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
Heh. Gotta love it when the Admin Moderator edits your post by ADDING EMPHASIS!
This decision is big.
It's about time that the myth that the militia are the only ones the 2nd Amendment applies to, is dispelled.
It also kills the myth about it being a state Right only ~ the people are all of the people.
--------------
We note that the Ninth Circuit has recently dealt with a Second Amendment claim by first extensively analyzing that provision, determining that it does not provide an individual right, and then, and only then, concluding that the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge a California statute restricting the possession, use, and transfer of assault weapons. See Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052, 1066-67 & n.18 (9th Cir. 2003). We think such an approach is doctrinally quite unsound. The Supreme Court has made clear that when considering whether a plaintiff has Article III standing, a federal court must assume arguendo the merits of his or her legal claim.
-------------------------
The District’s argument, on the other hand, asks us to read “the people” to mean some subset of individuals such as “the organized militia” or “the people who are engaged in militia service,” or perhaps not any individuals at all—e.g., “the states.” See Emerson, 270 F.3d at 227. These strained interpretations of “the people” simply cannot be squared with the uniform construction of our other Bill of Rights provisions. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recently endorsed a uniform reading of “the people” across the Bill of Rights. In United States v. Verdugo- Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990), the Court looked specifically at the Constitution and Bill of Rights’ use of “people” in the course of holding that the Fourth Amendment did not protect the rights of non-citizens on foreign soil:
“[T]he people” seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by “the People of the United States.” The Second Amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to “the people.” See also U.S. CONST., amdt. 1; Art. I, § 2, cl. 1. While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that “the people” protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. Id. at 265. It seems unlikely that the Supreme Court would have lumped these provisions together without comment if it were of the view that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right. The Court’s discussion certainly indicates—if it does not definitively determine—that we should not regard “the people” in the Second Amendment as somehow restricted to a small subset of “the people” meriting protection under the other Amendments’ use of that same term.
so now the majority opinion is an assertion of dicta but her MINORITY opinion which is all dicta is valid because .....?
Ping
Sounds like a court ruling went our way!
two Federal judges have negated the democratically-expressed will of the people of the District of Columbia
How about the will of those killed who didn't have a pistol, sister? And how does some episode of a nutcase shooting Reagan give you the right to keep other people from protecting themselves?? Crawl back to your gated community, the rest of us need to be armed and ready. And there is plenty of events noted on FR to show how some unsuspecting business owner or homeowner was able to protect themselves. Go live with the amish. Not that there is anything wrong with them.
sounds like Jesse Jagmo with a brain transplant.
Not yet. This ruling only applies to the District of Columbia. The D.C. Court of Appeals is the equivalent of a state supreme court.
Praise the Lord. Amen.
Wow! TWO DC Circuit judges GET IT!
Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented . . . because the Second Amendment's protections . . . do not extend to the District of Columbia, because it is not a State.
Then certainly she won't mind if the other 2 judges stuff a gag in her mouth and tie up her hands so she can't speak, write, or type, and delete the text of her idiotic dissent from the legal record. After all, since this is occurring in DC, she wouldn't be able to claim an infringement of her First Amendment rights, since she doesn't think the Bill of Rights applies to DC.
That's what I was afraid of. :-) Off to look now.
It's definitely a step in the right direction. But it's only one battle in a larger war. It could be that "tipping point" though.
I'm as cautiously optimistic as I am elated.
"Henderson - Bush 41"
I'm shocked, well he quit the NRA so what do you expect.
Hardly, but the gun-grabbers have managed to brainwash a lot of 2A defenders into believing there have been no cases upholding the individual right. I would strongly suggest that you READ the Supreme Court's U.S. v. Miller decision, focusing on what the actual holding was, and read up on the circumstances surrounding the fact that its remand to the lower court was never carried out. Gun-grabbers are fond of citing this case as supporting their claims, but in fact it does just the opposite.
Post 34
"RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:"
I think you misread this. This incorporated the Bill of Rights into the federal constitution, BUT, did not incorporate the BOR's into state law or prempt state constitutions on the issue...the intent of the 14th amendment was to do that.
No, but it's sure hard to believe it's not, when you read preposterous claims from a federal circuit court judge like "the Second Amendment doesn't apply to DC because it's not a state".
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.