DC Circuit strikes down DC gun law

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

[green iguana]

This was a 3 judge appeals court ruling. 3 out of the how ever many judges it is that make up the DC Circuit. If it's appealed and heard 'en banc' that means that all of the judges of the DC Circuit (minus the 3 who's ruling is being appealed) will hear the case.

With just a touch of sarcasm, what this means is that the only 2 members of the DC Circuit who likely believe that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right will have to sit out the appeal...

[syriacus]

If this holds up, I see a crime-surge in Maryland's future.

I can tell you are the kind of person who thinks things through.

[3AngelaD]

"When guns are outlawed, only Carl Rowan (RIP) will have guns."

[ArrogantBustard]

A liberal becomes a conservative, when he gets mugged.

[Alberta's Child]

Giuliani has stated that gun control is a state and local concern.

Giuliani's statements along these lines are nothing more than a pathetic attempt to cover up his track record when he was mayor of New York. Back then, he specifically DID NOT view gun control as a "state and local concern" -- as evidenced by his numerous calls for the Federal government to enact Federal gun control laws similar to New York's (plus his abuse of the Federal court system in filing frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers in other jurisdictions).

[2harddrive]

It is at least the SECOND court to rule that the 2nd Amendment confers an Invividual right. A judge in the Texas area ruled similarly about 3-4 years ago, when his divorcing wife tried to use a pre-emptive antigun restaining order against him.

[Stat-boy]

LOL! Layers of sarcasm--I am lost. I will just get back to reading this opinion.

The opinion is good step, but I am concerned with the "reasonable restrictions" language starting on page 53.

[zendari]

Doesn't seem like this ruling is important enough to merit an en banc ruling.

The DC circuit isn't the 9th. It's fairly conservative, and hopefully we can get 1 more judge on there.

[Atlas Sneezed]

I didn't read the decision but if it ends up being something cannot ban a class of guns but can still ban specific firearms then that doesn't help at all really.

---

The ruling addressed and disposed of the DC position that a pistol ban doesn't ban all arms. The ruling said that if you are banning a type of "arms", it is not acceptable, even if people have other options (like sabers, in the opinion's example.)

Pretty solid.

I'll reread it again to see how an AWB might be treated.

The ruling is quite tolerant of restrictions on concealed carry, on felons, and such, but not on gun types.

[ArrogantBustard]

I can tell you are the kind of person who thinks things through.

Thank you. I'm sure that if you bother to examine the facts of the matter, you'll agree that it's not an unreasonable expectation.

[Dead Corpse]

It re-iterates what so many of us have been saying for so long. Nice to see that our government isn't totally hosed. It restores some faith...

For now...

This will more than likely go en banc and possibly the SCOTUS. It's very well referenced and this particular court is rarely over turned from what I've heard on other boards.

It'll take about a year or so to work things through...

Hhmmm (tinfoil) just in time for the 2008 election silly season(/tinfoil).

[patton]

Sorry if I was condescending...

If DC (Not the FedGov), lets this stand, their gun laws get gutted.

If they appeal En Banc and lose, their gun laws are gutted.

If they appeal to the USSC, and the court refuses it, their gun laws are gutted.

If they go En Banc and win, the claimants appeal to the USSC. At this point, if the USSC refuses, we lose.

If they go to the USSC, and win, we lose.

Or, it goes to the USSC, and we win.

I dunno, but I expect it ain't over.

[antiRepublicrat]

Its more than ground-breaking. Its mean EVERY gun control law that inhibits or prevents people from exercising their right of self-defense is on its face, unconstitutional.

Finally, a slippery slope in the right direction.

[absalom01]

It was the 5th Circuit, and the plaintiff was a medical doctor, not a judge.  USA v. Emerson

[The Raven]

I love it

[griffin]

So, if an amendment to the Constitution, which has been part of the Constitution for a long time by definition, does not apply to the area of DC.....how is it that the Constitution that is supposed to function as the foundation of the government IN DC? (supposedly, I know!)

[antiRepublicrat]

If the Supremes agree that it is an indivicual right, whether or not it is "fundamental" enough to apply against the states.

I always noticed that "shall not be infringed" had no target. It was not "Congress shall not infringe" or "States shall not infringe." It is a blanket statement that no such infringement can occur within the United States of America. Plain text to me says no incorporation is needed, as it always applied.

[absalom01]

Yup.

The stakes just got a lot higher.  I don't know that I like the timing, but it is what it is.

Liberty will either acheive a great victory, or suffer a crushing defeat, in the next 18 months.

[ansel12]

That was a good explanation, it will be interesting to watch for that.

[basil]

This has to be one of the biggest thrills of my long life on this earth! Maybe that's why I was so skeptical at first.

Hallelujah!