Mar

10

DC Gun Ban Unconstitutional

March 10, 2007 |

This is big. Very big. It has been a long time coming. Anyone reading the 2nd amendment should be able to see that it protects the rights of individuals to possess firearms for the collective good. The American Thinker has this.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (commonly referred to as the “D.C. Circuit”) today (Friday, March 9) issued a very important Second Amendment decision  broadly upholding the right of individuals to possess and use firearms, in particular handguns, for self-defense in the home.
The case involved a challenge, brought by six residents of the District of Columbia, to the District’s handgun laws.  These laws largely ban the private ownership of handguns in D.C.  Even where such ownership is permitted (e.g., by retired D.C. police officers), the laws impose onerous restrictions on the use of such handguns, including a requirement that all firearms be kept unloaded and unassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.  (See Decision at 4.)  The plaintiffs wanted to possess “functional firearms” in their homes for purposes of self-defense.  The D.C. guns laws, obviously, frustrated these perfectly reasonable aims.
The case was heard by a three-judge panel, composed of Laurence Silberman (appointed by President Reagan in 1985), Thomas Griffith (appointed by President George W. Bush in 2005), and Karen LeCraft Henderson (appointed by President George H.W. Bush in 1990).
Judge Silberman and Judge Griffith concluded (in an opinion written by Judge Silberman, in classic originalist style) that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to “keep and bear arms” (as opposed to merely a collective right related to the maintenance of state militias); that handguns are among the types of “arms” protected by the Second Amendment; and that the District’s handgun laws violate the Second Amendment insofar as they prohibit an individual from owning and using a handgun for self-defense in the home.  Judge Henderson dissented from the decision.
This could easily upset the cart for the next election. Who will further the gun rights as defined by the Constitution. Malkin has this posted from Allah.
…if the Supreme Court grants cert. If they don’t, it makes Rudy’s position even more important because other circuits are going to see gun-control challenges now that point to this decision. There’ll be probably be a split, but the split may not materialize until 2009. In which case it matters a whole lot what the next president thinks about the SA.
You can see from the Judge selection is vitally important. If the next President is weak on the approach to selecting judges then it will only weaken what has been a cause gaining new found strength. Independent Conservative finds it most interesting that the dissenting liberal judge finds that the Constitution doesn’t apply to the American citizens in the DC area. Funny how terrorists can be granted rights that some are willing to deny our own citizens.
Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • TwitThis

Comments

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Speak your mind