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
individual right = if a group of such
That is gibberish.
Well, when one speaks of individual vs. collective, it's usually meant to mean individual right vs. only collective right.
I think it's best to say that it's an individual right that can also be practiced as a group (like in case of a militia).
AH! Such things as dreams are made of...
It needs a FFL dealer named Brady to open Brady Guns
Is it?
You believe in the individual right to bear arms, so do I.
Suppose someone decided that you and I combined are a "hate group" or a "danger to democracy" that needs "regulating" ?
Two good things in one day! Our part of the globe warmed up a little, and now this! Great news!!
2nd Amendment bump....
But that wasn't enough. They were still concerned. States refused to ratify the document. So they wrote a Bill of Rights to further restrict this entity.
Now, you're saying these same guys are then going to give this creation they feared the obligation of protecting their right to keep and bear arms? Are you crazy?
Your individual right to keep and bear arms is defined and protected by your state. The second amendment protects the formation of state militias from federal interference. That's according to the every single federal court in every single federal court opinion (save two).
Sheesh! A individual cannot be a group.
Actually, you said:
ORLY? Not as far as you'd like to believe that they can. I've already shown you former Chief Justice Rehnquist's findings in US vs. Lopez where the court held that while Congress had broad lawmaking authority under the Commerce Clause, it was not unlimited, and did not apply to something as far from commerce as carrying handguns, especially when there was no evidence that carrying them affected the economy on a massive scale.
Just so you know, a USSC justice that will be hearing any appeal to today's DC District Court reversal will be Samuel Alito who dissented in 'US vs. Rybar' that "in that the law under which Rybar had been convicted should be vacated, because Congress, in its lawmaking, had not made sufficient findings regarding the impact on interstate commerce clause to fully justify the court deferring to Congressional judgement that the law was authorized by the Commerce Clause". (Wikipedia -- US vs. Rybar)
Moreover, US vs. Rybar was a case where a man was convicted for possession of two unregistered machine guns. His conviction was upheld, but not by any judges currently sitting on the US Supreme Court like Alito does.
So much for the 'powers of Congress to regulate the interstate commerce of everything', huh? You get out of MY face.
Please refrain from ever using the Commerce Clause in any future FR discussion where the economy of the entire United States wouldn't be affected on a 'massive scale', please.
And my understanding is that you agreed with the 50 states...which would also, by your logic that because the most states say so, it must be true, put you in with the states that agreed with Plessy. Just admit that you are wrong. It isn't that hard.
I had been thinking of the relatively recent boogie man term, "the gun show loophole".
She is a reagan appointee orignally. If I remember correctly, both of those presidents had democratic senate & house. It did constrain them.
Giuliani could welcome the excuse of a democratic congress.
No. 50 federal court decisions that ruled a collective right vs 2 now that ruled an individual right. Maybe it's 45. I didn't do an exact count. Hell, the 9th Circuit has half of them. One day I'll look them up and list them -- who knows? There may be 55. Maybe 30. A lot.
PING PING PING PING!
Fair enough.
It isn't possible for us to be oppressed as a group?
There is no legal prohibition actually on owning an M16 provided one meets the mostly financial requirements of the law which are open to all non-felons.
"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."
Prediction: it won't be to Virginia. That would be very unhealthy.
How about actually addressing the verdict instead of insulting people?
Next time, base your argument on the majority opinion of some case. You'll have more credibility.
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.