Tuesday, November 20: The Supreme Court has decided to hear the DC gun ban cases.
Tuesday, November 13: Did you land here from a Google search? No word from the Supreme Court yet on whether it will take up the gun ban cases. Check this space for updates. While you’re here, visit the front page.
——————————————————————-
***Scroll down for a correction!***
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. (Second Amendment)
In the high-murder-rate District of Columbia, law-abiding citizens cannot register handguns or keep them inside their homes. Licensed rifles and shotguns are allowed, but they must be kept locked and disassembled. (At a recent presidential debate, Duncan Hunter said he’d support DC statehood if the city repealed the gun ban.)
In March, a three-judge panel of the U.S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) declared DC’s ban on handguns unconstitutional and refused to rehear the case in May. For a bit of light reading this weekend, download the 75-page opinion, Parker v. District of Columbia, in PDF. The case was the result of a suit filed by a group of DC residents, only one of whom had legal standing to challenge the gun ban law. He was a security guard whose application for a handgun permit was denied.
The U.S. Supreme Court began a new term earlier this week. After declining to hear Second Amendment cases for several decades, the court decided may decide to hear the DC gun ban case. Does the awkwardly worded Second Amendment grant individuals the right to own guns, or are state militias in view? You know what I think. But read on in case you have doubts.
Law-abiding citizens should be allowed to protect themselves with guns. The cops and criminals have them; so should we. The gun ban has done absolutely nothing to decrease violent crime in the district. In fact, the murder rate shot up as a result of the ban. If you were a gun-toting thug, wouldn’t a gun ban make you fairly confident that a potential victim is unarmed?
At issue is whether the language “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” vests this right in individuals or in state militias only. The D.C. Circuit reasoned:
“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 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.”
I’m 90 percent sure the Supreme Court will reason the same way.
Rest easy this weekend, everybody. Thanks again for reading LBC.
Update: The Supreme Court has not decided to hear the gun ban case. It’s one of several cases the court may hear this term.
Actually, I think it would be better if the court didn’t hear the case. The D.C. Circuit’s ruling would stand, which means I can keep a handgun or (and!) a shotgun (unlocked and assembled) in my home. Legally! (wink) Now, we’ve got to work on a conceal and carry law…
Related posts:
