DC CIRCUIT COURT STRIKES DOWN GUN LAW ON 2A GROUNDS

[Fletchette]

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. ”

Judicial activism is not striking down a law as unConstitutional. Judicial activism is issuing rulings with the force of law. Judges should simply decide what is Constitutional and what isn't, and let the Congress or state legislatures make the laws. This is not judicial activism.

Also, it makes no difference is gun control is a democratically expressed want. This is a Republic; individual rights trump mob rule.

 

[Wesson Smith]

Judicial activism? The Brady Bunch are the founding mothers and fathers of judicial activism! More double-speak from the mouths of moonbats.

 

[Drakejake]

I have just read the majority opinion (not the dissent). This is a beautiful opinion and extremely welcome. I would call it a blockbuster. It upholds the idea that the Second Amendment applies to individuals and restricts anti-gun legislation to some degree. It does not deny that gun rights can be reasonably regulated and it does not apply to the carrying of firearms. It is a fairly narrow opinion in its application and will be subject to Supreme Court review. On its own, however, it must delight gun owners and collectors across the nation.

Drakejake

 

[geekWithA.45]

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,

There IS NO SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT in the last 70 years, and their understanding of the 70+ year old Miller ruling is tortured beyond coherence.

two Federal judges have negated the democratically-expressed will of the people

That is the same logic used to justify slavery, or any number of other horrors.

I'm sorry. The people may not decide to deprive me of my constitutionally protected natural rights using democratic mechanisms as a smokescreen.

the two-judge majority substituted its policy preferences for those of the elected representatives of the District of Columbia. ”

Those statist bastard clearly do not understand the Lockean premise of our Republic.

 

[Wesson Smith]

SCOTUS has ALREADY said NUMEROUS times that "people" refers to "individuals."

Perfect example? Roe v. Wade.

 

[JLowe]

The most frustrating part about the RKBA debate to me is that Federalist #29 could not spell out the much debated "intent" of the framers any more clearly, yet those with something to fear from an armed citizenry have managed to cloud the issue over the years with a lot of smoke and mirrors. And after the SCOTUS' insane ruling on eminent domain, I have little to no faith that they will rule on the side of the people.

 

[lacoochee]

We need a decision on this either way from the Supreme Court. If they decide against so be it, we can start working on the solution, e.g a constitutional amendment and/or forming state level militia's comprised of all the citizens of that state wherein we can own all kinds of nasty EBR's. If they decide for us we can start to move on with our lives........

 

[ozwyn]

We can only hope this case does get escalated to the supreme court.

I think losing in DC court was as close to "perfect ground" as it gets for the anti's. Let them push their fight and get the issue settled one way or the other in the open.

I think anyone supporting firearm rights could ask for much better right now. Even if the decision gets struck down, at least then we really know where we stand.

 

[ZeSpectre]

It hit the Washington Post... (of course it's just a semi-hidden blurb, not important news or anything).


-------------text follows---------------
Federal Appeals Court Overturns D.C. Gun Ban
The Associated Press
Friday, March 9, 2007; 2:10 PM


The District of Columbia's long-standing ban on handguns was overturned Friday by a federal appeals court, which rejected the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals.

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 told six city residents in 2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who want 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.

 

[tyme]

The term “Arms” was quite indefinite, but it would have been peculiar, to say the least, if it were designed to ensure that people had an individual right to keep weapons capable of mass destruction—e.g., cannons.

Cannons are weapons of mass destruction?! They are no such thing, and were privately owned in the founding era. Someone fell asleep while editing this opinion.

Still, as long as I can have man-portable weapons like rifles, handguns, shotguns, and mortars, I'll be happy.

 

[romma]

Criminals run Washington,DC, so naturally they want law abiding citizens/victims disarmed. Tough day to be a pirate!

 

[K3]

negated the democratically-expressed will of the people

My question is: So?

The U.S. is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic.

 

[coltrane679]

This makes the 5th and DC Circuits on our side, and the 9th and 10th Circuits on the "anti" side.

Such a split among the Circuits is THE classic scenario for the Supreme Court granting certiorari (i.e. deciding to hear a case).

Boys, this looks like the Big One.

 

[Tim James]

The U.S. is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic.

Tell me more about this interesting theory of yours.

I agree with your reaction and have always hated it when people think individual rights can be put up to a 51% vote.

 

[BigG]

The Supremes could also deny cert and leave it alone.

 

[civilian]

of course the potential danger of this case reaching the supreme court is that they come down on the side of the collective - which would have serious implications for individuals who wish to own firearms. the decision is getting a lot of airplay here in dc - wtop has been reporting it every 30 minutes. a co-worker was an original party to the suit but backed out - not sure why - but we're all grateful Heller became a party to the suit. without him this would have been dead in the water.

 

[K3]

Tell me more about this interesting theory of yours.

I agree with your reaction and have always hated it when people think individual rights can be put up to a 51% vote.

Well, you see....

 

[Dave Markowitz]

I read the majority opinion and I'm impressed. It's one of the most well-reasoned, complete, non-BS court opinions I've ever read. Well-done, sirs.

 

[LawDog]

You know, that decision looks like a cut-and-pasting of the high points of the Legal forums here and at TFL.

Very good. Very, very good.

LawDog

 

[Flyboy]

But [the dissenting opinion's] other main point is that the majority's assertion [...] 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.

Cool! I say we quarter troops in her house tonight!

 

[RealGun]

I don't see that the practical implications extend beyond DC, because that would be federal jurisdiction. It does not apply the 14A to the States, so I don't think we are talking about overturning other city's gun bans. I think that confinement of social and political consequences would be the "narrow ruling" that higher courts usually seek.

It is breathtaking though and extremely significant. There is justice it would seem. However, it is not over yet.

 

[asknight]

Yahoo News has it from the AP

By BRETT ZONGKER, Associated Press Writer 46 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - 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."

The court also ruled the D.C. requirement that registered firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled and under trigger lock was unconstitutional.

In 2004, a lower-court judge had told six city residents that 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 district's definition of the militia is just too narrow," Judge Laurence Silberman wrote for the majority Friday. "There are too many instances of 'bear arms' indicating private use to conclude that the drafters intended only a military sense."

Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state.

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.

Even as the appeals court overturned the D.C. ban on most handgun ownership, Silberman wrote that the Second Amendment is still "subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment."

Such restrictions might include gun registration to provide the government with information about how many people would be armed if militia service was required, firearms testing to promote public safety or restrictions on gun ownership for criminals or those deemed mentally ill.

A spokeswoman for the district attorney general's office would not comment on the ruling.

I think this is one of the first times the reason of registration was to provide information to the Govt about how many people would be armed if militia service was required has been voiced so loudly. I don't think it's a valid reason, but a reason that has been getting some air time lately.

What say you?

 

[Sistema1927]

Maybe nobody else will find this interesting, but it is to me. Notice how on the same day that the court upholds the rights of the individual we discover that the FBI overstepped its bounds with regards to the Patriot Act.

We need the right to keep and bear arms because governments WILL overstep their authority unless kept in check. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

[Titan6]

But

Now we have to recognize the people of DC have rights too and the Second Ammendment and whole Constitution applies to them also

What is next? Everybody in the world? Everyone deserves rights? G-d I hope so.

Maybe nobody else will find this interesting, but it is to me. Notice how on the same day that the court upholds the rights of the individual we discover that the FBI overstepped its bounds with regards to the Patriot Act.

Don't you know it. And why? Because this is from the same man who learned everything there is to know about the evils of abuse of power from JE Hoover.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

WOW! I bet dollars-for-donuts that the SC doesn't grant "cert", and the ruling stands. I also predict that DC will allow a person to "buy" the handgun, but will make it such a PITA to pass the "check" to take possession, that it will be nearly the same result. Still, a stunning victory, and their is much rejoicing!!

LD