an individual has the right to own any gun without restriction.
He means McDonald v. Chicago. Basically, if the Feds say you can own a gun, your city can't stop you from owning a gun. Goobster's discussion is much more about the mechanics of minimizing gun violence. The relevant law, since John Roberts took over, has been that city and state bans can be superseded by federal permission. However, they didn't declare The Purge and drop the mic. Scalia: So. California's gun restrictions still stand. Massachusetts gun restrictions still stand. Pretty sure NY's restrictions still stand. What you or Sam Harris want isn't really the issue here - it's what can be made to happen. McDonald v. Chicago wasn't nearly as sweeping as it could have been. It's been seven years and you're not entirely aware of it. I'm no legal scholar but Scalia's opinion, to me, says "this is not an originalist end-run around gun laws and what's in the constitution is not clear enough to be considered a complete mandate. Fucking legislate, people."The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
I probably shouldn't have capitalized it, but in colloquial terms around the 2nd Amendment, the "individual mandate" is the Supreme Court's support for the idea that the individual's right to bear arms - regardless of their participation in or with a militia - cannot be infringed. This is commonly known as the "individual mandate", in 2A circles. McDonald v. Chicago establishes the right to self-defense with a gun, and builds upon District of Columbia v. Heller, which establishes the constitutional right of an individual to own a gun, outside of their participation with a militia.