Skip to comments.DC Circuit strikes down DC gun law
Posted on 03/09/2007 8:10:02 AM PST by crypticalEdited 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
Announced presidential candidate NM Governor Richardson is pro-gun rights. As governor of NM he has to be pro-gun or face the NM voters with a big strike against him.
The SCOTUS disagrees with you.
Also US v Morrison
You wouldn't know a Constitutional position if it walked up to you, introduced itself, and smacked your dumb behind silly.
"Second Amendment's protections...do not extend to the District of Columbia because it is not a state."
By her logic then the Amendment (I forget the number) that provides for an income tax should also not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a State. Oh joy, oh joy, DC residents should demand to get all the federal taxes they have paid over the years returned. Now they no longer have to be one of the highest taxed jurisdictions in the country!!!
"This isn't scrappleface is it??"
No, it is not. The metropolitan DC TV new has been reporting it all day. Not in the Washington Post for Friday. Will look on Saturday.
You, sir, appear to be nothing more than a troll. I thought it an extreme assessment when others were saying it earlier, but now I see that they're right. It's my fault for falling for your bait once again, but that's the end of that. Have fun doing what you do.
No quote, naturally.
The Act exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause authority. First, although this Court has upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity that substantially affected interstate commerce, the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
Nope. The 2nd Amendment was a declaratory restriction on federal powers, the 16th Amendment extended federal powers.
But I figured if I just gave our Statist friend RP a link it would occupy him elsewhere for a while.
Glad you enjoyed being refuted.
Just zip back up the thread and find it. Feel free to move your lips if you like.
He said that Congress can regulate 'anything' in the name of Interstate Commerce.
Next time try actually reading what was said in the thread. It may help prevent you from looking the fool. Nothing could prevent that entirely of course, but help it may.
He said that the government can regulate the interstate commerce. The court said that the possession of a gun in a local school zone was NOT an economic activity and did NOT have substantial effect on interstate commerce.
I read through your misrepresentation a mile away.
Well, what would really be helpful about her opinion would be that nobody in DC, including the media and the politicians, have a First Amendment right. :)
But seriously, I wonder if it occurred to her that, since there is a Circuit Court of Appeal in and for D.C.. and its purpose is in large part to decide constitutional issues for D.C., that maybe, just maybe, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights apply to the people within the jurisdiction of her court. If not, there would be no need for her court, now would there? That aspect of her opinion is actually comical.
For those who prefer html to pdf, see Parker v. D.C.
Freepmail me with errors if you'd like. I'll be doing more cleanup on it tomorrow.
English is obviously not your strong suit. Do take your time with this.
My position is the constitutional position -- the government can regulate the interstate commerce of everything.
552 posted on 03/09/2007 4:37:27 PM CST by robertpaulsen
SCOTUS disagreed. From US v Morrison: "The Court explained that the need to distinguish between economic activities that directly and those that indirectly affect interstate commerce was due to "the concern that we expressed in Lopez that Congress might use the Commerce Clause to completely obliterate the Constitutions distinction between national and local authority."
Congress can not regulate the interstate commerce of 'everything'. They, and apparently you, like to think they can. But the Court said it must directly (it's a small word so you shouldn't have much trouble looking it up) affect interstate commerce.
Now off with you or I shall taunt you again.
P.S. Your father smelled of elderberries.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
...and how said it is that we are so excited to hear the same "news" that our forefathers recited to us over two-hundred years ago.
...the government can regulate the interstate commerce of everything...The court said that the possession of a gun in a local school zone was NOT an economic activity and did NOT have substantial effect on interstate commerce. The possession of the firearm was NOT deemed to be interstate commerce.
And one might wonder what she and her brethren are doing there in the first place if the constitution doesn't apply to D.C., lol!
It didn't take them long to comment on the Libby decision.