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 can tell you are the kind of person who thinks things through.
"When guns are outlawed, only Carl Rowan (RIP) will have guns."
A liberal becomes a conservative, when he gets mugged.
Giuliani's statements along these lines are nothing more than a pathetic attempt to cover up his track record when he was mayor of New York. Back then, he specifically DID NOT view gun control as a "state and local concern" -- as evidenced by his numerous calls for the Federal government to enact Federal gun control laws similar to New York's (plus his abuse of the Federal court system in filing frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers in other jurisdictions).
It is at least the SECOND court to rule that the 2nd Amendment confers an Invividual right. A judge in the Texas area ruled similarly about 3-4 years ago, when his divorcing wife tried to use a pre-emptive antigun restaining order against him.
LOL! Layers of sarcasm--I am lost. I will just get back to reading this opinion.
The opinion is good step, but I am concerned with the "reasonable restrictions" language starting on page 53.
Doesn't seem like this ruling is important enough to merit an en banc ruling.
The DC circuit isn't the 9th. It's fairly conservative, and hopefully we can get 1 more judge on there.
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.
Thank you. I'm sure that if you bother to examine the facts of the matter, you'll agree that it's not an unreasonable expectation.
For now...
This will more than likely go en banc and possibly the SCOTUS. It's very well referenced and this particular court is rarely over turned from what I've heard on other boards.
It'll take about a year or so to work things through...
Hhmmm (tinfoil) just in time for the 2008 election silly season(/tinfoil).
Sorry if I was condescending...
If DC (Not the FedGov), lets this stand, their gun laws get gutted.
If they appeal En Banc and lose, their gun laws are gutted.
If they appeal to the USSC, and the court refuses it, their gun laws are gutted.
If they go En Banc and win, the claimants appeal to the USSC. At this point, if the USSC refuses, we lose.
If they go to the USSC, and win, we lose.
Or, it goes to the USSC, and we win.
I dunno, but I expect it ain't over.
Finally, a slippery slope in the right direction.
I love it
So, if an amendment to the Constitution, which has been part of the Constitution for a long time by definition, does not apply to the area of DC.....how is it that the Constitution that is supposed to function as the foundation of the government IN DC? (supposedly, I know!)
I always noticed that "shall not be infringed" had no target. It was not "Congress shall not infringe" or "States shall not infringe." It is a blanket statement that no such infringement can occur within the United States of America. Plain text to me says no incorporation is needed, as it always applied.
That was a good explanation, it will be interesting to watch for that.
Hallelujah!
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.