Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DC Circuit strikes down DC gun law
How Appealing Blog ^ | 03/08/2007 | Howard Bashman

Posted on 03/09/2007 8:10:02 AM PST by cryptical

Edited on 03/09/2007 10:38:14 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]

BREAKING NEWS -- Divided three-judge D.C. Circuit panel holds that the District of Columbia's gun control laws violate individuals' Second Amendment rights: You can access today's lengthy D.C. Circuit ruling at this link.

According to the majority opinion, "[T]he phrase 'the right of the people,' when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual." The majority opinion sums up its holding on this point as follows:

To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.

The majority opinion also rejects the argument that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a State. And the majority opinion concludes, "Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional."

Senior Circuit Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote the majority opinion, in which Circuit Judge Thomas B. Griffith joined. Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented.

Judge Henderson's dissenting opinion makes clear that she would conclude that the Second Amendment does not bestow an individual right based on what she considers to be binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent requiring that result. But her other main point is that the majority's assertion to the contrary constitutes nothing more than dicta because the Second Amendment's protections, whatever they entail, do not extend to the District of Columbia, because it is not a State.

This is a fascinating and groundbreaking ruling that would appear to be a likely candidate for U.S. Supreme Court review if not overturned first by the en banc D.C. Circuit.

Update: "InstaPundit" notes the ruling in this post linking to additional background on the Second Amendment. And at "The Volokh Conspiracy," Eugene Volokh has posts titled "Timetable on Supreme Court Review of the Second Amendment Case, and the Presidential Election" and "D.C. Circuit Accepts Individual Rights View of the Second Amendment," while Orin Kerr has a post titled "DC Circuit Strikes Down DC Gun Law Under the 2nd Amendment."

My coverage of the D.C. Circuit's oral argument appeared here on the afternoon of December 7, 2006. Posted at 10:08 AM by Howard Bashman


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; banglist; devilhasiceskates; districtofcolumbia; firsttimeruling; flyingpigs; frogshavewings; giuliani; gunlaws; hellfreezesover; individualright; rkba; secondamendment; selfdefense
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 1,221-1,238 next last
To: DaveLoneRanger

If the murder rate declines as a result the libs will be in deep doo doo.


141 posted on 03/09/2007 9:22:00 AM PST by appeal2 (R)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower

Great news...and have a look at this from an AP story from few months ago. Maybe Silberman's a Freeper.

Thursday, Dec. 7, 2006 9:08 p.m. EST

Scope of 2nd Amendment Questioned

In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals.

The city defended as constitutional its long-standing ban on handguns, a law that some gun opponents have advocated elsewhere. Civil liberties groups and pro-gun organizations say the ban in unconstitutional.

At issue in the case before a federal appeals court is whether the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" applies to all people or only to "a well regulated militia." The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue.

If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in nearly 70 years to address the amendment's scope. The court disappointed gun owner groups in 2003 when it refused to take up a challenge to California's ban on assault weapons.

In the Washington, D.C., case, a lower-court judge told six city residents in 2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who want guns for protection.

Courts have upheld bans on automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns but this case is unusual because it involves a prohibition on all pistols. Voters passed a similar ban in San Francisco last year but a judge ruled it violated state law. The Washington case is not clouded by state law and hinges directly on the Constitution.

"We interpret the Second Amendment in military terms," said Todd Kim, the District's solicitor general, who told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the city would also have had the authority to ban all weapons.

"Show me anybody in the 19th century who interprets the Second Amendment the way you do," Judge Laurence Silberman said. "It doesn't appear until much later, the middle of the 20th century."

Of the three judges, Silberman was the most critical of Kim's argument and noted that, despite the law, handguns were common in the District.

Silberman and Judge Thomas B. Griffith seemed to wrestle, however, with the meaning of the amendment's language about militias. If a well-regulated militia is no longer needed, they asked, is the right to bear arms still necessary?

"That's quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no longer necessary," Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs, replied. "If we decide that it's no longer necessary, can we erase any part of the Constitution?"


142 posted on 03/09/2007 9:23:37 AM PST by Pharmboy ([She turned me into a] Newt! in '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: cbkaty
"I am sitting here wondering why this is not being reported on any news channel...even FNC has no coverage...unless I've overlooked it"

Fox is too busy reporting about the race between McCain, Giuliani and Romney being only eclipsed by Anna Nichole Smith breaking stories.

What was a really good news channel has declined into tabloid journalism or Neocon rantings of Barnes, Kristol...etc.

...find my self turning off Fox and going to the food channel.
143 posted on 03/09/2007 9:23:50 AM PST by mr_hammer (Pro-life, Pro-gun, Pro-military, Pro-borders, Limited Govn't will win in 08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: cryptical
But her other main point is that the majority's assertion to the contrary constitutes nothing more than dicta because the Second Amendment's protections, whatever they entail, do not extend to the District of Columbia, because it is not a State.

By that reasoning, none of the other Constitutional protections apply to the residents of DC. You know, things such as Due Process, Free Speech, and all that stuff.

To the Judge: The Constitution applies to the federal government first, and the states only through incorporation. The District of Columbia is technically not part of any state, but rather a creature of federal law. Ergo, the Second Amendment applies to DC even more clearly than to the States.

Simply unbelievable that a federal judge would think the the Constitution and Amendments thereto do not completely and fully apply to DC. Simply unbelievable!

144 posted on 03/09/2007 9:25:09 AM PST by piytar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BearCub
Metro is nothing but a "crime pump"

And if you feed more crooks into the pump ...

then...

uhhhhh...

Metro will jabber about how much ridership is up, and how that means they need more funding. Or some such rot.

145 posted on 03/09/2007 9:25:17 AM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilisation is aborting, buggering, and contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: cryptical

Hey! Maybe I don't have to stay in the Virginia 'burbs afterall...


146 posted on 03/09/2007 9:27:01 AM PST by jack_napier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: appeal2
If the murder rate declines as a result the libs will be in deep doo doo.

Facts and Court Ruling that disagree with libs are meaningless.

It is only feel good emotions that count.

This the best news I have heard come of out of a court room in years.

147 posted on 03/09/2007 9:27:05 AM PST by TYVets (God so loved the world he didn't send a committee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: mr_hammer
...find my self turning off Fox and going to the food channel.

Me too...I never miss Mario Batali & his merry cross-dressers and soooooo obviously lefty gang of 3.

Still I like his food...except the bacala....and pig innerds.

148 posted on 03/09/2007 9:28:00 AM PST by cbkaty (I may not always post...but I am always here......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: KeyesPlease
Because the 2A has not yet been incorporated as applying to the states as most of the BOR has been. DC is a federal district, not a state. It is alrady clear the BOR applies against the feds.

Wrong. That was made from whole cloth by a judge. It is no part of Constitutional law. In fact, it creates new law, something the judiciary has no power to do.

Here's the operative part of the original legislation:

The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution as Ratified by the States
December 15, 1791
Preamble

Congress OF THE United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

This clearly is all the "incorporation" the Amendments need to be part of the "Supreme Law of the Land", the "laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding", and "the Judges of every State shall be bound thereby".

149 posted on 03/09/2007 9:28:52 AM PST by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: TYVets

King Richard Daley is deeply saddened!


150 posted on 03/09/2007 9:29:06 AM PST by TYVets (God so loved the world he didn't send a committee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

"I don't think this ruling extends a right to fire-up neighbor kids skinny dipping in your pool. ;~))"

Your description of the incident is incorrect.

He fired at the kid after the kid broke the window on the patio door and was standing in his den.

Having said that, I think he should live by his own rules and turned himself in for a jail term.


151 posted on 03/09/2007 9:29:11 AM PST by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235

This is really, really, really big.


152 posted on 03/09/2007 9:29:11 AM PST by coloradan (Failing to protect the liberties of your enemies establishes precedents that will reach to yourself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cryptical
This came from the DC court?!? Extraordinary, unbelievable, unexpected, fantastical! Somebody pinch me, can this really be true??

In a related story, pigs were seen flying over the skies of American cities today, and Hell reported snowballs freezing on the ground there!

Now if only the 9th Circuit and the Mass. "Supreme" Court could learn some lessons from the DC court...!

153 posted on 03/09/2007 9:30:19 AM PST by NewJerseyJoe (Rat mantra: "Facts are meaningless! You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cryptical; All
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
154 posted on 03/09/2007 9:30:28 AM PST by musicman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KoRn

I doubt they take the case.


155 posted on 03/09/2007 9:31:02 AM PST by zendari
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

Outstanding!

(check out some of the "KEYWORDS" at the beginning of the thread)

156 posted on 03/09/2007 9:31:37 AM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: cryptical

Good, but liberals will do everything that they can to subvert our rights.


157 posted on 03/09/2007 9:32:52 AM PST by Leftism is Mentally Deranged
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
Unfortunately I understand he signed a MA assault weapons ban. Do you know if this is true?

Unfortunately, I do believe he signed the lousy assault weapon ban.

158 posted on 03/09/2007 9:32:54 AM PST by NeoCaveman (Hillary Hugo Chavez wants to "take those profits" away from you, for the common good)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Are they really going to allow defensive carry in DC now?

I'm skeptical, but I've heard rumors and whisperings about it.

If it's true, and if it holds, then this is a huge victory for second amendment and defensive carry rights everywhere.

Plus it will help the tourist industry in DC tremendously.

159 posted on 03/09/2007 9:33:46 AM PST by TYVets (God so loved the world he didn't send a committee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cryptical
YES!
160 posted on 03/09/2007 9:34:54 AM PST by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 1,221-1,238 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson