Appeals Court Overturns D.C. Gun Ban

[Right2Carry]

Appeals Court Overturns D.C. Gun Ban

Mar 09 1:52 PM US/Eastern

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's long- standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.
In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia."

A lower-court judge in 2004 had told six residents they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who wanted the guns for protection.

The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue.

If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in nearly 70 years to address the Second Amendment's scope.

[barres]

Yes!! This is a good start. Now let's see what happens when/if it gets appealed even higher.

[Aric]

Maybe one of the legal Eagles could read this and make a report for us non-legal type people

I also noticed that Texas AG Abbott is listed on it in support of the appellants.. Good for him I might vote for him again.


http://www.drudgereport.com/04-7041a.pdf

[Syntax360]

Excellent. Next stop - NYC

[nitrogen]

the neat thing about reading this opinion is that the majority opinion basically, very clearly stated that the 2nd amendment speaks to an individual right, not a collective one, and picked apart collective rights arguments.

A quote:

"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."

I want to shake the majority's hand. I'm proud here.

[ScubaSigGuy]

WOOHOO!

[Cosmo 9]

We need to keep an eye on this one

[jbirds1210]

I like to read stuff like that....makes my day.

[ElGato]

I like to read stuff like that....makes my day.

Me too!

[Venus Pax]

A step in the right direction.

[Will938]

At this very moment, I am dancing a jig.

[Skiprr]

This was the lead piece on NBC News at 5:30 just now. The Washington D.C. mayor expressed disappointment and outrage. The story said this was the most important RKBA ruling in 70 years (maybe a bit of hyperbole, eh?), and that it opened the door for similar legal challenges in NYC and Chicago. The D.C. attorneys said that they would appeal all the way up the Supreme Court, if necessary.

I didn't catch the name of the guy they interviewed, one of the ones who brought the suit against the city. He said (paraphrasing), "Banning guns only keeps firearms away from honest American citizens. Criminals don't obey the law."

Why is it so difficult for the antis to understand that very simple concept?

To Adrian Fenty, Democrat, Mayor of Washington D.C., I say:

[Skiprr]

Here is the relevant article currently on the Washington Post's Website. Please visit http://www.washingtonpost.com to view newspaper's online presence.

Appeals Court Guts D.C. Gun Ban

By Bill Miller and Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, March 9, 2007; 3:42 PM

A federal appellate panel today struck down parts of the District's gun law as unconstitutional, ruling that the city cannot bar people from keeping firearms in their homes.

The decision was a victory for six D.C. residents who said they wanted to keep firearms for self-defense. But it could have much broader implications: The case eventually could wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court as a test of the thorny issues surrounding the Second Amendment and the public's right to keep weapons.

The District has one of the strictest gun laws in the nation -- barring all handguns unless they were registered prior to 1976 -- and that law has come under attack over the past three decades in Congress as well as the courts. Today's ruling guts key parts of the law, but does not address provisions that prohibit people from carrying unregistered guns outside the home.

Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) and other D.C. officials were reviewing the opinion and planned a press conference for this afternoon.

The ruling came on a 2-to-1 vote by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote the majority opinion, also signed by Thomas B. Griffith. Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented.

"We conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms," Silberman declared in the 58-page majority ruling.

The residents filed their lawsuit against the District in early 2003, months after then-Attorney Genral John D. Ashcroft declared that gun bans violate the Second Amendment. They were aided by the Cato Institute, a non-profit group that advocates personal liberties.

The suit said the ban on handgun ownership violated the Second Amendment, which states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan dismissed the suit a year later, upholding the D.C. law, and saying the Second Amendment was narrowly tailored to membership in a "militia" -- which he defined as an organized military body.

The case moved on to the appellate court, with the National Rifle Association and numerous states siding with the pro-gun faction, and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and other states and cities joining with the District.

In the majority opinion, Silberman wrote that federal and state courts have been divided about the extent of protections covered by the Second Amendment. Some have sided with the position advocated by the District, that a "militia" means just that. Others have ruled that the amendment is broader, covering people who own guns for hunting or self-defense.

The Supreme Court addressed the Second Amendment in 1939, but it did not hold that the right to bear arms meant specifically that an individual could do so.

Today's majority opinion said that the District has a right to regulate and require registration of firearms but not to ban them outright in homes. The ruling also struck down a section of the D.C. law that required owners of registered guns to disassemble them, saying that would render the weapons useless.

Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs, issued a statement saying, "This is a tremendous victory for the civil rights of all Americans. The case has implications far beyond the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms. The court today affirmed that the Bill of Rights means what it says."

Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement: "The 2-1 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia striking down the District of Columbia's handgun law is judicial activism at its worst. By disregarding nearly seventy years of U.S. Supreme Court precedent, two Federal judges have negated the democratically-expressed will of the people of the District of Columbia and deprived this community of a gun law it enacted thirty years ago and still strongly supports."

Silberman was nominated to the appellate court by President Ronald Reagan and Griffith was nominated by George W. Bush. Henderson was nominated by President George H.W. Bush.

----------------------------

For Alan Gura:

For Paul Helmke:

[KBCraig]

Helmke has no clue what the actual SCOTUS precedent is; by "70 years", I assume he's referring to Miller v. US, where SCOTUS agreed completely with this ruling in dicta, but remanded because no one showed up for the defense.

The sad thing is that the DC Circuit Court of Appeals only applies to that judicial district, which only covers the District of Columbia.

The 5th Circuit Emerson ruling (originating in Texas) also held that RKBA is an individual right, but sadly they held that this "right" is subject to "reasonable restrictions", and returned the case to lower court.

[glocklvr]

1 of hopefully many victories for our side we need all we can get. this 1 is to the courts for upholding the constitution and not distorting it