DC Gun Ban Struck Down By 12th Circuit Today

 Individuals Right to Keep and Bear Arms affirmed.

WASHINGTON - In the most important ruling on gun control in 70 years, a federal appeals court Friday for the first time used the Second Amendment to strike down a gun law.

In a 2-1 decision, the court overturned the District of Columbia’s long-standing handgun ban, rejecting the city’s argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.

The majority 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” on enrollment in a militia.

---

Heres MORE:

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.

---

WOW!!! 78% to 22% in FAVOR of handguns in DC on the nbc4.com website! YAHOO!

I wonder what NYC's mayor Bloomberg is doing right now?

 Handguns are COMPLETELY ILLEGAL in NYC.

 Same goes for that Constution Basher Schmuckey Schumer. He's probably having a coronary.

---

http://www.nbc4.com/news/11213595/detail.html?dl=headlineclick

---

IT is a good. start.

ever notice the ACLU. who claims to defend the Constitution, will never take a gun case? 

Hypocrisy

The ACLU defends NAMBLA , ever heard about that case the MSM perpetrates that falsehood about the ACLU defending "good" Americans

---

Great news from DC but don't everbody rush in and open a gun store.  Delays, appeals, et.al. will likely go on for years before the DC gun ban is history.  But at least, law abiding citizens won one for a change. 

 

Right Step Back.......ACLU will never take on a gun case.  There's this other little lefty organization called Center for Constitutional Rights that will also never take on a gun case.

This is good news for a change and although it has been mentioned before in other articles, a look at this Dr's testimony and bills authored is VIP! http://www.texashuntfish.com/flexiforums/file_uploads/GunControlWitness.wmv

www.needtoknowsite.com/page4.html

http://www.suzannahupp.com/bills-78.htm

http://www.suzannahupp.com/endorsements.htm

BTW! Possibly the devil has his best supporter in the ACLU! And can anyone be more repulsive and more evil than "Chucky Shumer" ? His actions are worse than that of a porcupine which has no natural value what so ever!

 

 

---

A little update on the DC Ban:

Gun Control Back on the Burner
Experts disagree whether Supreme Court will hear appeal of D.C. Circuit ruling

By Stephanie Francis Ward

In the contentious battle over gun control, it seems even the fate of a recent appellate decision is open for vociferous debate.

The one matter on which both sides agree is that the decision, issued March 9, in a case filed four years ago, brings the argument over the Second Amendment’s guarantee of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” back to the front burner.

Bruce Ackerman, a Yale Law School professor, says the decision, which strikes down portions of Washington, D.C., gun control laws, will be short-lived. Parker v. District of Columbia, No. 04-7041.

He notes the opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was 2-1, with a dissent by Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson criticizing the majority for what she says is its disregard of U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

“The court of appeals is way out of line here,” Ackerman says. “There’s settled law, and suddenly two judges say, ‘Let’s have a little micro-revolution here.’ ”

“This is judicial vanguardism,” Ackerman adds. He suspects the opinion will be reversed en banc, and doubts the case could get the four votes needed for Supreme Court review.

But Nelson Lund, a professor at George Mason University School of Law in Arlington, Va., is among those who disagree. Much of his academic work centers on studying the Second Amendment.

“I’d be surprised if this were vacated by an en banc court,” Lund says. “If it stands, I think it’s probable that the U.S. Supreme Court will accept [the case].”

“If the Supreme Court decides the case on the legal merits, it’s a very easy case,” Lund adds. “This D.C. law is clearly unconstitutional.”

The D.C. Circuit’s opinion maintains the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.

The city argued the amendment’s authors intended for the provision to apply only to organized militia members. At the time, the country didn’t have an organized police force, municipal lawyers maintained, and states needed weapons to shield their militias from federal encroachment. Last week, Washington, D.C., Mayor Adrian M. Fenty said the city will appeal the D.C. Circuit’s ruling.

A significant portion of the opinion is devoted to semantics. The amendment’s wording—“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”—is divided into two clauses, the opinion states. The operative clause indicates the authors meant that most citizens had a right to bear arms, Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote, regardless of militia affiliation.

“In sum, the 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 opinion states. “This proposition is true even though ‘the people’ at the time of the founding was not as inclusive a concept as ‘the people’ today.”

Also, he writes that the Bill of Rights is almost entirely a declaration of individual rights. Since it includes the Second Amendment, Silberman says, that strongly indicates the provision was intended to protect personal liberty.

“Every other provision of the Bill of Rights, excepting the 10th, which speaks explicitly about the allocation of governmental power, protects rights enjoyed by citizens in their individual capacity,” the opinion states. “The Second Amendment would be an inexplicable aberration if it were not read to protect individual rights as well.”

One D.C. ordinance that was challenged prohibits carrying a pistol without a license. Obtaining such a license is virtually impossible, the appellants say, because the city generally bars the registration of handguns.

It is not illegal to keep a handgun in your house if it was purchased before 1976, when the city banned handgun ownership. But city ordinances prohibit licensed gun owners from moving the weapon within their private property, and lawfully owned firearms must be kept disassembled or bound by a trigger lock.

The law does allow individuals to have licensed, functional guns to protect businesses or for recreational use, such as hunting.

“But you can’t have any type of gun assembled in your house, and it’s a misdemeanor to walk around with a gun in your home or on your land,” says Alan Gura, a D.C. lawyer who represents the plaintiffs. “The law is extremely far-reaching and very draconian.”

One of the six appellants is a Georgetown woman who owns a licensed shotgun. Another worked as a special police officer at a federal courthouse. Off-duty police officers in D.C. cannot carry firearms, and when the man finished his shift, he stored his weapon in a locker at work. He tried to register his gun with the city, the February 2003 lawsuit maintains, but was denied.

“Our mission was very simple—we want the court to focus on the nature of the Second Amendment right,” Gura says. “If it means anything at all, it must mean that a law-obeying individual can have an ordinary functioning firearm, including a handgun, inside their house.”

The D.C. attorney general’s office will not comment on the matter, spokeswoman Traci Hughes says.

David M. Gossett, a D.C. lawyer who submitted an amicus brief supporting the city’s position, says the majority decision is disappointing. His brief, filed on behalf of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, analyzed the history of the Second Amendment.

“We found that the clear understanding of the founding fathers was all about preserving state militias and had nothing to do with an individual right of self-defense,” Gossett says.

He says that when the Second Amendment was written, some states did have laws providing an individual right to bear arms. If the framers intended the Second Amendment to protect an individual’s right to bear arms, Gossett says, its language would have been more similar to state laws extending such a right.

This is the second federal appeals court ruling to say the Second Amendment extends an individual right to bear arms. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New Orleans, found in 2001 that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to gun ownership, but the government could restrict that right. U.S. v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203. But the 9th Circuit, based in San Francisco, found in 2002 that the Second Amendment does not provide an individual right to own guns. Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052.

Despite numerous attempts since 2001 to use the Second Amendment to overturn various gun ownership bans, the Supreme Court has not ruled on such cases since 1939, when the court found that ownership of certain types of firearms could be restricted. U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174.

“I think the U.S. Supreme Court has ignored this issue since 1939—to be in the Bill of Rights and have so little precedent is very strange,” says Stephen Halbrook, a Fairfax, Va., lawyer who represents firearm associations, manufacturers and owners.


©2007 ABA Journal

---

"The majority 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” on enrollment in a militia."

 

I agree with this. But I do beleive the people are the militia not some group appointed by a state.

---

roger are all those site media player? My player has been freezing up my computor and I dont want to open any more if they are.

---

UPDATE on DC Gun Ban:

 

Congress Urged to Move Carefully on DC Gun Ban
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
March 23, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - Attempts by "well-meaning members of Congress" to repeal the 1976 Washington, D.C., gun ban could backfire by keeping the case out of the U.S. Supreme Court, said attorneys representing six D.C. residents in a high-profile Second Amendment case.

"We appreciate that the Second Amendment's many friends in Congress want to express themselves on the D.C. gun ban, and there are ways in which Congress can have a tremendously positive impact," said Alan Gura, lead counsel in Parker v. District of Columbia, which challenged the 1976 D.C. gun ban.

But "Congress has to act very carefully," Gura told Cybercast News Service after a panel discussion of the case.

"A congressional repeal of the D.C. gun ban right now could erase the recent court victory," he said, referring to the March 9 ruling by U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that said the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

"All of our hard work would be wasted," Gura warned.

"We have to work with the members of Congress to make sure that if they want to express themselves legislatively on the D.C. gun ban, they can do so in a way that preserves the issue for litigation, Gura said.

Second Amendment supporters have waited many years for the right case to bring before the U.S. Supreme Court. Their goal is for the highest court in the land to interpret the Second Amendment in a way that reinforces the constitutional right of individuals to own guns.

Gura said Congress can "implement the Parker decision without killing it" by allowing interstate handgun sales and forcing the District to accept normal instant background checks.

Robert Levy, co-counsel for the plaintiffs in the case, noted that Parker v. District of Columbia "considered the question that has divided Second Amendment scholars for decades: Does the right to keep and bear arms belong to us as individuals or does the Constitution merely recognize the collective right of the states to arm their militias?"

Levy, who is also senior fellow in constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, stated that the "D.C. government has been totally ineffective at disarming violent criminals, but at the same time, the government has done a superb job of disarming decent and peaceful residents."

Noting that he and Gura represent "six plaintiffs who live in the District, pay their taxes in the District and obey the laws in the District," Levy stated that "D.C. says if somebody breaks into their house, their only way to obtain remedy is to call 911 and hope that the police arrive on time."

"That's not a good enough remedy," he added. "The right to keep and bear arms includes, of course, the right to defend your property and your family, and most of all, your life.

"There have been more than three dozen challenges to the D.C. ban," Levy said, but "mostly, they've been filed by criminals who are serving longer sentences for gun possession."

Gura agreed that "the history of Second Amendment litigation brought by criminals is very poor compared to what we have achieved. The question is not whether the Supreme Court will decide the issue, but whether it will do so with our case -- or the next common criminal who's presenting the Second Amendment in an unfavorable light."

"It's sad, I think, for us to have a basic, fundamental right defined within the lens and context of a criminal proceeding," Gura added.

'The Constitution is on our side'

As Cybercast News Service previously reported, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's decision on Friday, March 9. Senior Judge Laurence Silberman and Judge Thomas Griffith stated in their opinion: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms."

"We could not have asked for a more unequivocal and explicit statement," Levy declared. "The Constitution is on our side."

Looking to the future, Gura said he expects the District of Columbia to ask for review of the case by the full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. "We're not super concerned about this being overturned by the full court, and of course, we're fairly confident and hopeful that the Supreme Court can read the Constitution as well," he noted.

Levy added that those involved in the case "want the problem to be solved nationwide," another reason they are against Congress repealing the gun ban in the nation's capital. "That would do nothing outside of Washington, D.C.," he said.

Gura noted that he and Levy "have been spending a lot of time on the Hill meeting with people" about the need for careful action by Congress, "and we think the message is getting through."

Gura said that he and Levy met on Thursday with leaders from the National Rifle Association, "which had been pushing this legislation" to eliminate the D.C. gun ban, but "we believe that they've seen the light. They've given us their assurances that they are not interested in ruining the case."

"And [NRA President] Wayne LaPierre told us we can take that to the bank," Gura said.

However, "the anti-gun people are a different story," he stated. "We have gotten word that at least one group is now trying to push for a legislative appeal because, frankly, they don't want this in the Supreme Court, and the reason they don't want this in the Supreme Court is because they're going to lose."

But the optimism expressed by Gura and Levy on Thursday apparently didn't extend to Capitol Hill, where Democrats sidelined a bill that would have granted the District of Columbia voting rights in the House of Representatives because it contained a measure repealing the D.C. gun ban.

Instead of moving ahead, Democrats indefinitely postponed a vote on the entire package. Supporters of D.C. voting rights accused Republicans of injecting a poison pill (the D.C. gun ban) into the legislation.

Levy had some advice for Americans who believe that an outright gun ban is necessary for public safety. "The way to go about that is to change the Constitution. We cannot simply ignore the Constitutional provision and act as though the document does not exist.

"As a nation, we have chosen to have a written Constitution, and it has served us well for more than two centuries," he added.

---

I really dont think most people realize the danger of messing around with the constitution and changing peices of it here and there. Once they get a foot in the door , the wrong person will run with it and set presedence.

---