DC Circuit strikes down DC gun law

How Appealing Blog ^ | 03/08/2007 | Howard Bashman

[P-Marlowe]

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.

Henderson, Karen LeCraft

Born 1944 in Oberlin, OH

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, District of South Carolina
Nominated by Ronald Reagan on June 3, 1986, to a seat vacated by William W. Wilkins, Jr.; Confirmed by the Senate on June 13, 1986, and received commission on June 16, 1986. Service terminated on July 11, 1990, due to appointment to another judicial position.

Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit
Nominated by George H.W. Bush on May 8, 1990, to a seat vacated by Kenneth W. Starr; Confirmed by the Senate on June 28, 1990, and received commission on July 5, 1990.

Education:
Duke University, B.A., 1966

University of North Carolina School of Law, J.D., 1969

Professional Career:
Private practice, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 1969-1970
Assistant state attorney general, South Carolina, 1973-1978
Senior assistant state attorney general, Director Special Litigation Section, South Carolina, 1978-1982
Deputy state attorney general, Director Criminal Division, South Carolina, 1982-1983
Private practice, Charleston and Columbia, South Carolina, 1983-1986


Race or Ethnicity: White

Gender: Female

.

Can we expect any better from Rudy Giuliani???????

[sam_paine]

Well, in any event, long live Clayton Williams!

[zeugma]

Even the DU'ers are praising this decision!

Links?

Yet another reason to post the hell-freezing-over picture. 

[School of Rational Thought]

Thanks. ALL of the judges assigned to that court hear the case and rule on it. Does that include the three who originally ruled. See post 261

[Ken H]

What does "en banc" mean?

It's where people keep their money, but that's not important right now.

:)

[JamesP81]

Then why does a person need a conceal carry permit to be able to carry a weapon concealed?

One thing at a time, good sir, one thing at a time. We're getting there...

[robertpaulsen]

Interesting. On three fronts: A) The second amendment protects an individual right, B) The second amendment applies to the states, and C) The District of Columbia is a state.

Whew! What's next? Machine guns are arms? Licensing anyone is an infringement? Concealed or open carry is protected under "to bear arms"?

That's really about all they left out.

[JamesP81]

I oughta post this to DU and watch the heads explode!

But I suppose that wouldn't be the good Christian thing to do...

[Tulsa Ramjet]

You don't have to join the NRA to be pro-gun.

I just hope the typical b.s. statement doesn't come out of Romney's mouth that: "Well, this should be a state issue," sorta like his abortion stand. Why can't he just say everyone should be able to carry a gun in their car. Come right out and say it. Give the stats between D.C. and Arlington. whatever. Just friggin take a stand and be a pro-active conservative. Because when everyone is packin', they don't come attackin'.

[NewJerseyJoe]

> I suppose that wouldn't be the good Christian thing to do...

Enlightening the ignorant is ALWAYS the good Christian thing to do.

[robertpaulsen]

"There are actually justices who believe this?"

Two, anyways.

[American Quilter]

Fascinating! Thanks for the post.

[VideoPaul]

Interesting. On three fronts: A) The second amendment protects an individual right, B) The second amendment applies to the states, and C) The District of Columbia is a state.
Whew! What's next? Machine guns are arms? Licensing anyone is an infringement? Concealed or open carry is protected under "to bear arms"?

That's really about all they left out.

---

One can only hope that concealed carry gets the same protection! What an awesome development that would be! Just think, any crook, anywhere, at any time, would no tknow ifhis next victim were packing heat! Now THAT'S a deterrent!

--PP

[zeugma]

Sorry if I was condescending...

No biggie. I was unclear in my original post. Your comment was understandable.

You're right about FedGov being in a fairly no-win position, but I have faith that the enrobed ones will find a way to duck the issue (like they always do), and Fedgov sure as hell isn't going to enforce it. 

[jess35]

Even the DU'ers are praising this decision!

There are a surprising number of pro-2nd amendment people over there. They may be celebrating openly now but that's only because the hive hasn't swarmed the threads and beat them into silence/submission. Give it some time......the Brady bunch is mustering their forces. ;)

[Tarpon]

Is there really any difference on how you would behave if you had a full auto assault rifle as opposed to a revolver? The answer is no, that is why regulating guns is a loser from the get go. The obvious corollary, an honest law abiding citizen is a honest law abiding citizen. And Democrats do not trust those people to act responsibly.

[NeoCaveman]

Because when everyone is packin', they don't come attackin'.

Right on!

[NewJerseyJoe]

Look at the tripe coming out from the Brady bunch.........

---

http://bradycampaign.org/media/release.php?release=878

News Release
Statement Of Brady President Paul Helmke On DC Circuit's Ruling Striking Down DC Handgun Law

For Immediate Release:
03-09-2007

Contact Communications:
(202) 289-7319

Washington, D.C. – Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement:

“The 2-1 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia striking down the District of Columbia’s handgun law is judicial activism at its worst. By disregarding nearly seventy years of U.S. Supreme Court precedent, two Federal judges have negated the democratically-expressed will of the people of the District of Columbia and deprived this community of a gun law it enacted thirty years ago and still strongly supports.

“This ruling represents the first time in American history that a Federal appeals court has struck down a gun law on Second Amendment grounds. While acknowledging that ‘reasonable restrictions’ to promote ‘the government’s interest in public safety’ are permitted by the Second Amendment, the two-judge majority substituted its policy preferences for those of the elected representatives of the District of Columbia. ”

[longtermmemmory]

using the judges logic.

Inalienable rights do not exist in Washington DC. Only those confered by her black robed bretheren.

[flashbunny]

Being sarcastic. But with the spinning and complaining of the rudybots on the board it's getting hard to tell the difference between their actual behavior and a sarcastic representation of it.

If there's any doubt about my feelings re: rudy, see my profile page ;)