RESULTS
| Yes |  |
87 % |
| No | |
13 % |
Posted on 03/09/2007 1:04:59 PM PST by RKV
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. At "The Volokh Conspiracy," Eugene Volokh has posts titled "Timetable on Supreme Court Review of the Second Amendment Case, and the Presidential Election"; "D.C. Circuit Accepts Individual Rights View of the Second Amendment"; and "Dictum," while Orin Kerr has a post titled "DC Circuit Strikes Down DC Gun Law Under the 2nd Amendment." And at "The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times," Tony Mauro has a post titled "D.C. Circuit Strikes Down D.C. Gun Control Laws."
No, many federal district courts have done so. One even ruled that the National Firearms Act, as amended by the 1986 Gun Owners Protection Act, is unconstitutional, but not on second amendment grounds. (But their ruling was almost as good, saying that Congress has no power to *ban* anything. They can tax the snot out of it, but they can't ban it, unless, like printing your own money, their is delegated federal power involved.
It may however be the first time a Federal Appeals Court has struck down a gun control law based on second amendment considerations.
there is.
Danged homonyms, my eyes know the difference, but my fingers don't seem to. :)
When you go buy it and pay the required tax and annual fee's.
Not in California you can't.
Duck your head in shame for not understanding Article VI.
Our "supreme Law of the Land" applies everywhere in the USA & its territories, and ~all~ fed/state/local officials are sworn to 'support & defend'.
IE, - no legislators, fed/state/local, -- can ignore our Constitution in the writing or enforcing of law.
| Yes | |
87 % |
| No | |
13 % |
You need to read & understand Article VI.
Our "supreme Law of the Land" applies everywhere in the USA & its territories, and ~all~ fed/state/local officials are sworn to 'support & defend' only constitutional laws.
IE, - legislators, whether fed/state/local, -- must write laws that comply with Constitutional principles.
The Constitution applies to D.C.
That is so far out of line... I'll just say "Oh, OK".
What is 'out of line' in making you aware that you are ignoring the supremacy clause of the Constitution?
Oddly enough, in researching the specifics, I found a reference to where the Surpreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights does apply to D.C. citizens. Can't find any other information on this yet.
You really believe that citizens of the USA could be unprotected by our constitutions BOR's? -- Now that's "far out"..
Maybe when Kalifornia joins the Union.
For those who prefer html to pdf, see Parker v. D.C.
Freepmail me with errors if you'd like. I'll be doing more cleanup on it tomorrow.
Z
I wish we had more courts, including a Supreme Court, that limited congress to it's article 1, section 8 enumerated powers.
Thanks & well done zeugma. -- Bookmarked.
Great decision overall, but the DC court did make some disturbing remarks about gun >>>registration<<< below:
"-- The protections of the Second Amendment are subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment.
See Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989)
("[G]overnment may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech . . . .").
Indeed, the right to keep and bear arms--which we have explained pre-existed, and therefore was preserved by, the Second Amendment--was subject to restrictions at common law. We take these to be the sort of reasonable regulations contemplated by the drafters of the Second Amendment. For instance, it is presumably reasonable "to prohibit the carrying of weapons when under the influence of intoxicating drink, or to a church, polling place, or public assembly, or in a manner calculated to inspire terror . . . ." State v. Kerner , 107 S.E. 222, 225 (N.C. 1921).
And as we have noted, the United States Supreme Court has observed that prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons does not offend the Second Amendment.
Robertson, 165 U.S. at 281-82.
Similarly, the Court also appears to have held that convicted felons may be deprived of their right to keep and bear arms. See Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980) (citing Miller,307 U.S. at 178).
These regulations promote the government's interest in public safety consistent with our common law tradition. Just as importantly, however, they do not impair the core conduct upon which the right was premised.
>>> Reasonable restrictions also might be thought consistent with a "well regulated Militia." The registration of firearms gives the government information as to how many people would be armed for militia service if called up. <<<<
Reasonable firearm proficiency testing would both promote public safety and produce better candidates for military service. Personal characteristics, such as insanity or felonious conduct, that make gun ownership dangerous to society also make someone unsuitable for service in the militia. Cf. D.C. Code § 49-401(excluding "idiots, lunatics, common drunkards, vagabonds, paupers, and persons convicted of any infamous crime" from militia duty).
On the other hand, it does not follow that a person who is unsuitable for militia service has no right to keep and bear arms. A physically disabled person, for instance, might not be able to participate in even the most rudimentary organized militia. But this person would still have the right to keep and bear arms, just as men over the age of forty-five and women would have that right, even though our nation has traditionally excluded them from membership in the militia. As we have explained, the right is broader than its civic purpose. --"
The delegates, who were chosen by the state legisltures exceeded their authority, by a long ways.
Many of them were however good lawyers, especially, including Gouverneur Morris, whose actually wrote much of the language. If they had been drawing up a contract between the states, they would not have said that "We the people" wrote the thing. Yes the states were a party to the agreement, through the state ratifying conventions, elected by the people of the state, not appointed by its government. The Constitution is an agreement between the Peoples of the several states, not between their governments.
Also it was not the state legislatures that ratified the Constitution, but rather state ratifying conventions, elected by the people of the state, not their legislatures.
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.