Did anyone notice!(PV)

[Pharmakon]

Appeals Court Strikes Down Washington, D.C. Handgun Ban !

Friday, March 09, 2007

• E-MAIL STORY
• PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION

WASHINGTON — 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.
District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty told reporters Friday afternoon that the District will appeal the ruling.
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."
"This is a huge case," Alan Gura, the plaintiffs' 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."
Gura said his six clients, all Washington residents, challenged three separate District of Columbia laws: A 31-year-old law that prevents handgun registration; a law that requires rifles and shotguns to be either disassembled or disabled when being stored; and a law that requires a permit to carry a gun in your own home.
(Story continues below)
Advertise Here
Advertisements

Click here to visit FOXNews.com's Law Center
Gura said the law does not affect law that governs concealed carry permits outside the home.
"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.
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."
Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the district 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.
Fenty said the city government will exercise petition for a rehearing, which will be an "en banc" review to take place before all the court's judges instead of the three-judge panel that considered the case. Depending on the court's decision, the case can be appealed to the Supreme Court.
"We intend to do everything in our power to work to get this decision overturned, and in the meantime, we will vigorously enforce our handgun law," Fenty said.
He said the decision "flies in the face of laws that have helped decrease gun violence," noting that it was the first time a federal appeals court has struck down a gun law on the basis of the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, in its entirety, states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
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. He did not know if any other cases would be affected immediately by the decision.
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 to provide the government with information about how many people would be armed if militia service was required, firearms testing to promote public safety or restrictions on gun ownership for criminals or those deemed mentally ill.
The decision is spurring action on Capitol Hill as well. Working with the National Rifle Association, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, said she would reintroduce a piece of legislation aimed at keeping handguns legal in the District. The measure has previously passed in the House, but failed in the Senate.
"Not only is Washington, D.C.'s gun ban unconstitutional, but it also has been a public policy failure as seen in the rise in crime since its enactment. The time has finally come to change course," Hutchison said, according to a news release.
FOXNews' Greg Simmons and Mike Majchrowitz and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Here's the press coverage. I'm actually surprised to see the press casting a positive light on the subject and explaining pro-gun logic in detail.

[PackerfanXD]

Old news. The case may see the USSC in the next year or so.

[xd4life]

That video was pretty positive towards gun owners. There is no way that is real. It has to be a parody....

[bkelm18]

Yeah this is really old news.

[Fennellco]

Well we won the battle, now we just have to stay on top of if it-

[Pharmakon]

Well I guess it would appear that I didn't notice *comes out from under rock* so the excitement is still fresh for me!

I'm surprised this didn't come through my NRA-ILA e-mail alerts.

[retired]

It has already been appealed to the US Supreme Court and it was hoped they would have agreed to hear the case this past Tues., but they did not.

[LKB3rd]

Originally Posted by xd4life

That video was pretty positive towards gun owners. There is no way that is real. It has to be a parody....

It's too bad more programs don't do stuff like this. Most tv news conditions us to think guns are like the ring from lord of the ring and anyone who owns one constantly has to fight the urge to go commit senseless violence.
The newscasters and politicians saying it is "too easy" to buy a gun should do two things. Go to a crime ridden neighborhood and ask them how hard it is to get an illegal gun (if they answer honestly they'll tell you very easy). Then ask them if gun control laws make that any harder. The answer of course is no. Then they need to go to a local range, and meet safe, responsible law abiding citizens. If they come to CT, they will realize that it takes a couple of months, sevceral fees, fingerprinting, and background checks from every law enforcement agency in the western hemisphere. The gun will be registered by serial number as owned by you when you buy it. If anyone was up to no good, why would they bother to go through all that, to buy a gun that will be traceable back to them?
I'm preaching to the choir here i know, but so many people allow fear and (IMO) brainwashing to form their opinions on this topic rather than logic and common sense.

[Kentman]

Everyone says it could be a year or two until we see some action. Here is an article in today's paper from one of the parties involved saying it might me as soon as a few months.

http://cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=38...ubCategoryID=0

Supreme court review of Second Amendment, gun laws if overdue
Sunday, November 18, 2007
By Robert A. Levy
Los Angeles Times

It’s been 68 years since the Supreme Court examined the right to keep and bear arms secured by the Second Amendment. It’s been 31 years since the District of Columbia enacted its feckless ban on all functional firearms in the capital. It’s been eight months since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declared the D.C. ban — among the most restrictive in the nation — unconstitutional. The obvious incongruity of those three events could be resolved soon.

Later this month, the Supreme Court will decide whether to review the circuit court’s blockbuster opinion in Parker vs. District of Columbia, the first federal appellate opinion to overturn a gun-control law on the ground that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals. If the Supreme Court takes the case, oral arguments likely will be held this spring, with a decision expected before June 30. (Full disclosure: I am co-counsel for the plaintiffs and am one of the attorneys who initiated the lawsuit.)

The stakes are immense. Few legal questions stir the passions like gun control. This round of the courtroom battle will be fought during the 2008 election. Washington, home to the federal government, makes it an appropriate venue to challenge federal gun laws. Thus, Parker could have an immediate effect not only on D.C. gun regulations but on federal regulations.

Equally important, if the Supreme Court affirms the D.C. circuit’s holding, state gun-control laws could be vulnerable to constitutional attack. But before that happens, two other issues would have to be litigated.

First is the knotty question of whether the Second Amendment can be invoked against state governments. Until 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. But in the aftermath of the Civil War, much of the Bill of Rights was considered “incorporated” by the 14th Amendment to bind the states as well. Regrettably, the incorporation of the Second Amendment has not yet been settled. And that issue did not arise in Parker because the District of Columbia is a federal enclave, not a state.

The second question is: What restrictions on gun possession and use would be permissible? Almost no one argues that Second Amendment rights are absolute. After all, the right to free speech does not protect disturbing the peace; religious freedom does not shield human sacrifice.

Similarly, gun regulations can be imposed on some weapons (e.g., missiles), some people (e.g., preteens) and some uses (e.g., murder). Indeed, the appeals court acknowledged that Washington might be able to justify such things as concealed-carry restrictions, registration requirements and proficiency testing.

But the Constitution doesn’t permit an across-the-board ban on handguns, in all homes, for all residents, Somewhere in the middle, regulations will be deemed constitutional even if the Supreme Court upholds the lower court.

The Supreme Court will have to re-examine its 1939 gun case, United States vs. Miller. The core holding of Miller, stripped of confusing clutter, was that protected weapons must be “in common use” and must bear “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.”

Parker is entirely compatible with that holding. Pistols, which are banned in D.C., are self-evidently “in common use,” and they have been carried into battle by American troops in every conflict since the Revolutionary War. But a proper reading of the Second Amendment should not attempt to link every weapon to the militia — except to note that the grand scheme of the amendment was to ensure that people trained in the use of firearms would be ready for militia service.

Significantly, the Second Amendment refers explicitly to “the right of the people,” not the rights of states or the militia. The Bill of Rights is the section of our Constitution that deals exclusively with individual liberties.

That is why there has been an outpouring of legal scholarship — some from prominent liberals — that recognizes the Second Amendment as securing the right of each individual to keep and bear arms.

Considering the text, purpose, structure and history of our Constitution, and the clear weight of legal scholarship, it’s time for the Supreme Court to revitalize the Second Amendment, which has lain dormant for nearly seven decades.

Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute.