A Crushing Blow For Liberty!
By Mitch Berg
As we’ve seen today, not all judges are dolts!
Washington DC – along with Chicago, the nation’s greatest bastion of gun-control lunacy – has had its long-standing complete ban on law-abiding citizens’ ownership of handguns tossed out.
A federal appeals court on Friday overturned the District of Columbia’s longstanding handgun ban, issuing a decision that will allow the city’s citizens to have working firearms in their homes.
In the ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected city officials’ arguments that the Second Amendment right to bear arms only applied to state militias.
On behalf of Right To Keep and Bear Arms activists everywhere; Thank You, DC Circuit, for finally pounding a stake through the heart of perhaps America’s greatest legal urban legend, the moronic notion that the Second Amendment – “The right of the people to keep and bear arms” – was somehow a group right, while the First Amendment’s rights “of the people” were, on the other hand, utterly and irrevocably individual.
The court struck down three different gun-control laws by a 2-1 margin, including one that required law-abiding citizens to have a permit (unobtainable, naturally) to carry a firearm in their own home.
“This is a huge case,” Alan Gura, the plaintiff’s lead lawyer, told FOXNews.com Friday afternoon. “It’s simply about whether law-abiding citizens can maintain a functioning firearm, including a handgun, inside their house.”…“I don’t see this going into effect immediately, but certainly, you know, when it does go into effect, our clients, as well as everyone in Washington, will be able to have a handgun and maintain their home without having a permit to move it around in their home,” Gura said.
I’m going to revel just once more in what may be the biggest fallout of this verdict:
The case began five years ago. In 2004, a lower court judge lower-court judge said the plaintiffs did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who wanted the guns for protection.
“The district’s definition of the militia is just too narrow,” Judge Laurence Silberman wrote for the majority on Friday. “There are too many instances of ‘bear arms’ indicating private use to conclude that the drafters intended only a military sense.”
Fifteen years of legal guerrilla warfare is starting to take hold.
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.
That’d be the 1939 “US V. Miller”, on which more later.
Gura predicted that the case, because of clear arguments, can now be used in other federal cases to support Second Amendment arguments that citizens have the “right to keep and bear arms.”
“This case will have significant impact beyond the District of Columbia,” Gura said.
It’s a great day to be an American – and a greater day for Constitutional Constructionists.
March 9th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Let’s hope this ruling stands.
Here are the requirements for exercizing your second amendment rights in Honolulu:
APPLICATION PROCESS
http://www.honolulupd.org/info/gun134-2.htm
March 9th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Re: the ruling. I think its a great ruling.
Re: Terry’s post on Honolulu’s rules, it does seem a bit excessive but as long as everything is on a “shall issue” basis, I don’t think the majority o fit is unconstitutional.
On an interest in minimizing paperwork and bureaucracy, I’d prefer to see the permit cover all the guns one might own and I think that getting the seller information for the permit is a bit over the top – if you’ve got a permit, you should be able to buy from anyone legal to sell.
From a privacy standpoint, I think fingerprinting is going a bit far.
From a constitutional standpoint, I think requiring the course for ownership is off. I think its reasonable to require some level of training to carry a weapon in public but to own one? no.
As I’ve said on other threads, I don’t think its unreasonable to ask that gun owners register their guns. I DO think its unreasonable to charge a fee for this given that gun ownership is a basic American right. For that matter – I think that it may be unreasonable to ask a fee for any of the steps for ownership. Again, fees for clearance to carry the weapon off private land does seem acceptable to me.
I’m OK with most of the rest of it although I’ve got some oogieness about the mental and physical health clearance. Being able to be denied based on flags that are raised on the background check is one thing, but this seems a bit far as well.
I know we’re unlikely to agree on registration of the weapons or background checks, but I just wanted to point out that not everyone that is interested in a bit of gun control is anti-second amendment.
March 9th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
It’s not ‘shall issue’. Hawaii Revised Statute 134-2d says “The chief of police of the respective counties may issue may issue permits to aquire firearms . . .” so it depends on the whim of local police chief. All his friends get one. No one else does.
I’ve heard that there is a loophole, though. If you start a ‘security company’, have a clean record, and post a $5,000 bond, it’s ‘shall issue’. I’ve also heard that if you’re a single woman living alone the police will consider it a “shall issue” but you are warned that it is illegal to keep it in your home if it is loaded.
The most egregious requirement is that you give the name and address of the person who sold it to you. That’s just fishing for info they do not need to decide if you get the permit.
March 9th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
The problem with registration phaedrus, is that every time governements have registration for firearms, they ALWAYS come after the gun owners using that list.
They change the law, and “Opps, you have to give up your gun, and we know you have one since we have you ‘Registration Form’ right here.”
March 11th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Terry, my feeling is that such things should be on a “shall issue” basis. To have it be “may issue” transgresses on the 2nd Amendment from what I can tell. I do agree that registering the name and address of the seller seems over the line.
Predator, requiring a registration list does not transgress on the 2nd Amendment. Coming and taking the guns away does – especially removing them from an individual’s home.
However, I’ve had a handgun for over 10 years now. They’ve yet to take it away. It is likely you can find cases where it has happened (and those cases should have been taken to the Supreme Court in my mind), but I think its rather hyperbolic to say ALWAYS.
I don’t believe in passing laws based on “if we let people do this, they might do something wrong”. A good example of this are laws that say “If we let people own guns, they might shoot someone”. Someone who owns a gun hasn’t done anything wrong. Someone who shoots someone may have. It should only be the state’s concern when someone has actually shot someone (or possibly credibly threatened to do so).
I realize its not an exact parallel, but I think restricting a city or a state from requiring gun registration because they might do something bad has a similar feel to it. The state has done something wrong when they come and try and take my gun away. Before that, they haven’t crossed a constitutional line and if the community feels better with or without some law, that’s their right.
I don’t have a strong feeling on the registration subject but I do not believe that it is a constitutional matter – I don’t think it is an “infrigement” on the right to keep and bear arms to say “you can have them but if you do, you need to tell us about it”.
I recognize that many people don’t want registration laws. I also recognize that many people do want them. As it stands, I think its a political matter, not a constitutional one. I think whether a community or a state decides to have these sorts of laws should be up to the community or state. I think if a community or state then uses the information from those laws to violate their citizens’ right to keep and bear arms, it DOES then become a constitutional issue and is then the business and interest of all citizens of all communities to protect and defend those citizens whose rights have been infringed upon.
As a case in point, what the Federal Appeals Court decided above was a constitutional issue and was a good decision from the point of view of anyone who wants to preserve and defend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
October 5th, 2007 at 6:26 am
[…] Fascism in America took a shot to the gut last year, when the DC Circuit struck down Washington DC’s gun ban on Second Amendment grounds. […]