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."
Already posted in breaking news.
I have a feeling this will be posted even more than the death of Captain America.
(not that that's a bad thing)
Please find a poll regarding the DC Gun Ban at the below link. This is a Washington, DC media outlet, and it would be great if the response was an overwhelming "yes".
Please vote and cross-post to your other message boards and networks.
More information on today's DC Court ruling will appear in tonight's Grassroots Alert. Stay tuned.
http://www.wtopnews.com/
Well, I admit to be so pumped about the court's ruling I didn't look around. ;>)
You're correct, although it is nice to see every time I hit refresh...
5.56mm
Though that brings up a question (yet another one): are the rights in the Constitution which don't specifically refer to people in the states applicable to territorial born Americans in the American territories/commonwealths?
I'm pumped too.
Guys, this isn't over by any means. One or two circuit court rulings (e.g. the 5th's on Emerson) ain't anywhere near enough. We just can't depend on the court to do its job (however much an individual rights interpretation would seem self evident). The only way to really kill this stuff is to repeal gun laws.
Actually the current state of the court is that the Bill of Rights only partially extends to all Americans. It ain't right, and seems pretty contrary to the 14th Amendment to me, but "partial incorporation" is the way the court operated in this latter day.
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf
Here is the website with the great opinion. Its on its way to SCOTUS where I bet it is affirmed!!!
Doesn't necesarily go to the Supremes. There could be an en banc ruling by the circuit court.
"The People" in the US Constitution means exactly what it says. The "people". It means the same throughout the Constitution. The "Bill of Rights" does not give "the people" rights, it denys the Government the ability to deny "the people" those "rights" given to us by the Creator.
Will be ignored by DC pols.
You are correct, although it's a good start.
5.56mm
NRA statement:
D.C. Circuit Court Hands Down Significant Victory for Individual Second Amendment Rights!
Friday, March 09, 2007
Fairfax, VA- The District of Columbia Circuit Court today affirmed that the Second Amendment of the Constitution protects an inherent, individual right to bear arms. Today’s ruling should have a positive impact on the current D.C. gun ban, the National Rifle Association is fighting to overcome.
The majority opinion of the court states, "[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: The D.C. Circuit Court went further in upholding individual freedoms, rejecting the claim that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District because it is not a State.
The D.C. City Council is expected to appeal the ruling.
"We just can't depend on the court to do its job"
If this gets to the SCOTUS it will be the first time in I think 70 years a case like this has been before the court.
I can definitely think of worse starts... like losing the ruling.
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.