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
This is damned near earth shattering for a ruling.
IPredictCrimeWillGoDOWN!!!!
Definitely hugh!
I also was HUGELY surprised at the CORRECT interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
Back when yahoo had message boards, you couldn't swing a stick without hitting a dozen stupid assed lefties that clung to the "WELL REGULATED" part of the amendment, applying what THEY thought it meant, instead of what the founders intended.
This is usually the position of most leftist judges as well.
The decision was well written and clearly the result of someone who gets it!
Ping
And Romney and McCain also
Go Judge Silberman, to think we could have had him on SCOTUS instead of Anthony Kennedy.
2nd the KG9 Kid's recommendation. The recognition that the 2A protects an individual right, by a Federal Court, is just huge, on the face of it.
This is the best news I've heard in a while.
"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. "
Does that mean that there is no free speech right, freedom of religion, right to assmeble, etc in DC? Does the Constititution not apply there? hmm...
I notice when you click on the source, instead of the blog's URL, you get a freerepublic url.
Makes me mighty suspicious that maybe we've been had.
Eh... they were WRONG.
"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393
Going out to hunt some of those flying pigs.
Nope, check out Instapundit.
See the second quote/paragraph on my FR profile page, for an explanation of what "well regulated" is about. Great for making Lefties sputter.
Once in a while...reason prevails.
May those unhappy about this choke on their tofu!!!
This puts an even more cheerful face on what was already a good day.
You're absolutely correct. With the citizens now able to be armed in DC, the thugs will now be a-scared, so they'll have to move on to other places.
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.