BREAKING NEWS -- D.C. Circuit panel gun control violates individuals' 2nd Amendment rights

[warpedskydiver 0]

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.

Update: "InstaPundit" notes the ruling in this post linking to additional background on the Second Amendment. At "The Volokh Conspiracy," Eugene Volokh has posts titled "Timetable on Supreme Court Review of the Second Amendment Case, and the Presidential Election" and "D.C. Circuit Accepts Individual Rights View of the Second Amendment," while Orin Kerr has a post titled "DC Circuit Strikes Down DC Gun Law Under the 2nd Amendment." And at "The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times," Tony Mauro has a post titled "D.C. Circuit Strikes Down D.C. Gun Control Laws."

http://howappealing.law.com/030907.html#023153

Here's the whole opinion: pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

[warpedskydiver 0]

they ruled
1)Just because DC isn't a State doesn't mean the Constitution doesn't apply
2)2nd Amendment is an individual right
3)2nd Amendment isn't limited to militia related activities

[rushmc 23]

Quote

they ruled
1)Just because DC isn't a State doesn't mean the Constitution doesn't apply
2)2nd Amendment is an individual right
3)2nd Amendment isn't limited to militia related activities

I will be interesting to watch and see what happens with the full 12 member panel!

Either way, this one is headed to the SC.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[warpedskydiver 0]

I will be interesting to watch and see what happens with the full 12 member panel!

Either way, this one is headed to the SC.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I will be interesting to watch and see what happens with the full 12 member panel!

Either way, this one is headed to the SC.

It's about time, of course SCOTUS could refuse to hear the case.

[warpedskydiver 0]

No, sadly I do not.

Maybe one of our resident barristers will opine.

[JohnRich 4]

Excellent!

[sarcasm on] Damn those uppity Washington D.C. residents, thinking that they deserve the same rights as everyone else! [sarcasm off]

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I wonder how the full 12 member panel will rule. I don't know much about this court. Do you?

Quote

No, sadly I do not.
Maybe one of our resident barristers will opine.

I'm 95% sure the full DC Circuit Court will not and need not get involved. Once a 3-member federal circuit court of appeals panel rules, that is an appealable ruling, i.e., that is all that's required to request the SCOTUS to hear the appeal ("grant certiorari"). If the SCOTUS declines to hear the case, then this ruling will stand. It won't be a controlling precedent in other federal curcuits (outside of D.C.), but it may be influential.

The D.C. Court of Appeals is informally considered (by lawyers and judges) to be the "second most important court in the country, i.e., second only to the SCOTUS. Technically, all the federal courts of appeals are co-equal. But in reality, the courts that routinely hear the lion's share of the biggest, sexiest, most important cases tend to have more influence than the other courts. So the courts of appeals whose jurisdictions include California, New York and Philadelphia, plus the D.C. Court of Appeals, tend to be the most influential courts. King of the Hill among them is the D.C. Court of Appeals, because it's centered in Washington, DC, and because so many really major league cases are filed in the D.C. Circuit.

[1969912 0]

Good job.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

It's about time, of course SCOTUS could refuse to hear the case.

I think they have to consider the issue of whether or not DC being a non state matters in terms of rights.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

It's about time, of course SCOTUS could refuse to hear the case.

I think they have to consider the issue of whether or not DC being a non state matters in terms of rights.

Although your point is well-taken, aside from a couple of very narrow exceptions, the SCOTUS may decline to hear any appeal, without explanation.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It's about time, of course SCOTUS could refuse to hear the case.

I think they have to consider the issue of whether or not DC being a non state matters in terms of rights.

Although your point is well-taken, aside from a couple of very narrow exceptions, the SCOTUS may decline to hear any appeal, without explanation.

Declining to hear a case upholds the courts ruling, is that correct?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Declining to hear a case upholds the courts ruling, is that correct?

For that circuit. Others can still put forth contradictory rulings, though I don't think any other circuit could rule on DC matters.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Declining to hear a case upholds the courts ruling, is that correct?

For that circuit. Others can still put forth contradictory rulings, though I don't think any other circuit could rule on DC matters.

You're both correct.

[Andy9o8 2]

You know, for quite a number of years I've had doubts about the constitutionality of D.C.'s gun law. I guess this answers the question.

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

Excellent!

[sarcasm on] Damn those uppity Washington D.C. residents, thinking that they deserve the same rights as everyone else! [sarcasm off]

You mean "the same rights as everyone else except in Chicago", don't you?

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[warpedskydiver 0]

[Zing 2]

I would want an expert legal opinion on this, but I believe that is a substantial body of legal rulings affirming that District of Columbia residents do not give up their constitutional rights when they become residents of the US seat of government.
Any of you lawyers have any info on that?

Zing Lurks

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Maybe one of our resident barristers will opine.

I incorporate by reference as though fully set forth herein everything Andy has written.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Kennedy 0]

You lawyer, you.

Not that I expect it to happen, but when this is appealed to the SCOTUS, they really should take the case. I mean there are federal districts in direct opposition about the meaning, and hence enforcement, of an amendment to the US Constitution. I can't think of a better reason to grant cert, can you?

edit to add new NEWS link
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030902416.html

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[jgoose71 0]

I really am having a hard time getting my brain to accept this. What next? Due process? Freedom of speech? I guess those guys in Washington DC don't even have to allow women or african-americans to vote either, after all they are not a state and don't have the same constitutional rights as anyone else.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[rhys 0]

'The right to bear arms'

A stupid redneck law designed for life 2 centuries ago and putting many lives in danger and desensitizing people to the dangers of the availability of firearms.

I like the fact that I have only ever seen a hand gun on a police officer and on television.

gun crime is very rare in my country.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

'The right to bear arms'

A stupid redneck law designed for life 2 centuries ago and putting many lives in danger and desensitizing people to the dangers of the availability of firearms.

I like the fact that I have only ever seen a hand gun on a police officer and on television.

gun crime is very rare in my country.

Guns have legitimate use in self-defense, hunting and sport, and are no threat in the hands of sane, careful, law abiding people.

The problem is that many of the people apparently fulfulling the above description turn out to be unbalanced, inept, or not so law abiding as they'd like you to think.

In principle I don't think the government should prevent sane, careful, law abiding adults from owning guns.

In practice, the USA has done an unbelievably piss-poor job of ensuring responsible and lawful gun use and preventing legal guns from falling into the hands of criminals.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

A stupid redneck law designed for life 2 centuries ago and putting many lives in danger and desensitizing people to the dangers of the availability of firearms.

I like how you feel it is ok to trash another culture or the way another country runs itself...Very enlightened

Quote

I like the fact that I have only ever seen a hand gun on a police officer and on television.

So you really know nothing about guns then right?

How do you feel when people say that skydiving is only for idiots when they have never jumped? Or only people without friends do such a dying style as freestyle?

Ignorance is what makes all of the above statements...Including yours.

Quote

gun crime is very rare in my country.

But still happens.

[crwtom 0]

Quote

The problem is that many of the people apparently fulfulling the above description turn out to be unbalanced, inept, or not so law abiding as they'd like you to think.

In principle I don't think the government should prevent sane, careful, law abiding adults from owning guns.

In practice, the USA has done an unbelievably piss-poor job of ensuring responsible and lawful gun use and preventing legal guns from falling into the hands of criminals.

should this be "piss-poor" or "impossible".

Predicting with reasonable certainty whether someone will eventually do something stupid or unlawful who may seem sane and decent at some point sounds a bit like science fiction - the fantasy that "Minority Report" was made of.

Cheers T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true