LibriumArcana.Games

Washington, D.C. Circuit Court Strikes Down 30-Year Old D.C. Gun Ban

'We Conclude that the Second Amendment Protects an Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms'

WASHINGTON, March 9 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In a ground-breaking opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today overturned the D.C. gun ban, a three-decade old prohibition on possession of firearms within the Nation's Capital. Senior Judge Lawrence H. Silberman, joined by Judge Thomas B. Griffith, a recent Bush appointee, concluded that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms." Judge Karen Lecraft Henderson filed a dissenting opinion.

The case, Parker v. District of Columbia, was brought by six D.C.
residents -- including Cato senior fellow Tom Palmer -- who sought to keep functional firearms in their homes for self-defense. The appellate court reversed a lower D.C. court on all counts, and 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 upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia."

Cato senior fellow Robert A. Levy acted as co-counsel to the plaintiffs.

Under existing law, no handgun could be registered in the District, and even pistols registered prior to D.C.'s 1976 ban could not be carried from room to room within a home without a license. The sum result of D.C.'s myriad firearm codes: no one within the city limits may possess a functional firearm within his or her own home.

For the full opinion, see: http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/com ... -7041a.pdf.

The full text of the original complaint, Parker v. District of Columbia, is available at http://www.cato.org/pubs/legalbriefs/gunsuit.pdf.

Appeals Court Overturns D.C. Gun Ban

Mar 09 1:52 PM US/Eastern

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's long- standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.

In a 2-1 decision, the judges 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 upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia."

A lower-court judge in 2004 had told six residents they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who wanted the guns for protection.

The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue.

If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in nearly 70 years to address the Second Amendment's scope.

frigidmagi wrote:Holy Fuck did y'all just feel that rumble as all the lawyers started running towards their battle formations?

frigidmagi wrote:Okay, this going all the way up. Does the Supreme Court have the votes to kill the damn ban?

Appeals Court Overturns D.C. Gun Ban

By BRETT ZONGKER
The Associated Press
Friday, March 9, 2007; 9:21 PM

WASHINGTON -- A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's long-standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.

In a 2-1 decision, the judges 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.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the city cannot prevent people from keeping handguns in their homes. The ruling also struck down a requirement that owners of registered firearms keep them unloaded and disassembled. The court did not address provisions that prohibit people from carrying unregistered guns outside the home.

The decision marks the first time a federal appeals court has struck down a portion of a gun law on Second Amendment grounds.

"Today's decision flies in the face of gun laws that have helped decrease gun violence in the District of Columbia," Mayor Adrian Fenty said. The city will likely appeal for a hearing of the full appeals court before any appeal to the Supreme Court, he said.

Washington and Chicago are the only two major U.S. cities with sweeping handgun bans. Washington's ban on owning handguns went into effect in 1976 and is considered the toughest in the nation, according to the National Rifle Association. While courts in other parts of the country have upheld bans on automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns, the D.C. law is unusual because it involves a prohibition on all pistols.

In 2004, a lower-court judge told six city residents that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who wanted the guns for protection.

But on Friday, Judge Laurence Silberman, writing for the majority, said, "The district's definition of the militia is just too narrow. There are too many instances of 'bear arms' indicating private use to conclude that the drafters intended only a military sense."

Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state.

The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue. If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in nearly 70 years to address the Second Amendment's scope.

"I think this is well positioned for review of the Supreme Court," said Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University.

Even as the appeals court overturned the city's 1976 ban on most handgun ownership, Silberman wrote that the Second Amendment is still "subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment."

Such restrictions might include gun registration, firearms testing to promote public safety or restrictions on gun ownership for criminals or those deemed mentally ill.