Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DC Circuit strikes down DC gun law
How Appealing Blog ^ | 03/08/2007 | Howard Bashman

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


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; banglist; devilhasiceskates; districtofcolumbia; firsttimeruling; flyingpigs; frogshavewings; giuliani; gunlaws; hellfreezesover; individualright; rkba; secondamendment; selfdefense
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 1,221-1,238 next last
To: coloradan

I have been following this case for a few months.

Here is a link to the law firm representing Parker (with a long list of past documents):

http://www.gurapossessky.com/parker_vs_dc.htm


161 posted on 03/09/2007 9:34:58 AM PST by Stat-boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Condor51
The drunken and drugged up Kennedy Klan can now pack heat while in D.C.

You did't actually believe that any silly laws ever stopped them? Limosine Liberal Elites are above the law, dontchaknow.

162 posted on 03/09/2007 9:34:58 AM PST by magslinger (Ask Dad. He'll know. And on the off chance he doesn't, he'll make up something good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: jmc813; Abram; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Alexander Rubin; Allosaurs_r_us; amchugh; Americanwolf; ...
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
163 posted on 03/09/2007 9:35:01 AM PST by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/Ron_Paul_2008.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Condor51
The drunken and drugged up Kennedy Klan can now pack heat while in D.C.

Kennedy driving still has a deadlier record than Kennedy shooting.

164 posted on 03/09/2007 9:38:25 AM PST by KarlInOhio (Parker v. DC: the best court decision of the year.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: cryptical
Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented is a dumb liberal.
165 posted on 03/09/2007 9:39:14 AM PST by Flightdeck (The Giuliani-Lib: when conservatism is too much work...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg are going to be greatly disappointed to hear this.

Yes, they and all the left as the UNCONSTITUTIONAL Police state of New York says you must bow to several masters to get a gun in NY City. WRONG!!!

I hope it overturns a lot of useless, unconstitutional gun laws.

166 posted on 03/09/2007 9:39:43 AM PST by ICE-FLYER (God bless and keep the United States of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: magslinger

Actually, if congress is in session, they are quite literally above the law.


167 posted on 03/09/2007 9:39:57 AM PST by patton (Sanctimony frequently reaps its own reward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg are going to be greatly disappointed to hear this.

Not necessarily. Giuliani has stated that gun control is a state and local concern. In the decision at issue, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals stated in Footnote 13 that has not decided and has no reason to decide whther the 2nd Amendment protects citizens from state action to restrict or limit firearm protection, and that the SCOTUS has yet to rule whether the 2nd Amendment applies to the states by virtue of the 14th Amendment.

168 posted on 03/09/2007 9:41:13 AM PST by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cryptical
I thought I'd never see the day.

BTW, where's the MSM? Thank God for Free Republic!

169 posted on 03/09/2007 9:41:22 AM PST by Restore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid
You need a couple of thousand so you outnumber the police. If only one person showed up, the police would beat the tar out of him. If one thousand show up, well...now we have a news story and maybe a re-education to the government that the government is Of the People and By the People, not Over the people.
Someone with intestinal fortitude and money needs to openly bring a 'prohibited' weapon into D.C. today with the attitude of 'Go ahead. Charge me'.

170 posted on 03/09/2007 9:41:46 AM PST by Toggameid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

Hugh. And series.


171 posted on 03/09/2007 9:41:55 AM PST by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
The silence of the MSM is deafening.

Dude, the verdict was issued this morning. They are just getting copies of it, and need at least a few minutes to figure out what happened.

172 posted on 03/09/2007 9:42:17 AM PST by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: HangFire; lowbridge; feinswinesuksass; Eaker; mylife; sam_paine
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."

WOW! Love it, love it, love it. ('Bout damn time, too.)

= )

173 posted on 03/09/2007 9:42:38 AM PST by AnnaZ (I keep 2 magnums in my desk.One's a gun and I keep it loaded.Other's a bottle and it keeps me loaded)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

I agree with you that the incorporation doctrine is no part of Constitution and is judge made. You do cite how the Constituion is to be amended, but that does not negate the fact that the Constitution, as originally intended, was to grant specific limited powers to the fed gov while all others belong to the states or people.

Are you arguing that the original intent of the Constitution is to apply against the states too?


174 posted on 03/09/2007 9:42:53 AM PST by KeyesPlease
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny
YOU RUDY HATERS ALWAYS FIND A WAY TO ATTACK HIM NO MATTER WHAT THREAD YOU'RE ON!!!! YOU'RE JUST A BUNCH OF RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS!!!!!!! POLITICS OF PERSONAL DESTRUCTION!!! POLITICS OF PERSONAL DESTRUCTION!!!

Bang! Bang! ;o)

175 posted on 03/09/2007 9:42:54 AM PST by NRA2BFree (Duncan Hunter for President '08 - A genuine "Reagan Republican" for America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
need at least a few minutes to figure out what happened.

And a few more to decide whether to spike it or spin it.

176 posted on 03/09/2007 9:43:04 AM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilisation is aborting, buggering, and contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: domenad

>>Isn't this the first court case stating that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals? This is absolutely landmark, in that case.<<





I think there was a previous circuit court decision.
What amazes me is that they cited the supreme court. You'd think that if there was supreme court precedent this issue would not be subject to lower court debate.


>>"[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."<<

>>To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms<<


177 posted on 03/09/2007 9:44:03 AM PST by gondramB (It wasn't raining when Noah built the ark.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cryptical

Undoubtedly this will be vacated and reheard en banc, where the court will find for the defendants. Still, an interesting verdict.


178 posted on 03/09/2007 9:44:45 AM PST by rightwinggoth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny

Um...he has a very solid record of being dramatically on the wrong side of what is now a very bright line. Being a high-profile candidate with that record, it's fair to ask how he reacts to this ruling. Does not bode well.


179 posted on 03/09/2007 9:45:35 AM PST by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio
*** Kennedy driving still has a deadlier record than Kennedy shooting. ****

Yep true. But now they'll have access to multiple 'Assault Weapons' ;-)

Weaving all over D.C. streets while shooting out street lights - or any republicans they happen see :-)

180 posted on 03/09/2007 9:45:35 AM PST by Condor51 (Rudy makes John Kerry look like a Right Wing 'Gun Nut' Extremist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 1,221-1,238 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson