Great news

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (the most prestigious federal court below the U.S. Supreme Court) has held that the District’s gun control laws violate individuals’ Second Amendment rights. 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 full decision is in a pdf file available here. Below is the key passage of the decision:

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.

Further commentary from Howard Bashman at the “How Appealing” website:

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.

We ain’t Europe yet!

Which is what Hillary and the Dems want us to become.

- end of initial entry -

Van Wijk writes:

This has made my entire day. Especially important is this: “…the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government…”

This strikes a double-blow, in that it destroys the cop-mentality that only trained professionals should have access to firearms, and it also guarantees the right of the people to form an armed militia separate from the government for the express purpose of putting that government down should it turn tyrannical. I only pray that we are not too comatose from liberal narcotics to form such a militia when the time comes.

Gintas writes:

When you mentioned the appeals court decision on the D.C. gun ban, I realized, I grew up in the shadow of D.C., and that place has been a Banana Republic from my earliest memories.

I’ve joked with people who are going to visit D.C., “You can murder someone and get away with it, just don’t park illegally. You will get a ticket.”

Marion Barry. The Washington Post (and its Style section). The Kennedy Center. The Watergate Hotel. The Swamp gases. OK, I made up that last one, but it could explain what happens to conservatives who go to D.C.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 09, 2007 02:54 PM | Send