DC gun ban lifted!
Oh, this is beautiful! A federal appeals court strikes down DCs handgun ban. It's a fairly narrow decision focused on possession of handguns within the home, in working order. But it's an individual-rights based decision that makes hash of DC's legal arguments. A few choice tidbits:
The District claims that the Second Amendment “protects private possession of weapons only in connection with performance of civic duties as part of a well-regulated citizens militia organized for the security of a free state.” Individuals may be able to enforce the Second Amendment right, but only if the law in question “will impair their participation in common defense and law enforcement when called to serve in the militia.” But because the District reads “a well regulated Militia” to signify only the organized militias of the founding era—institutions that the District implicitly argues are no longer in existence today—invocation of the Second Amendment right is conditioned upon service in a defunct institution. Tellingly, we think, the District did not suggest what sort of law, if any, would violate the Second Amendment today—in fact, at oral argument, appellees’ counsel asserted that it would be constitutional for the District to ban all firearms outright. In short, we take the District’s position to be that the Second Amendment is a dead letter. (13-14)
Every other provision of the Bill of Rights, excepting the Tenth, which speaks explicitly about the allocation of governmental power, protects rights enjoyed by citizens in their individual capacity. The Second Amendment would be an inexplicable aberration if it were not read to protect individual rights as well. (p.24)
Gotta love this, quoting DCs code against it:
Just as in the 1792 enactment, Congress defined the militia broadly, and, more explicitly than in its founding-era counterpart, Congress provided that a large portion of the militia would remain unorganized. The District has a similar structure for its own militia: “Every able-bodied male citizen resident within the District of Columbia, of the age of 18 years and under the age of 45 years, excepting . . . idiots, lunatics, common drunkards, vagabonds, paupers, and persons convicted of any infamous crime, shall be enrolled in the militia.” D.C. Code § 49-401.(p.33)
[Maybe they should have argued that most of DC's population is thus barred from participation in the militia! -JAQ]Miller’s definition of the “Militia,” then, offers further support for the individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment. Attempting to draw a line between the ownership and use of “Arms” for private purposes and the ownership and use of “Arms” for militia purposes would have been an extremely silly exercise on the part of the First Congress if indeed the very survival of the militia depended on men who would bring their commonplace, private arms with them to muster. A ban on the use and ownership of weapons for private
purposes, if allowed, would undoubtedly have had a deleterious,if not catastrophic, effect on the readiness of the militia foraction. We do not see how one could believe that the First Congress, when crafting the Second Amendment, would have engaged in drawing such a foolish and impractical distinction,and we think the Miller Court recognized as much.(45)
D.C. Code § 7-2502.0218 prohibits the registration of a pistol not registered in the District by the applicant prior to 1976.19 The District contends that since it only bans one type of firearm, “residents still have access to hundreds more,” and thus its prohibition does not implicate the Second Amendment because it does not threaten total disarmament. We think that argument frivolous. It could be similarly contended that all firearms may be banned so long as sabers were permitted. Once it is determined—as we have done—that handguns are “Arms” referred to in the Second Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them. See Kerner, 107 S.E. at 225 (“To exclude all pistols . . . is not a regulation, but a prohibition, of . . . ‘arms’ which the people are entitled to bear.”). Indeed, the pistol is the most preferred firearm in the nation to “keep” and use for protection of one’s home and family. See Gary Kleck & Marc Gertz, Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun, 86 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 150, 182-83 (1995). And, as we have noted, the Second Amendment’s premise is that guns would be kept by citizens for self-protection (and hunting). (55-56)
First heads up to Beck, then to Claire Files.
Comments
Posted by: Jo
Posted on: March 10, 2007 12:16 PM
“Every able-bodied male citizen resident within the District of Columbia, of the age of 18 years and under the age of 45 years, excepting . . . idiots, lunatics, common drunkards, vagabonds, paupers, and persons convicted of any infamous crime, shall be enrolled in the militia.” D.C. Code § 49-401.(p.33)
[Maybe they should have argued that most of DC's population is thus barred from participation in the militia! -JAQ]
That was my first thought as well.
Posted by: Rodney Wayne Melton
Posted on: May 17, 2007 09:35 PM
Do you know how dangerous it is in DC without HomeRule. I am so glad ya'll change that. Its like suicide for real. Nobody wants to live in an environment like that.
Can you imagine someone making about 2 or 3 hundred thousand dollars a year, in a predominately Black neighborhood, without the possibility of him being robbed, in his home? That is too dangerous. And I am so glad ya'll changed that, and I thank you so much for giving
our Citizens in DC the right to protect themselves in their homes against invasions, etc.
Cause right now, we are dealing with a different class of people coming from the Maryland and Virginia area, who will not tolerate that nonsense. They want to be able to protect themselves here, as well as they did in Maryland and Virginia; Or, any other part of the United States that they came from. Being that DC was the only place where Self Defense or HomeRule was forbidable. I can't believe the Government went all those years, putting our Citizens of DC at risk like that.Its not just dangerous, but its trifling! A trifling Law that allows our Citizens to get hurt. As much as thugs in DC like to break in peoples houses and rob them, while Residents are sitting in their homes with no means of protection.That was completely trifling. And again, thanks, for lifting the gun ban.And allowing tnem to protect themselves, as well as the rest of the United States.And honoring the 2nd Amendment.
Posted by: Rodney Wayne Melton
Posted on: May 18, 2007 08:56 AM
The main aspect of this stunt masquerading Law which forbided DC Residents to bear arms in their homes, unlike any other part of the United States. Was a sickening silence that not only violated the 2nd Amendment, but a unconditional Law which put our Citizens of this city in more mayhem than ever. And I am so glad that the Constitution of the United States has finally decided to change that.
We hear about people all the time, who have shot and killed an intruder in their homes. Or chased an intruder out of their yards, with arms fire. Now why does DC have to be so different?
And not taking us to the bottom of the pit, where its alright for the 12 year old girl in Maryland to use her Daddys rifle to kill an intruder, who broke in her home, while she was home alone. And not DC. Lords knows what would've happenned to that girl had she not been armed.
But if that had've been DC she would've had to suffer the consequences.You know what I mean?
That releases an good detail. An good detail that Homerule, and Self Defense in DC needs to be reinstated, with the right to bear arms.
Just run good background checks, thats all.