DC CIRCUIT COURT STRIKES DOWN GUN LAW ON 2A GROUNDS
- Thread starter balletto
- Start date
- Status
docfubar
Member
bloomberg has an article
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=azTOCL.ZiDGM&refer=us
Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down D.C. Handgun Ban (Update1)
By Cary O'Reilly
March 9 (Bloomberg) -- A U.S. appeals court struck down a three-decade-old District of Columbia law that bans residents from keeping a handgun in their homes, saying the Constitution's Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Washington also threw out a district law requiring registered firearms to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock.
It's the first time a federal appeals court has struck down a gun-control measure on Second Amendment grounds. Nelson Lund, a constitutional law professor at George Mason University in neighboring Virginia, said an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is ``very likely.''
``This is clearly an extremely significant ruling,'' Lund said. ``The District of Columbia had some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country.'' The appeals court said it didn't consider whether the district can bar people from carrying handguns in public or in cars.
The Second Amendment says, ``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.''
Lawyers for the District of Columbia, which banned residents from owning handguns in 1976 for public safety reasons, argued that the amendment guarantees the right to bear arms only for members of a militia.
`Bear Arms'
The appeals court rejected that argument in today's 2-1 ruling.
``There are too many instances of `bear arms' indicating private use to conclude that the drafters intended only a military sense,'' Senior Judge Laurence Silberman wrote for himself and Judge Thomas Griffith. Judge Karen Henderson dissented, saying that because the District of Columbia isn't a state, the Second Amendment doesn't apply to it.
Most U.S. appeals courts to consider the issue have said the Second Amendment preserves state militias and doesn't protect individual rights.
The exception is the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit, which said in non-binding language in 2001 that individuals have Second Amendment rights. Nonetheless, the 5th Circuit said the defendant in that case was properly convicted of possessing a gun in violation of a restraining order.
The Bush administration, in papers filed at the Supreme Court in 2002, agreed that the defendant in the 5th Circuit case was properly convicted. The government also argued, though, that the Second Amendment protects individual rights, reversing a decades-old Justice Department position that the provision was designed to let states sponsor militias. The Supreme Court didn't hear the 5th Circuit case.
Rifle Association
The National Rifle Association, which campaigns against gun control laws across the U.S., hailed the ruling.
``We think the court made the right decision,'' said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. ``We've always thought and maintained that the residents of the District of Columbia are just as equal as residents elsewhere and ought to enjoy Second Amendment freedoms.''
Dena Iverson, a spokeswoman for Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty, didn't immediately return a telephone call seeking comment.
The case is Parker v. D.C., 04-7041, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Washington).
To contact the reporter on this story: Cary O'Reilly in Washington at [email protected] .
Last Updated: March 9, 2007 12:52 EST
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=azTOCL.ZiDGM&refer=us
Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down D.C. Handgun Ban (Update1)
By Cary O'Reilly
March 9 (Bloomberg) -- A U.S. appeals court struck down a three-decade-old District of Columbia law that bans residents from keeping a handgun in their homes, saying the Constitution's Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Washington also threw out a district law requiring registered firearms to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock.
It's the first time a federal appeals court has struck down a gun-control measure on Second Amendment grounds. Nelson Lund, a constitutional law professor at George Mason University in neighboring Virginia, said an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is ``very likely.''
``This is clearly an extremely significant ruling,'' Lund said. ``The District of Columbia had some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country.'' The appeals court said it didn't consider whether the district can bar people from carrying handguns in public or in cars.
The Second Amendment says, ``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.''
Lawyers for the District of Columbia, which banned residents from owning handguns in 1976 for public safety reasons, argued that the amendment guarantees the right to bear arms only for members of a militia.
`Bear Arms'
The appeals court rejected that argument in today's 2-1 ruling.
``There are too many instances of `bear arms' indicating private use to conclude that the drafters intended only a military sense,'' Senior Judge Laurence Silberman wrote for himself and Judge Thomas Griffith. Judge Karen Henderson dissented, saying that because the District of Columbia isn't a state, the Second Amendment doesn't apply to it.
Most U.S. appeals courts to consider the issue have said the Second Amendment preserves state militias and doesn't protect individual rights.
The exception is the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit, which said in non-binding language in 2001 that individuals have Second Amendment rights. Nonetheless, the 5th Circuit said the defendant in that case was properly convicted of possessing a gun in violation of a restraining order.
The Bush administration, in papers filed at the Supreme Court in 2002, agreed that the defendant in the 5th Circuit case was properly convicted. The government also argued, though, that the Second Amendment protects individual rights, reversing a decades-old Justice Department position that the provision was designed to let states sponsor militias. The Supreme Court didn't hear the 5th Circuit case.
Rifle Association
The National Rifle Association, which campaigns against gun control laws across the U.S., hailed the ruling.
``We think the court made the right decision,'' said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. ``We've always thought and maintained that the residents of the District of Columbia are just as equal as residents elsewhere and ought to enjoy Second Amendment freedoms.''
Dena Iverson, a spokeswoman for Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty, didn't immediately return a telephone call seeking comment.
The case is Parker v. D.C., 04-7041, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Washington).
To contact the reporter on this story: Cary O'Reilly in Washington at [email protected] .
Last Updated: March 9, 2007 12:52 EST
nobody_special
member
Wow... 
just... wow. History was made today: a gun ban was overturned. 
We all need to send a BIG thank-you to the people involved in this case.
Hopefully, someone will soon form a similar, carefully constructed challenge to similar state/local laws, and try to get the RKBA incorporated under the 14th amendment.
Before everyone celebrates a little too much... this is only precedent in DC. So now, the RKBA is an individual right in DC and the 5th district.
just... wow. History was made today: a gun ban was overturned. We all need to send a BIG thank-you to the people involved in this case.
Hopefully, someone will soon form a similar, carefully constructed challenge to similar state/local laws, and try to get the RKBA incorporated under the 14th amendment.
Before everyone celebrates a little too much... this is only precedent in DC. So now, the RKBA is an individual right in DC and the 5th district.
Last edited:
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
It doesn't really flush Miller down the drain so much as it gives the Supreme Court a lucid, well-argued talking point to say "Miller meant this all along and you other circuits interpreting it collectively screwed up." The lower court is bound by Miller, so it is referencing Miller frequently to show how its opinion is in keeping with one interpretation of Miller.
Yes, the NRA was very questionable on this. They tried to forcibly combined this case with their challenge (Seegars) and have generally not been very helpful to the Parker lawyers. There are some good legitimate reasons for this and some that reflect (at best) bad judgement by the NRA. I'm pretty uninformed on the exact degree of infighting, so I'll leave it to those who are better informed on the issue.
Fletchette
Member
Who fought this case, who paid for it and where should I send my thank you money?
30 cal slob
Member
the story just hit fox news as a "breaking" headline. lol.
News Shooter
Member
Congratulations
To the citizens of the District of Columbia
To the citizens of the District of Columbia
Titan6
member
KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON
Disenfranchiser. Freedom hater.
appointed by GHWB.....
needs to go back to law school.
Disenfranchiser. Freedom hater.
appointed by GHWB.....
needs to go back to law school.
nobody_special
member
Yeah, sorry I mistakenly thought it was the 4th circuit based on the map...
Fletchette
Member
It just hit Drudge...Iam waiting for the liberal meltdown
El Tejon
Member
Beyond stunned.
No way, no possible way the Supreme Court can let this stand. To let this stand would toll the end of gun control.
No way, no possible way the Supreme Court can let this stand. To let this stand would toll the end of gun control.
Brady Campaign press release
http://bradycampaign.org/media/release.php?release=878
Washington, D.C. – 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.
“This ruling represents the first time in American history that a Federal appeals court has struck down a gun law on Second Amendment grounds. While acknowledging that ‘reasonable restrictions’ to promote ‘the government’s interest in public safety’ are permitted by the Second Amendment, the two-judge majority substituted its policy preferences for those of the elected representatives of the District of Columbia. ”
http://bradycampaign.org/media/release.php?release=878
Washington, D.C. – 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.
“This ruling represents the first time in American history that a Federal appeals court has struck down a gun law on Second Amendment grounds. While acknowledging that ‘reasonable restrictions’ to promote ‘the government’s interest in public safety’ are permitted by the Second Amendment, the two-judge majority substituted its policy preferences for those of the elected representatives of the District of Columbia. ”
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
The CATO Institute supported and funded this case (Libertarian think tank). They are the ones who will carry a lot of the weight if it goes forward.
MY CALL TO ACTION FOR THR MEMBERS
Please read the first two pages of this brief and note who submitted Amicus Curiae. Many state governments stood up for an individual rights interpretation and sent briefs to the DC court arguing for it. That had to have a powerful effect. Please thank all of your elected representatives who submitted amicus briefs for the appellants.
If your elected rep sent an amicus brief supporting the appellee you need to slap them in the head and remind them who they work for.
Good guy list (all of these AGs joined together to support an amicus curiae brief filed by the Attorney General of the great state of Texas):
Greg Abbot - Attorney General of Texas
R. Ted Cruz - Solicitor General
Troy King - Attorney General of Alabama
Mike Beebe - Attorney General of Arkansas
John Smithers - Attorney General of Colorado
Charles Crist - Attorney General of Florida
Thurbert Baker - Attorney General of Georgia
Michael Cox - Attorney General of Michigan
Mike Hatch - Attorney General of Minnesota
Jon Bruning - Attorney General of Nebraska
Wayne Stenehjem - Attorney General of North Dakota
Jim Petro - Attorney General of Ohio
Mark Shurtleff - Attorney General of Utah
Patrick Crank - Attorney General of Wyoming
Bad guy list (these AGs all joined an amicus curiae brief from Massachusetts in support of a collective rights argument):
Thomas Reilly - AG MA
Glenn Kaplan, Lawrence Walden - Asst. AG and AG ID This is apparently an error on the part of the Idaho AGs office and they withdrew their support for the brief in August 2006. http://vanfossen.org/Idaho_Withdrawl.pdf
Joseph Curran - AG MD
Zulima Farber - AG NJ
John Hogrogian - AG NYC filed a separate brief
Benna Solomon - AG Chicago filed a separate brief
Pretty much every lawyer in the employ of the city of San Francisco (Frey, Gossett, Chou) signed on in support of the Brady brief
MY CALL TO ACTION FOR THR MEMBERS
Please read the first two pages of this brief and note who submitted Amicus Curiae. Many state governments stood up for an individual rights interpretation and sent briefs to the DC court arguing for it. That had to have a powerful effect. Please thank all of your elected representatives who submitted amicus briefs for the appellants.
If your elected rep sent an amicus brief supporting the appellee you need to slap them in the head and remind them who they work for.
Good guy list (all of these AGs joined together to support an amicus curiae brief filed by the Attorney General of the great state of Texas
):Greg Abbot - Attorney General of Texas
R. Ted Cruz - Solicitor General
Troy King - Attorney General of Alabama
Mike Beebe - Attorney General of Arkansas
John Smithers - Attorney General of Colorado
Charles Crist - Attorney General of Florida
Thurbert Baker - Attorney General of Georgia
Michael Cox - Attorney General of Michigan
Mike Hatch - Attorney General of Minnesota
Jon Bruning - Attorney General of Nebraska
Wayne Stenehjem - Attorney General of North Dakota
Jim Petro - Attorney General of Ohio
Mark Shurtleff - Attorney General of Utah
Patrick Crank - Attorney General of Wyoming
Bad guy list (these AGs all joined an amicus curiae brief from Massachusetts in support of a collective rights argument):
Thomas Reilly - AG MA
Glenn Kaplan, Lawrence Walden - Asst. AG and AG ID This is apparently an error on the part of the Idaho AGs office and they withdrew their support for the brief in August 2006. http://vanfossen.org/Idaho_Withdrawl.pdf
Joseph Curran - AG MD
Zulima Farber - AG NJ
John Hogrogian - AG NYC filed a separate brief
Benna Solomon - AG Chicago filed a separate brief
Pretty much every lawyer in the employ of the city of San Francisco (Frey, Gossett, Chou) signed on in support of the Brady brief
Last edited:
El Tejon
Member
4th Circuit???
Did the 4th make a decision in addition to the DC Circuit?
What's going on with all the chatter with 4th?
Did the 4th make a decision in addition to the DC Circuit?
What's going on with all the chatter with 4th?
Thefabulousfink
Member
El Tejon said:
The better let this stand. Up until today I had said the AWB II needed to be our line in the sand, but now we have a new one. We cannot allow a negative ruling on this at the SCOTUS because doing so will effectively deny the individual rights protected by the Constitution. The very least that we can accept is a non-ruling; a bunch of flowery language that effectively changes nothing.
Edit:
by "policy preferences" they of course mean the Constitution.
madmike
Member
Why do you assume SCOTUS would think that a bad thing?
I keep reminding people, the Kama Sutra was banned as "obscene" until it hit SCOTUS in 1958.
The Moralists KNEW it was "obscene" and "non-Christian" and "disgusting" and no court could POSSIBLY support it, since 1A was about political speech and newspapers, not OBSCENITY!
SCOTUS found it to be literature, art, religion, and protected speech, and struck down most of the anti-obscenity laws in the country at once.
How good is this, really? It's essentially forcing a confrontation in the Supreme Court, and according to many of the commentors here - http://volokh.com/posts/1173453865.shtml - there seems to be a general expectation that the SCOTUS would rule that the RKBA is a "collective" right by as much as an 8-1 margin. That does NOT sound good at all for us.
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
So what are the chances that Congress will jump to action and rewrite the DC law, allowing very limited possession in the home, in an attempt to render this ruling moot?
El Tejon
Member
madmike, to strike down laws against porn advances the Elitist cause. Striking down laws gun laws sets the movement back, tremendously!
No possible way the Supreme Court upholds this decision, too much at stake for the Elitists.
No possible way the Supreme Court upholds this decision, too much at stake for the Elitists.
madmike
Member
They're smoking crack.
SCOTUS has ALREADY said NUMEROUS times that "people" refers to "individuals."
That includes Justices like Ginsburg.
Right now, we have no SCOTUS ruling. We need a SCOTUS ruling. None of this @Q#ing "Waiting for the right time" or "not ruining what we have." That's cowardice.
Bring on the #@!ing decision. Relying on the good graces of the AG to decide which way we blow, and arguing in front of legislature after legislature is stupid and time consuming.
That's our holding action if they rule against us, which is EXACTLY what we have now.
Bring on the win, so we can say, "Yes, well we have a civil right so you morons can bite me."
And let's be done with it.
Actually, they CITED that precedent, moron
Right. Because we should only have the Courts hear things people APPROVE of.
Hey, SLAVERY was popular in the 1850s! Let's not rule against that!
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
JLowe, the key is in how you frame it to SCOTUS. Some of the opinions are assuming that anything other than a collective rights decision would disrupt the status quo so much that even the conservative judges wouldn't back it.
As Emerson shows us, that isn't necessarily the case. Remember Plessy v. Ferguson's "separate but equal"? That is a decision so unjust it makes our stomach turn today; but by not challenging the status quo with an all or nothing decision, it paved the way for Brown v. Board of Education. A SCOTUS decision that comes in the next eight years is likely to be the same way.
As Emerson shows us, that isn't necessarily the case. Remember Plessy v. Ferguson's "separate but equal"? That is a decision so unjust it makes our stomach turn today; but by not challenging the status quo with an all or nothing decision, it paved the way for Brown v. Board of Education. A SCOTUS decision that comes in the next eight years is likely to be the same way.
madmike
Member
Dude, that sounds seriously paranoid and conspiracy theorist.
Uncool.
- Status
