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
Mmmm...not quite. Don't recall Dalton offhand, but RIA's outcome amounted to: you can't be punished under a law that cannot be obeyed. To wit, RIA was convicted of not registering something, which the court overturned because there was simply no way for RIA to register it. Basically they were convicted under the wrong law (should have been hit with 922(o), not NFA'34 relevant parts of which were rendered moot by the former). The part of NFA'34 which required registering MGs was nullified; the rest of NFA'34 remains intact.
In Emerson, they found that he DID have an individual right - which, under very specific circumstances which he met, could be suspended.
"What does "en banc" mean?"
en banc is a legal term that means the court is sitting together as a whole, i.e. Appeals Courts often (always?), hear cases with only three judges participating --not the full court. When a party requests an en banc review of that judicial panel's decision, they're asking that ALL of the judges assigned to that court hear the case and rule on it.
...hope that helps...
They threw out trigger locks too.
I hope they appeal it...the decision clearly states that the 9th Circuit misdefined militia in recent rulings....I would love to get a lot of junky gun laws thrown out across the country.
Holy crap ping.
Quite, as contrasted with "Congress shall make no law..." which DID get incorporated to the states, despite being directed squarely at Congress alone. Good catch.
Well, here's something you don't see every day.
My bad. I should have noted I was commenting on his column that he links into all of his posts. I just read it, and responded in place without noting it was off-topic.
That's what I was thinking.
If DC isn't covered by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, then they aren't covered by any other Amendments to the US Constitution either.
my bad, my comment was about his column that he linked into his post, not his post. I'm in full agreement on his post, but not on his column. I should have made that clear.
Thanks for the links. Bumping for later reading.
Anyone know who the judges are, and who appointed them?
Ping
gun banner == liberal. Surest way to figure out the mystery.
Judges listed above, but I forget where. LOL.
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.