| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| DC Circuit Upholds Individual 2nd Ammendment Rights |
| 2007-03-09 |
| 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. 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. Does this mean she would deny all Constitutional Rights and Protections to the people who live and work in Washington, D.C. since it is not a State? Terrorists captured on a battlefield are accorded Constitutional Rights but the Citizens of DC are not? I'm boggled |
| Posted by:Deacon Blues |
| #10 It's the difference between being a citizen of the republic and being a prole. Simple as that. |
| Posted by: mac 2007-03-09 19:42 |
| #9 Exactly Deacon...can you say Katrina Refugees? Stop waiting for the Feds to bail you out... |
| Posted by: Warthog 2007-03-09 19:23 |
| #8 As this country has gotten older, more populated, and more prosperous I find most people are willing to trust their well-being, safety, and wellfare to the Federal Government. People are no longer self-sufficient and have no other means in times of crisis other than to turn to the Government.The Government, i.e. the Politicians, have taken advantage of this dependency to erode the freedoms we enjoyed as little as 30 years ago. I believe this happened as a result of moving from a majority agrarian society to more industrial, big city centered society. I'm not advocating an agrarian vs industrial society but something was lost in the transition. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2007-03-09 15:25 |
| #7 Thank you, Alan, Deacon. You guys get it. Even most of my Second Amendment friends don't. It's not about target shooting, or hunting, or even self-defense (though those are nice fringe benefits): THE reason for the Second Amendment is to enable the people to overthrow the central government should it become tyrannical. Sadly, though the government has become tyrannical, the people as a whole don't care. Maybe someday they will. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2007-03-09 15:12 |
| #6 Damn! I ment the cupie Doll. PIMF. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2007-03-09 15:05 |
| #5 Exactly, Alan C. You win the Supie Doll! That is exactly the reason given by Thomas Jefferson and others for guarenteeing the Citizens' "Right to Keep AND BEAR Arms". Jefferson said, "The Second Ammendment should never be construed as to give Congress the power to deprive law-abiding citizens of their arms". |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2007-03-09 15:02 |
| #4 "Unlike the States, the District had—and has—no need to protect itself from the federal government because it is a federal entity created as the seat of that government" This is VERRRRRRYYY interesting. This is the first time I'm aware of that the REASON for having guns was for protection from the Federal government. To me this dissent opens up a bigger Pandora's box for the gun-grabbers than the opinion. Doesn't this dissent automatically mean that if you don't live in DC you SHOULD have arms to protect you, not from criminals, but from the US Gov't.? |
| Posted by: AlanC 2007-03-09 14:53 |
| #3 Gun law can get terribly confusing in a hurry. For 30 years (Nixon administration), the Justice Department argued that the 2nd Amendment applied to only government ordered militias; but ironically, this meant that individuals had *more* gun rights, *because* they do not need to be "ordered", that is, regulated, by the government. However, in 2001 (Bush 2), this was reversed, so that now it is policy that the 2nd Amendment *does* apply to an individual's right to bear arms. And it is being argued that in turn *this* means that individuals have *more* rights to bear arms. On top of that, for years, the federal government has ignored blatantly unconstitutional actions on the part of (blue) States, as far as gun control. For their part, those States have been careful to not let such things be appealed too high up, where they had a strong chance of being overturned. For example is NYC's gun laws, regularly used to intercept and arrest people who are legally transporting guns in interstate commerce, such as at the airport. Entirely illegal, and should be stopped. However, if this decision is appealed to the SCOTUS, and they affirm an individual right to keep and bear arms, then many of these blue State laws go right out the window. Anyone arrested can go right to a federal judge to ask that their arrest be voided. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-03-09 13:01 |
| #2 "Unlike the States, the District had—and has—no need to protect itself from the federal government because it is a federal entity created as the seat of that government. A possession of the government, just like the people that live there? |
| Posted by: BrerRabbit 2007-03-09 11:56 |
| #1 Like all things liberal, citizens get rights IF and ONLY IF it helps their agenda. That is after all, a citizen's only purpose to the left, to support their agenda via taxes, serfdom and to gape in awe at their 'betters' as the graciously let the serfs have a crumb or two. It's amazing how many liberal ideas seem dedicated to not only mankind's detriment, but to actual extinction. One has to wonder if there is perhaps a kind of self destruct gene buried in our DNA or if this is completely learned behavior. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2007-03-09 11:09 |