DC Circuit Court Rules on Second Amendment
March 9th, 2007 by Syd
This is HUGE! Court strikes down the DC handgun ban as a violation of the Second Amendment. Make sure you’re sitting down. Then read this:
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.”
One of the features of this decision that I find particularly fascinating is that it has brought the whole debate about the definition of the militia front and center. It seems that the idea of the militia is not nearly the moldy anachronism that the gun grabbers have tried to make it. Some more good stuff on this from Volokh is here. The collectivist view that the militia only means the National Guard has taken a drubbing in this decision.
Further Reading and Resources:
PDF of the whole thing available here:
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf
Key Excerpts from Eugene Volokh:
http://volokh.com/posts/1173464626.shtml
and further comments from Volokh:
http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1173454696.shtml
Pleadings in the D.C. Circuit Second Amendment Case are available here. It looks like a pretty comprehensive set, and includes amicus briefs.
The full text of the original complaint, Parker v. District of Columbia, is available at http://www.cato.org/pubs/legalbriefs/gunsuit.pdf.
And the losers are whining
MORE ON THE DECISION
With a focus on where it goes from here
SCOTUSblog discusses fine points and implications
Parker v. DC and certiorari by David Hardy (Will SCOTUS take up the case?)
D.C. Gun Ban Overturned - Listing of all gun blog commentaries on the Parker case. This is the best compilation I have found.
Congress urged to move carefully on DC gun ban
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11532285/
My take on Parker v. DC by David Hardy
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2007/04/my_take_on_park.php
Media Spin and Reactions:
Ludicrous Reaction to DC Ruling
A Victory for Self-Defense - In the D.C. Gun Law Case, a Chance to Affirm the Second Amendment
Rearming: The D.C. gun ban gets overruled. - Symposium on NRO
Working Hard to Misconstrue the 2nd Amendment By Robert J. Spitzer
Court Rejects Strict Gun Law as Unconstitutional - NYT hysteria
AP and Reuters On The D.C. Gun Ban Reversal
Plaintiffs Reflect on Gun Ruling - Residents Suing D.C. Explain Motivation in WaPo
NBC’s Williams Highlights Pro-Gun Ruling Ignored by Other Networks
Saul Cornell on Parker (through the filter of Volokh)
A Safe Ruling - Commentary on WaPo’s “Dangerous Ruling”
Decision to Overturn DC Gun Ban Still Drawing Fire
Activist judge takes aim at gun law - Anti civil rights venom from the People’s Republic of Chicago
Thanks, you made my day! Thanks again for the great sites!
There’s going to be some champagne corks popping tonight. This is one I didn’t really believe would ever happen. It’s a delightful surprise. I bet Sarah Brady is going into a fit of apoplexy about now.
Syd, What took this so long to happen??? How long will it last???? How do people get elected that are sooooo anti-gun, anti self defence????
I hope this is more than short term satisfaction !!!! John S. Kelly
The implications of the court decision are profound, even if it were to go nowhere from this point. It could go several ways from this point: (1) The appeal could go the the full 9-judge panel and it’s hard to know how that will go; (2) it could be appealed to SCOTUS and the Supremes decline to take it up, leaving the decision to stand, or (3) SCOTUS could take up the case and make an historic ruling on the meaning of the Second Amendment. While the current Supreme Court is fairly conservative, I don’t take anything for granted. While this ruling is definitely something to celebrate, it also introduces some risks and uncertainties into the equation.
It is a fine day for supporters of the constitution and gun rights and especially for the people of DC.
There should be little doubt that this decision will be appealed to the Supremes, and sooner rather than later. There will be one of three outcomes when it does: The Court will refuse to hear it, leaving the coming ‘en banc’ decision - whatever it may be - of the Circuit Court to stand; the Court will rule favorably, albeit with the possibility of ‘modifying’ the ‘interpretation’ of the Second Amendment in the lower Court’s decision, and spawning a minority opinion that will eventually be used as a basis to overturn the affirmative decision; or we will discover the ’strict constructionists’ on the Court aren’t.
In any event, the odds are that any decision by the Nine Black
Robes will be the most momentous on the right of the People to keep and bear Arms since Miller. With that in mind, it wouldn’t surprise me to see the sale of all firearms nationally take a sharp upward turn now that the case has been ‘decided’ - either in celebration of a victory or in preparation for what would be a crushing defeat.
Well,Well,Well Looks like our old and battered Second Amendment, may see the light of day. Hail to the judges,who have said what we the “People.” have been saying all along,its about the people of Washington,D C and around this country who were made second class citizens by the anti-gun zealots. Now,maybe the good citizens of Washington,D C will serve notice to the criminals,that we will fight back. No more of being a victim.
We’d best all be prepared for a potential Supreme Court ruling AGAINST the “individual right.”
It’s too soon to celbrate, in my opinion.
“Finally,” a true comon sense and correct decision. Let’s just hope it stays that way.
I don’t know about everyone else that enjoys firearms and the ability to protect the family and home, but I am sick and tired having to fight the insane liberal agenda.
It seems, I am constantly sending letters, faxes, and sending extra money to tamp down the likes of the ACLU and the idiots that proposed this suit in the first place.
Years ago I had the pleasure of meeting a young lady who was serving as a clerk in the Supreme Court during her first year after law school. When I asked her about the second amendment making it to the court she was of the opinion the court would never take up a case because all of the justices could read, knew it said exactly what it meant and they did not want to strike nearly all the gun laws in the country.
This decision from the appellate court “makes my heart soar like an eagle.”
What can be said, that hasn’t already been said? Praise GOD ALMIGHTY!!!
Well, let’s not get *too* fired up. Here is more from the decision:
“That is not to suggest that the government is absolutely barred from regulating the use and ownership of pistols. The protections of the Second Amendment are subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment. See Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989) (“[G]overnment may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech . . . .”). Indeed, the right to keep and bear arms—which we have explained pre-existed, and therefore was preserved by, the Second Amendment—was subject to restrictions at common law. We take these to be the sort of reasonable regulations contemplated by the drafters of the Second Amendment. For instance, it is presumably reasonable “to prohibit the carrying of weapons when under the influence of intoxicating drink, or to a church, polling place, or public assembly, or in a manner calculated to inspire terror . . . .” State v. Kerner, 107 S.E. 222, 225 (N.C. 1921). And as we have noted, the United States Supreme Court has observed that prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons does not offend the Second Amendment. Robertson, 165 U.S. at 281-82. Similarly, the Court also appears to have held that convicted felons may be deprived of their right to keep and bear arms. See Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980) (citing Miller, 307 U.S. at 178). These regulations promote the government’s interest in public safety consistent with our common law tradition. Just as importantly, however, they do not impair the core conduct upon which the right was premised.”
Wow, who would’ve thought a panel of judges ACTUALLY interpreted the Bill of Rights correctly!
We need them on the Supreme Court!
A perfect beginning to an already perfect weekend!!