Today the Supreme Court ruled that states can’t impose laws hindering the gun rights:
The Supreme Court held Monday that the Constitution's Second Amendment restrains government's ability to significantly limit "the right to keep and bear arms," advancing a recent trend by the John Roberts-led bench to embrace gun rights.
By a narrow, 5-4 vote, the justices also signaled, however, that some limitations on the right could survive legal challenges.
Writing for the court in a case involving restrictive laws in Chicago and one of its suburbs, Justice Samuel Alito said that the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states."
Now thinking about this, it seems that the law was put in to protect the citizens. So wouldn’t the same now apply to the 4th amendment? What about warrantless wiretapping of phones? The argument Bush and the Republicans used was that it’s legal because they are doing so to “keep the people safe”. Well it seems like a stronger argument could now be made against that, citing this ruling.
Or could it?
Monday's decision did not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws, ordering a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling. But it left little doubt that they would eventually fall.
Still, Alito noted that the declaration that the Second Amendment is fully binding on states and cities "limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values."
That’s some pretty narrow language there. I think if one wanted to apply this to the 4th amendment and the Bush wiretapping, then it could be said that what Alito wrote wouldn’t apply.