Gun Owners in D.C. Get Their Rights Back
Court: Gun Control Laws Violate Second Amendment Rights
By Bluey Posted in Featured Stories | Law — Comments (20) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Howard Bashman at How Appealing reports a "Divided three-judge D.C. Circuit panel holds that the District of Columbia's gun control laws violate individuals' Second Amendment rights." He shares this link to the opinion.
Conservatives and libertarians alike are hailing the decision. Todd Gaziano, director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, told me the decision is "a sweeping, indeed landmark, victory" and "far better than most lawyers or scholars would have predicted." He also explained its significance:
The plaintiffs were seeking the limited right to posses modern guns in their homes, keep them loaded, without trigger locks, and move them about their homes for purposes of self-defense. Such rights were specifically upheld, as individual rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. To the extent D.C. ordinances forbade permits for such limited use, they were struck down as unconstitutional. (There are still many unresolved issues, however. I would guess, a permit or license will still be required. In the future, though, D.C. will not be allowed automatically to turn down an application by a law-abiding citizen for such use.)
Lawyers from both the Cato Institute and Institute for Justice funded and supported the litigation personally. Congratulations to them and especially lead lawyer Alan Gura on a hard-fought victory!
UPDATE -- 2:36 p.m.: The NRA offers its praise for the decision and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a longtime crusader against D.C.'s gun ban, says she'll reintroduce legislation to repeal it.
« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto Threat — Comments (17) | Appealing To The "Center" ... — Comments (14) »
Gun Owners in D.C. Get Their Rights Back 20 Comments (0 topical, 20 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
This is a big, BIG victory for the 2nd Amendment AND for the Constitution in general.
to SCOTUS and lose the "collective right" argument once and for all. The Majority Opinion of Third District Court of Appeals is clear, concise and compelling in its well cited arguments.
It virtually requires the dissent to rely on sticking fingers in ears and chanting lalalalala. Of course that does seem to be the level of liberal argument in most cases.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
I just finished reading the Appeal and it is still hard for me to believe! What a victory for pro-second amendment people like myself! Look at me, I can't stop using exclamation points! Haha!
When I got to page 18 and beyond, I read it and then walked around to clear my head and read it again. I never thought I would read such a clear explanation of the whole Second amendment arguement as this document defines it. I am still in awe.
Check out this quote:
"We are told by the District that the Second Amendment was written in response to fears that the new federal government would disarm the state militias by preventing men from bearing arms while in actual militia service, or by preventing them from keeping arms at home in preparation for such service. Thus the Amendment should be understood to check federal power to regulate firearms only when federal legislation was directed at the abolition of state militias, because the Amendment’s exclusive concern was the preservation of those entities. At first blush, it seems passing strange that the able lawyers and statesmen in the First Congress (including James Madison) would have expressed a sole concern for state militias with the language of the Second Amendment. Surely there was a more direct locution, such as “Congress shall make no law disarming the state militias” or “States have a right to a well-regulated militia.”"
I encourage you to read the whole document, print it and give it to friends. It is an outstanding read.
Praise the Lord! That is wonderful news, the only good news out of Washington for a long time! Now hopefully, the full panel won't overturn the decision. This is about as clear an explanation of the individual rights theory as you could want. It is't a perfect decision, but I can't stop laughing happily.
If it goes to the Supreme Court because of the split between the Fifth and DC circuits and every other circuit, though, I'm a little worried.
the majority opinion cites case law and existing SCOTUS precedents to devastating effect. Going directly to SCOTUS without the delay the full circuit rehearing the case is the best thing that could happen for gun rights across the country.
I read the document, too, and I agree, the argument is brilliant and devastating to the the collective right folks. The problem is that the SC rules too often contrary to the plain meaning of the Constitution for me to trust the outcome. I'm not saying that we will lose - I'm praying that we don't - but it does worry me.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Much to the chagrin of old school law professors, the bulk of scholarly research in recent years has moved in the direction of the D.C. Circuit opinion. It has been pretty obvious that the Second Amendment is an individual right rather than a collective one, but to see it put so bluntly is heartening.
In an odd way, this could impact the GOP presidential primary. Frankly, I have thought Giuliani could not be elected because of his gun control affinity. If this opinion begins to take that issue off the table, and I believe it will start to do so, Rudy could get some inadvertent help. Perversely, it also helps the Democrats if the judiciary begins to hamstring legislative attempts at gun control.
All that aside, though, it is good to see that our judiciary can do the right thing even in these troubled times.
After all, the vote total to uphold this rather forcefully conservative opinion is probably 5-votes at most, if Roberts is able to bag Kennedy.
If, however, Kennedy is weak on this, and Giuliani has to replace a Stephens or Ginsberg, then his nominee could tip the balance. And this will all play out over the course of the primary through as long as the first term of the next president's administration.
How about that, the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights is in fact a right of the people. Imagine that.
I wonder what Rudy Giuliani, has to say??
while reading this decision! It ain't often that a judge sends me to my Blacks and my old Latin dictionaries! This is raw Judicial power of the Right sort! Damn, three exclamation marks in a row! Now four. They're out there folks, judges who understand American exceptionalism and why we are what we are. This guy can think and write, why isn't he on the USSC? Damn, I'm almost tingling.
In Vino Veritas
I was about to go pick up my fiance when I heard the good news. When I arrived (after listening to more information about the decision on the radio) my fiance asked me why I was smiling so jubilantly. I could hardly contain myself and I was "cheesin" the whole time. Freedom has triumphed in our nations capital (for now).
Pity poor CNN, it can't seem to get this ruling on it's website. It's been front page on FOX for hours now. Wonder why?
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
You should crosspost that to the debate thread.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I'd feel better if the decisive vote didn't likely rest with him. Still, good rulings should be applauded when they happen, and this is definitely a good decision.
But if Congress could overturn this law, then why did they not do it some time during 2001-2006? Was an attempt to do so filibustered? Did the GOP even try?
but none were pressed hard. If they had been pressed hard, they would have been filibustered. To some extent it would play into the MSM-Stalinist hands as they would portray Republicans as militant Nazis forcing immoral laws onto people who don't support them. So they made noises to let us know they knew it was wrong, but not much else. I'm not even sure I disagree with the strategy because I don't see a way they could have effectively advanced the cause. The action at Justice has been more important, with them advocating the individual rights stance as opposed to the collectivist-Stalinist position taken by the Dems, and especially the local DC political community.
First off, this is a great decision. It is one of the best written decisions I have ever seen. Judge Silberman (Reagan appointee) really hit the nail on the head and then some with a strong combination of historical facts, law treatises, and case law precident. Judge Griffith (George HW Bush appointee) joined him. I'm a little disapointed in George W Bush's decision of appointing Karen Henderson however. Her dissent was very weak.
Secondly, kudos to the attorneys. Alan Gura in arguements and Robert A. Levy and Clark M. Neily, III on the briefs. Without good attorneys, this goes nowhere.
Third - Let's thank and remember all the State Attorney Generals who came through for us, as well as the few who opposed us.
Pro:Greg Abbott, Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office
of State of Texas, R. Ted Cruz, Solicitor General, Troy King,
Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office of State of
Alabama, Mike Beebe, Attorney General, Attorney General’s
Office of the State of Arkansas, John W. Suthers, Attorney
General, Attorney General’s Office of the State of Colorado,
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Attorney General’s
Office of the State of Florida, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney
General, Attorney General’s Office of the State of Georgia,
Michael A. Cox, Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office of
the State of Michigan, Mike Hatch, Attorney General, Attorney
General’s Office of the State of Minnesota, Jon Bruning,
Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office of the State of
Nebraska, Wayne Stenehjem, Attorney General, Attorney
General’s Office of the State of North Dakota, Jim Petro,
Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office of the State of
Ohio, Mark L. Shurtleff, Attorney General, Attorney General’s
Office of the State of Utah, and Patrick J. Crank, Attorney
General, Attorney General’s Office of the State of Wyoming,
were on the brief for amici curiae States of Texas, et. al. in
support of appellants.
Anti:
Thomas F. Reilly, Attorney General, Attorney General’s
Office of Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Glenn S. Kaplan,
Assistant Attorney General, Lawrence G. Walden, Attorney
General, Attorney General’s Office of the State of Idaho, J.
Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office
of the State of Maryland, Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General,
Attorney General’s Office of the State of New Jersey, were on
the brief for amici curiae Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et
al. in support of appellees. John Hogrogian, Attorney,
Corporation Counsel's Office of City of New York, and Benna
R. Solomon, Attorney, Corporation Counsel of the City of
Chicago, entered appearances.
Andrew L. Frey, David M. Gossett, Danny Y. Chou, Deputy
City Attorney, Office of the City Attorney of the City and
County of San Francisco, and John A. Valentine, were on the
brief for amici curiae The Brady Center to Prevent Gun
Violence, et al. in support of appellees. Eric J. Mogilnicki
entered an appearance.
I have to wonder why the hell Idaho's AG argued for the DC gun ban. Time to send him home.
Fourth - We are not out of the woods yet. This could be heard by the full DC panel, and also may go to SCOTUS.
Fifth - Most importantly, this is why the judiciary is IMO the most important issue in electing a president. Bigger than taxes, the war, the veto pen, and everything else.
I can't tell you how proud I am of everyone who went to the mat to work for this victory. The long-suffering people of the District have finally taken a big step toward regaining their constutional right to bear arms for the purposes of self-defense. Any of our Presidential candidates (and this means YOU, Mr. Giuliani) who doesn't hail this decision and promise to work to preserve it is *not* going to get my vote or my support in 2008.
This is receiving top billing at NRA-ILA and I want to congratulate everyone from CATO, IfJ and the NRA who worked so hard on this case in every way they could.
And I would be remiss if I didn't remind everyone how crucial the composition of the federal judiciary is, and will continue to be, to cases of this kind. The gun-banners and 2nd-Amendment "collectivists" are never going to stop working, and that's why our votes and our voices matter so powerfully. The D.C. City Council, of course, is going to appeal the ruling. This battle isn't finished.
Preserve Liberty -- Join the NRA