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
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
I see some things just never change. Why do you bother? He's a total moron.
It will also be interesting to see where the Republican presidential candidtaes come down on the decision. I'm guessing Rudy won't like it.
What's truly sad is that he apparently thinks he's some kind of 'conservative' when it's painfully obvious from the position he's arguing that nothing could be further from the truth.
Ah well. There's another poster who has a tagline which describes this situation most succinctly.
"Free speech makes it easier to spot the idiots."
That's never been more true than in his case.
L
You need to guess at this?
This decision kind of blows a giant hole in his "regulate consistent with the 2nd Amendment BS."
Rudy is a fraud.
I'm going to enjoy watching him lose the primary.
L
He might also stand mute.
I'm going to enjoy watching him lose the primary.
Knock wood.
The point is that the commerce clause does not give the feds the right to regulate everything, the USSC has said this, and not everything falls under the purvue of that clause anyway.
Everything isn't interstate commerce.
Well, that line just got moved a whole lot further back in the sand.
Not according to Congress.
L
It's hard to say about Kennedy. It may be that with a stronger constitutionalist contingent on the court, he may be willing to do something to stop the madness. On the other hand, geriatric leftism could set in and he may view himself as the new equalizer now that O'Connor has left.
My hope is that Stevens leaves the court soon, one way or the other.
The court overruled Congress in Lopez.
It isn't even logical. There would be no DC circuit if the constitution didn't apply.
This dumb broad probably thinks the constitution applies to Gitmo prisoners but not DC residents. I'm not joking.
"Free speech makes it easier to spot the idiots."
ROFLMAO!! Sounds like Mark Levin or Ann Coulter.
Have you seen this?
http://www.cato.org/pubs/legalbriefs/gunsuit.pdf
That's true. The USSC has said, in the simplest terms, "Mind your own business, which is not everything you'd like it to be or may think it is" to the feds.
Yes, I know.
So it appears that 'interstate commerce' is what SCOTUS says it is and not what Congress says it is.
Bizzare.
L
Check and balances.
Errr... Don't you hate Rudy? If people simply click on your profile and see what you've posted in the past two months or so, they can see that you are, in fact, a 'Rudy hater'. What is this business of pretending to be a Rudy's supporter and bashing 'Rudy haters'?
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.