Alphecca: Civil Rights Victory in DC

March 09, 2007

Civil Rights Victory in DC

(via Glenn and others.)

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 also rejects the argument that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a State. And the majority opinion concludes, "Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional."

There is no doubt that this will be appealed to the full court, and on to the Supreme Court. This just might be the SCOTUS test case we've all been waiting for (and for some pessimists, dreading). Eugene Volokh has more.

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.

Update: Say Uncle looks at some of the salient points of the ruling.

Posted by Jeff Soyer at March 9, 2007 11:11 AM

Comments

I don't know if I'm happy. After reading all the lawyers banter about, they still seem to think that the phrase the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. still means the militia which means something else which means blah blah blah.

Lawyers could parse the word "No" to mean "Quite possibly".

I don't get it. It's a f**king simple sentence and has been repeatedly shown through various letters of the Founding Fathers that they meant INDIVIDUALS.

Why can't we push for an amendment to clarify the language? Then again, the Brady Campaign would scare everyone into agreeing to "Only that National Guard should have guns".

Posted by: Robb Allen at March 9, 2007 02:53 PM

The last thing we want is a new amendment clarifying the existing one. Here's why: A lot of states (California, NY, MA, NJ, etc.) would require that -- OK, some of you have a right to keep arms -- but. . .And at that point the states and the Democrat liberals would insist on 40 pages of language on how the states have the right to regulate how, where, and what kinds of arms you can have.

Posted by: Jeff Soyer at March 9, 2007 03:06 PM

Agreed, Jeff.

I'd much rather see a push to get this up to SCOTUS.

Posted by: Daniel at March 9, 2007 07:14 PM

This is why I could never vote for Rudy.

Posted by: Rodney A Stanton at March 9, 2007 09:43 PM

I expect this whole thing will end up much like New Orleans Post-Katrina-gun-grabbing fiasco. Those in charge will shrug their shoulders at the ruling and ignore it.

Posted by: Jay at March 10, 2007 01:19 AM

Jeff, As a lifelong resident of DC (and longtime Alphecca reader) I can't tell you how much this ruling means. Living in this dangerous city and being utterly deprived, under threat of DC jail, of any gun rights at all -- well, let me tell you, it's demoralizing. Imagine, I'm likely one of the only readers of this blog who's never owned a gun. We've got to see this through to the Supreme Court. Seriously.

Posted by: Jim McCarthy at March 10, 2007 02:32 AM

Except unless you ignore infringed, you can't have a restriction that is controlled by someone in power. It would have to be a shall issue, rather than a may issue deal.

Posted by: Jordan at March 10, 2007 11:39 AM

Jim McCarthy, as another DC resident, and daily Alphecca reader, I would point out that (a limited class of) long guns are (legally) obtainable in the district. I've been through the process, and typed up an account of it several years ago. If you would like to read the account, go to 'triggerfinger.org'. The gentleman there has graciously posted my anonymous text under his 'Highlights' section. It is (ironically) titled: 'Capitol of the Free World'. I provided him the account early on, during his coverage of the Parker case. Read it, and learn just what infringement means.

Posted by: anon at March 10, 2007 02:53 PM

Despite the last election, the wind seems to be blowing in the right direction in many ways. Here in Missouri, and in many states, the Castle Doctrine seems likely to pass. A good SCOTUS ruling on DC's idiotic law would be icing on the cake.

Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report

Posted by: Nick Kasoff - The Thug Report at March 10, 2007 07:33 PM

Note: Comments close down on posts after seven days and then
the comment input form disappears.

Your comments are welcome. You don't need to enter a URL and you don't need a "valid" email address, either. Note though that MT Blacklist is installed to flag suspiciously spam-like strings. Unfortunately, because of the bastard spammers, the strings "google.com" and "yahoo.com" (even in your email address) are currently banned as well. So are strings such as "cialis" (a common spam) which rules out words such as "socialism". Try putting a hyphan in a word like that.

By Golly, you're reading an archived post. Click Here to head to the main page and read current stuff...

Into science fiction? Check out my group blog novel, Colony: Alchibah.
See the reader's guide there for first-timer tips.

Alphecca

Check it out: My group sci-fi blog novel: Colony: Alchibah

March 09, 2007

Civil Rights Victory in DC

By Golly, you're reading an archived post. Click Here to head to the main page and read current stuff...

Check it out:

My group sci-fi blog novel:

Colony: Alchibah