DC Circuit has struck down DC's gun laws

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Paul Levy <PLEVY () citizen org>
Date: March 9, 2007 2:20:41 PM EST
To: dave () farber net
Subject: DC Circuit has struck down DC's gun laws

In protecting an individual right to "keep" arms in the city of  
Washington, D.C. under the 2nd Amendment, the court cites, among  
other sources, Dred Scott .

The opinion, by Silberman (with Griffith joining and Henderson  
dissenting) begins as follows:
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

Appellants contest the district courts dismissal of their complaint  
alleging that the District of Columbias gun control laws violate  
their Second Amendment rights. The court held that the Second  
Amendment (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) does not bestow any rights on individuals except,  
perhaps, when an individual serves in an organized militia such as  
todays National Guard.

We reverse.

* * * [and ends as follows]

To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment
protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right  
existed prior to the formation of the new government under the  
Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for  
activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being  
understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the  
depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In  
addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and  
salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia.  
The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists  
in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their  
Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia  
service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping  
the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite  
the importance of the Second Amendments civic purpose, however, the  
activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an  
individuals enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her  
continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.

The dissenting opinion does not address the meaning of trhe Second  
Amendment as it applies in other jurisdictions, on the ground that DC  
is not a "State" within the meaning of the Constitution and hence,  
when the Second Amendment refers to "the sceurity of a free State" it  
is expressly excluding DC.
Meanwhile, it will be interesting to see what Congress does to  
protect its own security....

Paul Alan Levy
Public Citizen Litigation Group
1600 - 20th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009
(202) 588-1000
http://www.citizen.org/litigation

-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/@now
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com