Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DC Circuit strikes down DC gun law
How Appealing Blog ^ | 03/08/2007 | Howard Bashman

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


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; banglist; devilhasiceskates; districtofcolumbia; firsttimeruling; flyingpigs; frogshavewings; giuliani; gunlaws; hellfreezesover; individualright; rkba; secondamendment; selfdefense
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 1,221-1,238 next last
To: cryptical

Fantastic!!!!!!


221 posted on 03/09/2007 10:18:22 AM PST by ellery (The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts. - Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnnaZ

Wow. A breath of fresh air after the suffocating Marxist arguments at the bar last night!!!!


222 posted on 03/09/2007 10:18:43 AM PST by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: cryptical

yes, Yes, YES!


223 posted on 03/09/2007 10:19:32 AM PST by Sergio (If a tree fell on a mime in the forest, would he make a sound?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cryptical

It's about time!


224 posted on 03/09/2007 10:20:24 AM PST by Mad_Tom_Rackham (Veritas. Gravitas. Ohmygas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cryptical
I just finished reading the opinion. It is a comprehensive, almost disdainful demolition of the 'collective rights' misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I'll give it a more thorough reading this evening/weekend, but it seems like the opinion those of us who read this stuff have been waiting for.

Some other points about standing and whether DC qualifies as a 'state' are also covered, with a rather tortured dissent that perfunctorily accepts the collective rights argument and spends 12 pages arguing that DC is not a state. The dissenter is a Poppa Bush appointee, by the way.

There is now a clear and growing split regarding the 2nd Amendment among federal appellate courts. Should be interesting to see whether the DC Circuit agrees to an en banc review of the case. The bottom line? Stay tuned, this could get much more interesting going into the 2008 elections...
225 posted on 03/09/2007 10:21:36 AM PST by Give Piece A Chance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cryptical

Even the DU'ers are praising this decision!


226 posted on 03/09/2007 10:22:14 AM PST by jmc813 (Rudy Giuliani as the Republican nominee is like Martin Luther being Pope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cryptical

So now they can start selling beebers in DC?


227 posted on 03/09/2007 10:22:45 AM PST by BulletBobCo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KeyesPlease
This is a great ruling, but I do see an issue - I wish this was a ruling against a state's ban on weapons. Why? Because the 2A has not yet been incorporated as applying to the states as most of the BOR has been. DC is a federal district, not a state. It is already clear the BOR applies against the feds.

Keep in mind that even if the SCOTUS finds that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, that will not automatically nullify all gun control laws.

The 1st amendment protects free speech, but there are limits to that right, including the infamous shouting 'fire' in a crowded building, and banning 'hate speech' (grrrrrr!)

This should allow all gun control laws, such as so-called 'assault weapon bans' to be challenged in court, but each one will have to be individually adjudicated.

228 posted on 03/09/2007 10:23:29 AM PST by Yo-Yo (USAF, TAC, 12th AF, 366 TFW, 366 MG, 366 CRS, Mtn Home AFB, 1978-81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny
Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg are going to be greatly disappointed to hear this."

YOU RUDY HATERS ALWAYS FIND A WAY TO ATTACK HIM NO MATTER WHAT THREAD YOU'RE ON!!!! YOU'RE JUST A BUNCH OF RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS!!!!!!! POLITICS OF PERSONAL DESTRUCTION!!! POLITICS OF PERSONAL DESTRUCTION!!!

I don't hate Rudy. This decision is lies in 180% opposition to Rudy's position on gun control. Rudy has stated withing the last few weeks that local regulation like that overturned here is not only permissable, but advisable.

229 posted on 03/09/2007 10:23:50 AM PST by SJackson (Muslim women...no lesser role than men in war of liberation...they manufacture men, Hamas Charter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: MrB
The left twist themselves every-time facts proves them wrong. By their logic no problem would ever be solved and and the conditions of life always would get worse.
230 posted on 03/09/2007 10:24:17 AM PST by oyez ( In politics, perception is reality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: green iguana; CharlesWayneCT; Congressman Billybob
Never pictured you as one of the "it's inevitable so lay down and enjoy it" types.

Is congressman billybob actually Clayton Williams in disguise???? =?

231 posted on 03/09/2007 10:25:00 AM PST by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
Never pictured you as one of the "it's inevitable so lay down and enjoy it" types.

Hey, Doof! Reading comprehension is something you never mastered, huh?

CBB is saying that now the SCOTUS will have to take a case deciding once and for all that the right to "Keep and Bear Arms" is either an individual right or it is not.

CBB has argued many cases before the Supremes. You?

232 posted on 03/09/2007 10:26:01 AM PST by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: cryptical
The current position of the Justice Department is that the 2nd amendment is a personal right as well.

This case will likely work it's way to the Supreme Court, and the Justice Department may well weigh in on the issue.

But likely not within 2 years. A new administration can take a radically different position. Rudy is the wrong candidate on this issue. Should he gain the nomination, a President Rudy would likely be more amenable than a President Hillary to maintain the status quo.

233 posted on 03/09/2007 10:26:30 AM PST by SJackson (Muslim women...no lesser role than men in war of liberation...they manufacture men, Hamas Charter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cryptical

234 posted on 03/09/2007 10:26:57 AM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #235 Removed by Moderator

To: Give Piece A Chance

You'll like what Volokh has to say:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_03_04-2007_03_10.shtml#1173462824


236 posted on 03/09/2007 10:28:01 AM PST by Uncledave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: cryptical

BUMP


237 posted on 03/09/2007 10:28:47 AM PST by Finalapproach29er (Dems will impeach Bush if given a chance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Condor51
The drunken and drugged up Kennedy Klan can now pack heat while in D.C.

Well, then so can the rest of us. I'll name my piece the Enraged Drunken/Drugged Northeast Liberal Tamer

More of us, thank God, than them!

238 posted on 03/09/2007 10:28:47 AM PST by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: All

How is this ruling going to effect any process on HR1022 and other federal level legislation? That's what I want to know.

I didn't read the decision but if it ends up being something cannot ban a class of guns but can still ban specific firearms then that doesn't help at all really. Legislation will just come out naming each individual firearm to be banned.


239 posted on 03/09/2007 10:30:05 AM PST by Domandred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Domandred
pg 46

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.

240 posted on 03/09/2007 10:33:52 AM PST by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 1,221-1,238 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson