Big news, in case you haven’t already seen: Appeals court overturns D.C. gun ban.

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.”

“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.”

Howard Bashman and Glenn Reynolds have the ruling covered, with analysis, document links, and blog reactions.

Ace wonders whether Rudy Giuliani’s position on gun control is moot. Allah answers:

…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.

The Second Amendment Foundation reacts to the ruling, calling it a “landmark for liberty:”

A ruling Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that strikes down the District’s 1976 handgun ban and holds that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms is “a landmark for liberty, and an affirmation that everything the gun rights community has been saying for years is correct,” the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

The 2-1 ruling came in the case of Parker v. District of Columbia. Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote the opinion, with Judge Thomas B. Griffith concurring. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented. The ruling holds that the District’s long-standing ban on carrying a pistol in the home for personal protection is unconstitutional. SAF filed an amicus brief in the case.

In his ruling, Judge Silberman wrote, “In sum, the 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.”

“This is a huge victory for firearm civil rights,” said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. “It shreds the so-called ‘collective right theory’ of gun control proponents, and squarely puts the Second Amendment where it has always belonged, as a protection of the individual citizen’s right to have a firearm for personal defense.”

Judge Silberman’s ruling notes that the Second Amendment “acknowledges
… a right that pre-existed the Constitution like ‘the freedom of speech’.” “Because the right to arms existed prior to the formation of the new
government,” Judge Silberman wrote, “the Second Amendment only guarantees
that the right ’shall not be infringed’.”

Silberman’s ruling also observed, “The right of self-preservation …was understood as the right to defend oneself against attacks by lawless
individuals, or, if absolutely necessary, to resist and throw off a tyrannical government.”

“Judge Silberman’s ruling,” Gottlieb said, “reverses 31 years of unconstitutional infringement on the rights of District of Columbia residents, not only to keep and bear arms, but to be safe and secure in their own homes. This is a ruling that should make all citizens proud that we live in a nation where the rights of individual citizens trump political correctness.”

Some background on the pioneering plaintiffs in the case, via Cato:

Roughly three dozen challenges to the D.C. law have already been filed — but mostly by criminals who are serving longer sentences because their crimes included gun possession. This case is different. The lead plaintiff, Shelly Parker, resides in a high-crime neighborhood and is active in community affairs. As a result of trying to make her neighborhood a better place to live, Ms. Parker has been threatened by drug dealers. She would like to possess a functional handgun within her home for self-defense, but fears arrest, prosecution, incarceration and fine because of D.C.’s unconstitutional gun ban.

A second plaintiff is a Special Police Officer who carries a handgun to provide security for the Thurgood Marshall Judicial Center. But when he applied for permission to possess a handgun within his home, the D.C. government turned him down. Other plaintiffs include a gay man who was assaulted in another city on account of his sexual orientation, but was able to ward off the attacker with a handgun.

Jeff Soyer at Alphecca cautions:

Don’t look for any sudden changes in DC until all the appeals dust settles and even if it is determined that it is an individual right to bear arms, no doubt DC will adopt NYC style permit requirements — that is that you must be a rock star or hypocritical politician to get one.

It would be interesting to see if a similar suit is filed on behalf of Chicago residents.

comments (0)   trackbacks (15)