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
I don't think this ruling extends a right to fire-up neighbor kids skinny dipping in your pool. ;~))
The People's Democratic? Republic? of Washington, D.C. gets a sharp stick in the eye !!! I love it !!!
Ya, they do tend to compromise too much.
They thing with Romney is the fear that he might turn out to be what Rudy! promises to be.
And looking at the Massachusetts record, other than that stupid AWB bill he wasn't all that bad. The following is from a pro-Romney site
Governor Romney Is A Firm Supporter Of Second Amendment Rights. Despite a heavily Democratic anti-gun legislature, Governor Romney has been able to work across the aisle to simplify and clarify gun laws in Massachusetts.
Governor Romney Helped Simplify And Clarify Massachusetts' Gun Laws For Gun Owners:
Governor Romney supported and signed into law legislation that clarified the term "loaded gun" so that hunters wouldn't have to unload their guns every time they crossed a public road in pursuit of game.
In July 2006, Governor Romney signed H. 4552, which makes exemptions for the makers of customized target pistols, who, due to a provision within state law, found it increasingly difficult to do business in Massachusetts.
On the 31st anniversary of the Gun Owner's Action League, Governor Romney declared May 7, 2005 as The Right to Bear Arms Day in Massachusetts.
First story I saw today. Huge news. For those of use who have been arguing all along that ALL of the Bill of Rights refers to individual rights it's a vindication. They must be hanging black crepe in the Brady Bunker.
Still don't see this on the wires/MSM.
OK!
Now, how long before it becomes effective?
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?
Rudi has a published, factual, public record of being "Anti-gun". What do you expect? When a public figure supports a public position contrary to the public interest, you can expect the public to let him know they don't like it. This issue is just beginning, as far as Rudi is concerned. Like the man said, "...you ain't seen nothin yet..."
gotcha. thank you
Good News Ping
bookmarked for historical purposes...
We think the Second Amendment was similarly structured. The prefatory language announcing the desirability of a wellregulated militia—even bearing in mind the breadth of the concept of a militia—is narrower than the guarantee of an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.” The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias. Again, we point out that if the competent drafters of the Second Amendment had meant the right to be limited to the protection of state militias, it is hard to imagine that they would have chosen the language they did. We therefore take it as an expression of the drafters’ view that the people possessed a natural right to keep and bear arms, and that the preservation of the militia was the right’s most salient political benefit—and thus the most appropriate to express in a political document.
W00t!!!
Man, they're quoting the Emerson decision on page 69. What a scathing reversal.
I would like to find and slap the Freepers who said that the Emerson decision was actually bad news for RKBA.
Well it appears that he does hav some positive gun stuff on his side. Unfortunately I understand he signed a MA assault weapons ban. Do you know if this is true?
The instant the gavel came down.
"To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms."
Whoa!!! This is going to put some panties in a wad! I can't wait to see how the lefties, MSM and government gun-grabbers spin this one. Perhaps they'll have the judges picked up for psychiatric evaluation.
(When Rudy here's this he'll need a case of Bromo)
3 judge panel in DC, finds an individual right in the BoR? This is Onion or something, isn't it? Because there's no Christmas in March.
Is there?
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.