Gun Control in DC

[cashflyer]

I hope this isn't a repost.
I've been watching it on another site, and thought some here would be interested.

First, from December:
WASHINGTON -- In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals.

The city defended as constitutional its long-standing ban on handguns, a law that some gun opponents have advocated elsewhere. Civil liberties groups and pro-gun organizations say the ban in unconstitutional.

At issue in the case before a federal appeals court is whether the 2nd Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" applies to all people or only to "a well regulated militia." 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 amendment's scope. The court disappointed gun owner groups in 2003 when it refused to take up a challenge to California's ban on high-powered weapons.

In the Washington, D.C. case, a lower-court judge told six city residents in 2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who want guns for protection.

Courts have upheld bans on automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns but this case is unusual because it involves a prohibition on all pistols. Voters passed a similar ban in San Francisco last year but a judge ruled it violated state law. The Washington case is not clouded by state law and hinges directly on the Constitution.

"We interpret the 2nd Amendment in military terms," said Todd Kim, the District's solicitor general, who told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the city would also have had the authority to ban all weapons.

"Show me anybody in the 19th century who interprets the 2nd Amendment the way you do," Judge Laurence Silberman said. "It doesn't appear until much later, the middle of the 20th century."

Of the three judges, Silberman was the most critical of Kim's argument and noted that, despite the law, handguns were common in the District.

Silberman and Judge Thomas B. Griffith seemed to wrestle, however, with the meaning of the amendment's language about militias. If a well-regulated militia is no longer needed, they asked, is the right to bear arms still necessary?

"That's quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no longer necessary," Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs, replied. "If we decide that it's no longer necessary, can we erase any part of the Constitution?"



Unfortunately, the link is now dead.
http://www.wsmv.com/politics/10485690/detail.html

[cashflyer]

And now, the follow up:

D.C. Gun Ban Ruled Unconstitutional, Violates Individual Right To Own A Gun

Friday, March 09, 2007

This week, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right and concluded that the District of Columbia’s ban on guns in the home is unconstitutional. According to the majority opinion, "[T]he phrase 'the right of the people'...leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual." Also, earlier this week, Second Amendment supporters on Capitol Hill introduced H.R. 1399 - the "District of Columbia Personal Protection Act."

In ruling on the D.C. gun ban case, the majority opinion of the Circuit Court held 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 Anti-federalist 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 Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia."

Read the majority opinion here

In its ruling, the Court also rejected the argument that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia, which has had a gun ban on the books for decades, because it is not a State. The majority opinion concludes that the D.C. prohibition on gun ownership in the home, "amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional."

The ruling was not unanimous, and the dissenting judge makes it clear in her dissent that opponents of the Second Amendment are still pervasive throughout our federal court system.

Today's ruling is the second time a federal circuit court has upheld the individual nature of the Second Amendment in recent years. In 2001, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously found in the case of U.S. v. Emerson that, "All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans....We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms..."

While the court decision was certainly great news, earlier this week, Second Amendment supporters on Capitol Hill introduced H.R. 1399 - the "District of Columbia Personal Protection Act." This legislation, by Representatives Mike Ross (D-Ark.) and Mark Souder (R-Ind.), seeks to restore the constitutionally-guaranteed Second Amendment rights of the residents of the District of Columbia.

In lauding the D.C. court decision, and announcing her plans to introduce the Senate companion bill to H.R. 1399, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) noted, "I agree with the court that the Constitution guarantees law-abiding citizens the right to bear arms and defend themselves. That is why next week I will reintroduce my legislation to repeal the existing ban. Protection of constitutional rights does not cease when you cross into the borders of the District of Columbia. 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."

The need for this corrective legislation is obvious. Since 1977, the District has banned the possession of all handguns not acquired and registered before that year. D.C. law also prohibits keeping an assembled rifle or shotgun in the home, effectively outlawing the use of firearms for lawful self-defense. And despite these Draconian gun control laws, Washington, D.C., consistently has one of the highest murder rates in the nation.

This legislation had a record high number of cosponsors in the 109th Congress (235 cosponsors for the House version, and 41 cosponsors for the Senate version). The House has voted on this issue four different times over the past eight years but the Senate has yet to consider it.



http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=2724

[Jim Richards]

I'm wondering if this means I can go out right now and legally purchase a handgun in DC or wait for this legislation. If the court finds a law unconstitutional, does the law immediately cease to be in effect?

[RickM]

Will this influence the ban on handguns in NYC?

[Rick Lee]

This case will go to the SCOTUS. No idea if they'll hear it or not. If not, then I think that means it stands and DC will have to immediately start making arrangements for legal handgun ownership. My guess is there will plenty of strings attached, lots of hoops to jump through and DC will never get a CCW law. But at least some law abiding homeowners like Jim Richards will be able to legally own a gun. And if anyone in NYC decides to pursue it, this case will probably be used as precedent. Sadly though, I can see NYC claiming this ruling doesn't affect them because they, at least on paper, do allow handgun ownership.

[legion]

I would think DC would have to be granted some kind of motion in court to NOT immediately allow handgun ownership. They'd have to pass legislation later on.

Chicago, on paper, also allows handgun ownership. You have to register your handgun with the city. They stopped accepting new registrations in 1981. I would think the precedent from the Marijuana Stamp Act would do away with this law pretty quick.