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
FedGov is going to be really pissed.
I predict no appeal, and that it will be completely ignored.
I pray that I'm wrong.
YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT????????
Um, this WAS the appeal...next step, en banc hearing, assuming DC appeals the appelate court ruling.
If they don't, DC gun law just went out the window.
Not sure what that means, yet.
This is gigantic if upheld!! We have waited generations for a ruling like this.
Yes, the republican party needs to be more accessible to the moderates. We need to adopt the policies of the democrats in order to beat them! If we don't, hillary will win and so will osama bin laden!!
I say we adopt the DNC platform on everything but the war and raising taxes. But we don't promise to cut taxes, we just promise not to raise them too much. It will be certain victory!
(phew, channeling a RINO suporter is strenuous work!)
Dear Unixfox:
Umm...One of the risks of communicating via blog or forum is that sarcasm is often missed. I think flashbunny was being sarcastic, because he/she seems to be as much as a right wing/second amendment/limited government nut as the rest of us.
bump
Second Amendment bump!
To those who don't think the 2nd Amendment is a big issue in the upcoming election...think again!
This is HUGH!
What does "en banc" mean?
What does "en banc" mean?
Technically it is. At times, I'm not sure.
Great!!
Marion Berry allegedly was beaten up by three punks in front of his own home about a year (two?) ago.
Then she won't mind my post.
Good questions.
Thanks for the highlight.
That's huge.
I should have been more specific. What I meant, was that this will not be appealed to the supreme Court.
See US v. Dalton and US v. Rock Island Armory for two examples where FedGov was slapped down hard on the second amendment and did not appeal so it would not be a nationwide precident. Both cases essentially invalidated the 1934, 1968, and 1986 Gun Control Acts.
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.