Skip to comments.Court Rejects Strict Gun Law as Unconstitutional
Posted on 03/10/2007 12:31:16 AM PST by JohnHuang2
Interpreting the Second Amendment broadly, a federal appeals court in Washington yesterday struck down a gun control law in the District of Columbia that bars residents from keeping handguns in their homes.
The decision was the first from a federal appeals court to hold a gun control law unconstitutional on the ground that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals, as opposed to the collective rights of state militias. Nine other federal appeals courts around the nation have rejected that interpretation.
Linda Singer, the Districts acting attorney general, said the decision was a huge setback.
Weve been making progress on bringing down crime and gun violence, Ms. Singer said, and this sends us in a different direction.
By contrast, advocates of gun rights praised the decision, by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, saying it raised the prospect of a national re-evaluation of the meaning of the Second Amendment and the rights of gun owners. They said the District of Columbia would have to begin procedures to allow handgun possession in private homes unless yesterdays decision was stayed.
Lawyers on both sides of the case said it had created a conflict among the federal courts of appeal on a significant constitutional issue, making review by the Supreme Court likely. The Supreme Court last considered the issue in 1939, and there are only scattered hints about how the current justices might rule.
The majority in yesterdays decision pointed to a 1998 dissent in which at least three current members (and one former member) of the Supreme Court have read bear arms in the Second Amendment to have meaning beyond mere soldiering. They were former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who died in 2005, and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia and David H. Souter.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Kool Aid anyone?
Doesn't NYC have a similar gun ban in place regarding keeping handguns in your home?
Is this true? It seems to me that the NY Times is up to its usual tricks of distorting facts to make a point.
Do we have any attorneys who can put this in context? Billybob are you there?
No.A license is required to possess a handgun for any purpose. The Commissioner of the New York City Police Department is the issuing authority for handgun licenses. Unless indicated otherwise, such licenses and permits shall expire on the first day of the second January after the date of issuance. Every license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver in the city may be issued for a term of no less than one year or more than three years. There are different handgun licenses with different privileges granted under each. A license for a handgun shall be issued as a: possession license for in a dwelling by a householder or in a place of business by a merchant or storekeeper; have and carry concealed for employment purposes; have and carry concealed, without regard to employment or place of possession; have, possess, collect and carry antique pistols.
They used to have a HTML link. Now it's a pdf link.