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
If the murder rate declines as a result the libs will be in deep doo doo.
Great news...and have a look at this from an AP story from few months ago. Maybe Silberman's a Freeper.
Thursday, Dec. 7, 2006 9:08 p.m. EST
Scope of 2nd Amendment Questioned
In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals.
The city defended as constitutional its long-standing ban on handguns, a law that some gun opponents have advocated elsewhere. Civil liberties groups and pro-gun organizations say the ban in unconstitutional.
At issue in the case before a federal appeals court is whether the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" applies to all people or only to "a well regulated militia." The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue.
If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in nearly 70 years to address the amendment's scope. The court disappointed gun owner groups in 2003 when it refused to take up a challenge to California's ban on assault weapons.
In the Washington, D.C., case, a lower-court judge told six city residents in 2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who want guns for protection.
Courts have upheld bans on automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns but this case is unusual because it involves a prohibition on all pistols. Voters passed a similar ban in San Francisco last year but a judge ruled it violated state law. The Washington case is not clouded by state law and hinges directly on the Constitution.
"We interpret the Second Amendment in military terms," said Todd Kim, the District's solicitor general, who told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the city would also have had the authority to ban all weapons.
"Show me anybody in the 19th century who interprets the Second Amendment the way you do," Judge Laurence Silberman said. "It doesn't appear until much later, the middle of the 20th century."
Of the three judges, Silberman was the most critical of Kim's argument and noted that, despite the law, handguns were common in the District.
Silberman and Judge Thomas B. Griffith seemed to wrestle, however, with the meaning of the amendment's language about militias. If a well-regulated militia is no longer needed, they asked, is the right to bear arms still necessary?
"That's quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no longer necessary," Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs, replied. "If we decide that it's no longer necessary, can we erase any part of the Constitution?"
By that reasoning, none of the other Constitutional protections apply to the residents of DC. You know, things such as Due Process, Free Speech, and all that stuff.
To the Judge: The Constitution applies to the federal government first, and the states only through incorporation. The District of Columbia is technically not part of any state, but rather a creature of federal law. Ergo, the Second Amendment applies to DC even more clearly than to the States.
Simply unbelievable that a federal judge would think the the Constitution and Amendments thereto do not completely and fully apply to DC. Simply unbelievable!
And if you feed more crooks into the pump ...
then...
uhhhhh...
Metro will jabber about how much ridership is up, and how that means they need more funding. Or some such rot.
Hey! Maybe I don't have to stay in the Virginia 'burbs afterall...
Facts and Court Ruling that disagree with libs are meaningless.
It is only feel good emotions that count.
This the best news I have heard come of out of a court room in years.
Me too...I never miss Mario Batali & his merry cross-dressers and soooooo obviously lefty gang of 3.
Still I like his food...except the bacala....and pig innerds.
Wrong. That was made from whole cloth by a judge. It is no part of Constitutional law. In fact, it creates new law, something the judiciary has no power to do.
Here's the operative part of the original legislation:
The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution as Ratified by the States
December 15, 1791
Preamble
Congress OF THE United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
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.:
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
This clearly is all the "incorporation" the Amendments need to be part of the "Supreme Law of the Land", the "laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding", and "the Judges of every State shall be bound thereby".
King Richard Daley is deeply saddened!
"I don't think this ruling extends a right to fire-up neighbor kids skinny dipping in your pool. ;~))"
Your description of the incident is incorrect.
He fired at the kid after the kid broke the window on the patio door and was standing in his den.
Having said that, I think he should live by his own rules and turned himself in for a jail term.
This is really, really, really big.
In a related story, pigs were seen flying over the skies of American cities today, and Hell reported snowballs freezing on the ground there!
Now if only the 9th Circuit and the Mass. "Supreme" Court could learn some lessons from the DC court...!
I doubt they take the case.
(check out some of the "KEYWORDS" at the beginning of the thread)
Good, but liberals will do everything that they can to subvert our rights.
Unfortunately, I do believe he signed the lousy assault weapon ban.
I'm skeptical, but I've heard rumors and whisperings about it.
If it's true, and if it holds, then this is a huge victory for second amendment and defensive carry rights everywhere.
Plus it will help the tourist industry in DC tremendously.
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.