DC Circuit strikes down DC gun law

How Appealing Blog ^ | 03/08/2007 | Howard Bashman

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

"[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."

Oooo-rah.

That kind of talk from a judge gets me all...tingly. Good for them. There may be hope yet.

"[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."

[Rodney King]

because the Second Amendment's protections, whatever they entail, do not extend to the District of Columbia, because it is not a State.

Yeah right. I bet she'd rule that the don't have first amendment rights either?

[ctdonath2]

If it doesn't stand up on appeal, things will get ... interesting.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Then why does a person need a conceal carry permit to be able to carry a weapon concealed?

---

The decision cites precedent finding that this is permissible. You can still "keep and bear" under a concealed prohibition (they say.)

[SmithL]

Let's pretend that I'm starting to understand this stuff.

Until SCOTUS actually takes up these cases, this ruling only applies to the DC area. And the Texas ruling would only apply in that Circuit area. And those of us in California are still stuck with the 9th Circus ruling.

Did I get it right?

[ctdonath2]

Instantly effective. However, where effective is the next question.

[Condor51]

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

Awwww, that's mean spirited. I'm sure they follow 'most' laws.

Oops, on second thought better make that 'some' :-)

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

A question that needs to be asked and answered is, by the terms of the Second Amendment an individual has the right to bear arms. Then why does a person need a conceal carry permit to be able to carry a weapon concealed?

The same reason Rosy O Donnel needs a permit to open up her gob and say stupid stuff. Oh wait she doesn't need a permit... hmmm ;-)

[Christian4Bush]

Hubba Hubba!

[ctdonath2]

They can't spike it. People legally openly carrying on the streets of DC WILL make news.

And spin machines that big take a while to start up.

[piytar]

A question that needs to be asked and answered is, by the terms of the Second Amendment an individual has the right to bear arms. Then why does a person need a conceal carry permit to be able to carry a weapon concealed?

That's actually a real debate in the pro-permit community. We wondered if by advocating passage of shall-issue permit laws, we were tacitly acknowledging that other infringements of the 2nd Amendment were OK (i.e., a permit was Constitutionally needed to carry). Most came down on the side that under existing conditions, asserting the Constitutional right in the face of infringing laws would be expensive and risky (given the courts), so getting shall-issue laws passed was a good thing, but we'd keep up with the fight on the Constitutional side as well.

[bnelson44]

D.C. CIRCUIT STRIKES DOWN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GUN CONTROL LAW as a violation of the Second Amendment, adopts individual rights view. Howard Bashman has more, and the opinion is here. This is a very important development.

Some additional background on the Second Amendment can be found here, here and here.

UPDATE: Okay, I've given the majority opinion a very quick read. It's very much in line with the so-called "Standard Model" of individual rights scholarship, and also makes much of the Tennessee cases that I discuss here and that the Supreme Court noted in Miller. Seems like a very strong opinion; the dissent, on the other hand, looks a bit odd. I'm going to have to think about it a bit more to decide if it's really as flimsy as it seems.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Eugene Volokh notes the decision, and has some further thoughts about timing and the 2008 elections.

Perhaps the Democrats would be wise to take the issue off the table politically by passing some sort of federal legislation guaranteeing American citizens the right to own guns.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Tim Lynch at Cato weighs in.

posted at 10:28 AM by Glenn Reynolds

 

[jmc813]

I am sitting here wondering why this is not being reported on any news channel...even FNC has no coverage...unless I've overlooked it.

Drudge is breaking it. The MSM will soon have to cover this.

[ArrogantBustard]

Good points ... so we're back to exploding heads at WaPo.

[magslinger]

Yeah, like..uh...Well yeah, there's gotta be a couple.

[ctdonath2]

There is a pervasive historical acceptance of the notion of forbidding or licensing concealed carry - on the grounds that anyone not carrying openly must be up to no good (ergo, there is pervasive historical acceptance of the notion that open carry is hunky-dory).

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

I hope this stands.

Sadly, it probably won't for long.
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals is likely the next step. They may overturn this.
But hope remains. Since the DC District Court cited US Supreme Court precedent...this may yet stand if it goes that far. And I think it will.
The only problem will be if it gets to the USSC after the 2008 elections. The makeup of the Court will be changing. I fear for the worse.

[ctdonath2]

Drudge isn't just breaking it, he's hosting the ruling!

[TC Rider]

And repeal women's suffrage, much to the dissenting justice's chagrin...

Who was appointed by Daddy Bush. Another disappointment.

[nina0113]

They haven't gotten to the "carry" part yet - people who live in the District aren't even allowed to OWN a gun.