Gun Rights Aren't for District, Judge Rules

The Washington Post ^ | January 15, 2004 | Carol D. Leonnig

[neverdem]

The constitutional right to bear arms doesn't apply to the District of Columbia's residents, a federal judge ruled yesterday in rejecting the claim of several city residents who contended that a 1976 city law banning the possession of guns left them unfairly vulnerable.

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton said he dismissed the lawsuit, led by taxicab commissioner and activist Sandra Seegars, after determining that the District was a "uniquely designed governmental entity" and that the founders were not considering the city when they wrote the Constitution's Second Amendment allowing state militias to take up arms against the federal government.

Walton found that all but one of the District residents suing the city and the federal government did not have a legitimate reason to file a federal suit about their constitutional rights because they didn't own a gun nor had they tried to register one. For the one resident who did own a shotgun, Gardine Hailes, the judge ruled that a history of court decisions led him to conclude that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the city that is the home of the federal government.

[neverdem]

But Gardiner said that Walton made no mention of an early 1990s decision that defined the constitutional "rights of the people" as those belonging to individuals, not states. He said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit repeatedly has relied on the finding.

Sounds like that bodes well for the appeal.

The 14th Amendment doesn't apply to D.C. I'm sure the right judge could fix that.

[Sir Gawain]

Walton said the Second Amendment does not give individuals the right to carry weapons, but that it conferred that right to state militias as "protectors of the state . . . from the potential of an oppressive" federal government.

Publik skool grad.

[RandomUserName]

"Gun laws help us much more than guns in the hands of citizens in reducing violent deaths."

As can be seen by the amazingly low crime rate in DC, which has the strictest gun control laws in the country. /sarcasm

[TomServo]

Uh - this is a full post from WP...

[aomagrat]

[longtermmemmory]

If Judicial Watch actually sat and just watched judges they would have more cases of judicial incomptance to collapse the whole branch.

When it comes to the second amendment, judges rarely rule according to the law, they rule by the personal desire.

These are the same black robed idiots who want us to trust them with the institution of marriage. (support FMA btw)

There are waaay to many judges who just do not want to accept that the 2nd is about individual rights. (but abortion is about individual rights)

[thinktwice]

"It is a victory for public safety of city residents who don't need any more guns on city streets.

Isn't it against the law to carry a gun on DC city streets?

And now, this person is saying that totally unsafe and honest DC residents (I won't call them citizens because -- according to the judge -- the District isn't really America) can't protect themselves from the criminals carrying all those guns the judge says are there.

[Ladysmith]

But less gun control coincides with less crime. Since 1991, the number of guns in America has risen by about 60 million, the number of Right-to-Carry states has risen from 17 to 37, and the violent crime rate has decreased every year, 35% overall, to a 27-year low (FBI).

From http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1058813/posts.

[punster]

I think you could also make a case under the "equal protection clause".

[vbmoneyspender]

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

[You Dirty Rats]

The 1954 Decision that stated the 14th doesn't apply to the District was a companion decision to Brown v. Board of Education. In that decision, the Court ruled that it was inconceivable that anyone would have intended that the children in the district would have less protection than children living in States. The Court therefore found a 5th Amendment violation for the District. If the Court had not done this, the only place segregation of schools by race would have been legal was the District!!!!!

ISN'T IT JUST SPECIAL and IRONIC that THIS decision was cited by THIS judge to justify giving FEWER rights under the 2nd Amendment to Citizens in the district???

So here the Warren Court, the Original Activist Court, decided the Citizens of the District were protected against segregation, but the same logic was used by another liberal activist judge to conclude the opposite concerning the right to bear arms!!!!

In other words, you are protected by the Bill of Rights in the District only if the particular right in question is one the liberals approve.

Congressman Billybob & XJarhead: I can't remember this companion case to Brown v. Board, and since I'm not a lawyer, I'm relying on memory from a course I took in 1981! Please let me know if this is correct.

I HATE ACTIVIST JUDGES!!!!

[Khepera]

So what they are saying actually is that the constitution and bill of rights don't pertain to Washington DC. I get it now!

[neverdem]

"Uh - this is a full post from WP..."

I've noticed that it takes a little while for AM to moderate. I believe you'll notice I did my part :)

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Those people who live in the D.C. area who understand the meaning of the Second Amendment should arm themselves and march on the courthouse. They should demand that their rights be recognized or that the police come and try to disarm them.

The entire load of gun control malarkey could be ended in one day if there was an organized effort to recover our rights from the tyrants who have stolen them. The Constitution isn't negotiable until we are willing to negotiate from a position of weakness.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Congressman Billybob & XJarhead: I can't remember this companion case to Brown v. Board,

Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954).

[neverdem]

BANG

[Lurking Libertarian]

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton

Read his bio here, to see who appointed him a judge.

[You Dirty Rats]

Thanks! Looking at the decision, my memory is better than I thought!

[Lurking Libertarian]

Link to the full opinion here (pdf).