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
Guys, might I make a humble request? This should be a celebration thread. Can we PLEASE not turn it into a Rudy thread? Please?
Hear, hear!
LOL... Nice summation. I'm used to getting abuse and nonsense from Bobby.
Isn't en banc review discretionary?
If they affirmed the *individual* right to keep and bear arms, how will this impact:
1.) Restrictions on the number of purchases that can be made in a certain time period.
2.) Restriction on which citizens may or may not keep arms
3.) Restriction on which types of firearms may be owned.
4.) Rrstrictions on how/when purchases may be made.
Any of these restrictions can be viewed as "infringement" and I am interested to see how this ruling will impact. With the constructionist Supreme Court that we now have in place, i hope that this is heard and affirmed. And then I want to see them review the 100 years of unconstituitional gun laws that are currently on the books through this new lens.
I hope you're right. I can't think of exactly why, but there have been a few times over the last year or so when I've found myself thinking that Scalia's been getting a little flaky. I'm probably wrong though.
A nice ol' gun law enema. I like it.
Don't happen to know where I could find a quad-40 and some ammo, do you? The ducks get bigger & fly higher, every year. ;)
Correct. That's what they said.
"It protects their RKBA no matter where in the US they are, even the District of Columbia."
Correct.
No Federal, or mere State law, may infringe on this Right as per the Constitution."
Oops. Where did they say that? They said the District of Columbia's law infringed on an individual right, yes. They said the second amendment applied to the District of Columbia, yes.
But that's about it. I didn't see anything about state laws in there. Point that out for me.
Just want to throw in here that DU's messaging system is garbage. I've been monitoring this story over there (most of them are actually right on this), and it is impossible to keep up when you hit refresh. New posts pop up all over the thread. It's retarded.
Out of courtesey, you really ought to ping him when you berate hime. Only polite.
Up to you, though.
Appeals Court Says Gun Ban Violates 2nd Amendment
By ADAM LIPTAK March 9, 2007
A federal appeals court in Washington today struck down on Second Amendment grounds a gun control law in the District of Columbia that bars residents from keeping handguns in their homes.
BTTT
Yep. I've been corrected on that one. Thanks though...
Are there individuals in other States? Then it applies dumbass...
I know. If I had any respect left for this particularly noxious anti-gun troll I would.
LOL.
He is not anti-gun, he is pro-government control, from what I have read.
The government can regulate everything, etc.
Including guns.
Robert, have I stated your position correctly?
Excellent!!
Thanks for the ping!
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.