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
The court failed to take that last step.
They found that 922(o) replaced the corresponding part of NFA. They did not go so far as to then find 922(o) unconstitutional per lack of nexus.
If a court DOES repeal 922(o) for any reason, the corresponding part of NFA is revived.
Is Ted good on 2nd Amendment issues?
That wasn't the goal of the plaintiffs.
I personally know two people on Capitol Hill who have been subject to home invasions. One scared the burglar off (lost his stereo though), the other was beaten severely and was threatened with death by the two perps (one of my favorite college profs).
I also know one of the plaintiffs in this case. They simply want to be able to protect their domicile and their family from crackheads and tweakers.
As the case only addressed simple unlocked possession in one's home, carry is not addressed. That may require a separate case.
Haven't read the verdict yet. Will have better commentary later.
Rudy would pick the judges. At best Ted Olsen may have some influence over the nominees, but the judges are not picked by advisers, they are picked by the President.
I suspect that every one of Rudy Guiliani's appointments will have the same liberal social views as Rudy Giuliani. If he did nominate anyone closely resembling Antonin Scalia, do you think Rudy would fight to bring his nomination to the floor or would he apply any pressure on the Senators to confirm him or her? Not bloody likely.
Remember David Souter!
Aw c'mon. That was a good zing. Lighten up. It's Friday, it's almost 5, and liberty might just not be dead yet.
Go read the verdict first. You may find it ... challenging.
patton, your situation is rather complex, I don't know what to tell you. did you talk to a lawyer?
this was the correct decision, because of the absolute nature of the DC law. but I don't know that its as far reaching as some are suggesting here. Does this mean the Brady background check law is unconstitutional? does this mean that anything other then totally open CCW laws are unconstitutional? does it provide for the interstate acceptance of carry permits?
I don't post on these 2A threads much - but I've always said, "be careful what you wish for". the current system of state based laws, works pretty well in this country - generally speaking. open up this can of worms amongst the federal judiciary, and who know what the hell they will send the states way as an end result.
not sure, but he's generally regarded as a strong constitutionalist regarding matter of the federal judiciary.
Does this ruling imply that all restrictions previously placed on firearms can be reevaluated with an updated precedent, on the record, confirming firearm ownership as an individual right?
The implications of this can be great and powerful.
John Sununu picked David Souter.
You are correct. Thanks for correcting me.
I misread the article and thought this dcision was handed down by a District court.
So it's off to the Supremes...where this decision will most certainly be upheld.
Freedom bookmark. Good News!!!!
It doesn't appear that they said the second amendment applies to the states. What they DID say was, "In any event, the Supreme Court has unambiguously held that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are in effect in the District."
In other words, the second amendment applies to the District of Columbia. Which was all the court was concerned with.
What's going on? Judges who can actually read the constitution and a history book? What's the world coming to?
Stunned but happy.
From another poster who was wrong.
Yes. Why?
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.
It applies to Individuals. It protects their RKBA no matter where in the US they are, even the District of Columbia. No Federal, or mere State law, may infringe on this Right as per the Constitution.
Keep spinning Bobby. It's what you do worst...
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.