D.C.'s Handgun Ban Under Attack

Associated Press ^ | July 21, 2003

[new cruelty]

WASHINGTON -- Different legal avenues are being taken by two pro-gun groups working to repeal D.C.'s 27-year-old ban on handguns.

A case pending in federal court by the Cato Institute says the ban violates the Second Amendment.

The National Rifle Association has a separate suit in another federal court, which also cites the Second Amendment argument and it also claims the ban violates due process and equal protection.

Then last week, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch introduced legislation to repeal the ban.

A spokesman for the gun-control group Violence Policy Center said infighting is unusual for gun-rights advocates.

According to The Washington Post, the Cato Institute is accusing Hatch and the NRA of conspiring to spoil its case.

[King Prout]

ping.

[TheDon]

"D.C.'s Handgun Ban Under Attack"

No bias in the media here! How about, "Fight to Restore DC Civil Rights"?

[Joe Brower]

The CATO institute has an interesting and well considered opinion on this turn of events: Their view is that Hatch is attempting to deliberately derail the efforts of the pro-gun organizations. To wit:

CATO Institute Press Release

July 17, 2003

Media Contact: (202) 789-5200

Cato Experts: NRA, Sen. Hatch Try to Prevent Supreme Court from Hearing 2nd Amendment Case

Hatch's "D.C. Personal Protection Act" would invalidate D.C. residents' lawsuit

WASHINGTON--On Tuesday, July 15, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) introduced a bill aimed at repealing many of the anti-gun laws in the District of Columbia. If signed into law, the bill, known as the D.C. Personal Protection Act, would render invalid a pending Second Amendment lawsuit filed by six Washington, D.C. residents, including an employee of the Cato Institute.

Robert A. Levy, Cato's senior fellow in constitutional studies, Gene Healy, Cato's senior editor, and two other local attorneys filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of the six plaintiffs in February, arguing in their complaint that "the Second Amendment guarantees individuals a fundamental right to possess a functional, personal firearm, such as a handgun ... within the home." The case is Parker v. District of Columbia.

Levy and Healy released a statement Thursday describing the Hatch bill as an attempt to derail Parker:

"Hatch and the National Rifle Association (NRA) have acted to prevent the Supreme Court from deciding whether the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and bear arms," Levy said. "Yes, the rights of D.C. residents can be vindicated by either legislation or litigation. But there's no question that a narrow bill aimed at the D.C. Code would have negligible impact on gun owners' rights when contrasted with an unambiguous pronouncement, applicable across the nation, from the U.S. Supreme Court."

Healy added, "The timing is suspicious, to say the least. Last week, the NRA failed in its attempt to assert control over our litigation when federal district court Judge Emmet Sullivan denied its motion to consolidate its copycat lawsuit with ours. This week, Sen. Hatch introduces a bill that would moot our lawsuit. From the start, the NRA has tried to stop our suit from going forward. This looks to be more of the same."

"All the facts point to an NRA effort to frustrate Parker," noted Levy. "Why was the bill introduced by Hatch rather than some back-bencher? Why not wait for a court decision (the legislative option is always open, even if the court were to go the wrong way on the Second Amendment)? Why did the NRA file its suit at the outset? Why did its suit include extraneous legal claims so the court could avoid the Second Amendment altogether? Why did the NRA move to consolidate its suit with Parker even though Parker is a clean Second Amendment case? Why bring John Ashcroft into the NRA suit, when he's so obviously an improper defendant in a civil case? Essentially, the NRA is saying, 'If we can't control the litigation, there won't be any litigation.'"

The Cato Institute is not itself involved in the litigation, but Cato scholars have argued consistently and vigorously that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of responsible adult citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

***

[Tijeras_Slim]

A spokesman for the gun-control group Violence Policy Center said infighting is unusual for gun-rights advocates.

It's atleast a comfort to know VPC hasn't seen some of the threads here.

[Shooter 2.5]

I think the Cato Institution should realize now isn't the time to introduce a lawsuit to this U.S. Supreme Court. Hatch is not a member of the NRA that I know of. He's a member of the Citizen's Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms[CCRKBA].

I'm starting to think the two gun groups are trying to fight the D.C. without mentioning the Second Amendment so that if we lose, we still have a Second Amendment. If we win, we might be able to sue later and win under Second Amendment principles.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Truthfully, the absolute, very last thing the Rats, and the Republicans for that matter, want is the Supreme Court ruling that the 2A is an individual right and to prohibit law abiding people from owning them is unconstitutional.

[donmeaker]

If the supremes rule that the 2nd amendment isnt, then the revolution can start now.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Hatch should be glad to have the SC decide. If the SC ruled in favor of the anti-gunners, i.e. that the Congress had the power to ban guns, then he could STILL push this law. If they ruled in favor of freedom, the law would not be needed.

But instead he is introducing legislation to undercut the lawsuit.

[Dead Corpse]

"Now isn't the time..."
"Now isn't the time..."
"Now isn't the time..."
"Now isn't the time..."
"Now isn't the time..."
"Now isn't the time..."
"Now isn't the time..."
"Now isn't the time..."
"Now isn't the time..."
"Now isn't the time..."
"Now isn't the time..."
"Now isn't the time..."
"Now isn't the time..."
"Now isn't the time..."
"Now isn't the time..."
"Now isn't the time..."

Do you guys know any other tunes? That one is getting old. Our Rights are non-negotiable. Either you work with us to get them back, or you are working against us getting our Rights restored to full strength.

Which is it?

"Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way...."

[WestPacSailor]

"I'll take Constitutional Rights for $200, Alex" A: "You must surrender your weapons" "You don't need a gun" "The government will protect you" Q: What are three things you hear from Communist, Nazis, and Democrats? They can have my ammo when they pry it from the cold, dead body of the guy that comes to my house to sieze my guns!

[verity]

Block off all the methods of egress from DC and arm everyone. ;<)

[Squantos]

fundamental right to possess a functional, personal firearm, such as a handgun ... within the home ????

Silly baby steps taken to see if socialist adults will allow such. Baby is a 500 pound gorilla that needs to kick in the door and tell our goobermint in every state that no more will they allow revenue based BS cosmetic , RKBA unconstitutional laws to be forced upon them. Polidiots should be concerned about clearing this up before the voters clear them from office.

Stay Safe !!

[Shooter 2.5]

Do a poll with the Justices we have on the Supreme Court and realize the last president that confirmed two justices was clintoon. From my poll, we're going to lose by 5-4.

If we wait a couple of years we can confirm at least one more conservative to the court. When we lose, we won't have a Second Amendment for decades.

[Shooter 2.5]

The Cato Institute is not itself involved in the litigation, but Cato scholars have argued consistently and vigorously that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of responsible adult citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

The Cato Institute isn't involved in the litigation.

The NRA is trying to stop a Second Amendment ruling by this Supreme Court.

Orrin Hatch is a member of the Citizen's Committee and he's trying to stop a Second Amendment ruling by this Supreme Court.

I think everyone should take the hint that we need at least one more conservative on the bench if we're going to win our Second Amendment Rights.

[Chemist_Geek]

A spokesman for the gun-control group Violence Policy Center said infighting is unusual for gun-rights advocates.

It's at least a comfort to know VPC hasn't seen some of the threads here.

And again, I wonder just what it is they are smoking over at VPC...

[Dead Corpse]

When we lose, we won't have a Second Amendment for decades.

We haven't HAD a real, functional, Second Amendment for almost 70 years!

Are you really so deluded that our "compassionate conservative" President will actually be able to GET a REAL conservative on the USSC? Past the democrats in Congress that are RIGHT NOW holding up every single one of his judicial appointments? Even the liberal ones?

Get real. Roll the dice now.

[BlkConserv]

MEGA BLAST BUMP!

[Shooter 2.5]

Read the posts. I don't believe we can get a conservative on the court because for the simple reason no one left.

If we wait until after the next election, we will have more conservatives in government because we are winning. The country is noticing the dems are after their guns and 80 million gun owners have finally waking up to that fact.


What are you going to do if we lose based on what you want right now?

[Dead Corpse]

You really think the liberals won't dig in their heals? Fillibuster? Stage a walk out? Countersuit? ANYTHING to keep Bush from seating a conservative judge? Are you so blind to current events to realize that there will BE no huge change in the balance of power in DC after the next election? With all the current Wars going on (Terror, Drugs, Big Tobacco, Big Fat, ect...), things will remain split. As the current elected figure-head for the GOP, Bush's slipping approval ratings will ensure that enough idiot libs crawl out of their basements to keep things pretty much the way they are. No huge, overwhelming majority that you seem to be waiting for...

What then? Do we WAIT some more? "If at first you don't succeed, try... try again". Couple that one with "You can't win if you don't play." It's a hell of a lot better than sitting around "waiting" for some event that will probably NEVER happen.