New York and Boston Wake Up Screaming—California Faints Dead Away

Fri   9 Mar 2007   14:22 by Kevin McGehee 58° and fair in Coweta County, GA 2 comments [Courting Disaster] [Yee-haw!] [Yippee-Ki-Yay!]

A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia’s long- standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city’s argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias. 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.“ A lower-court judge in 2004 had told six residents they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who wanted the guns for protection. 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. » AP:   Appeals Court Overturns D.C. Gun Ban I spent most of the 1990s enraged at the National Rifle Association because it didn’t seem to be pressing this fundamental issue in court. The mere fact that a panel of the D.C. Circuit has issued this ruling is startling (in a good way), but there remain a variety of possible final outcomes. The D.C. Circuit may decide to hear the case en banc (usually all of the judges, except on larger circuits), and uphold the panel’s conclusion. The D.C. Circuit may hear the case en banc and overturn the panel’s conclusion. The D.C. Circuit may choose not to hear the case, effectively upholding the panel’s conclusion. And then, depending on what the losing side decides to do, the U.S. Supreme Court gets the same set of options as the en banc D.C. Circuit. Given the Supreme Court’s history on Second Amendment questions, my money would be on them not hearing the appeal. Which means whatever comes out of the Circuit will contribute further to a nationwide hodgepodge of Second Amendment jurisprudence. And I’m not all that confident the outcome before an en banc D.C. Circuit will be to uphold. But let us hope.

 

David Gonzalez said: The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue. Not directly in a stated decision—-but the Court did issue a writ of certiorari in the Miller case—307 US 174 (1939)—which permitted Jack Miller and Frank Layton as individuals to plead their case, based on the Second Amendment.  Had the Court not considered RKBA an individual right, it would’ve denied them “standing”. » Sat   10 Mar 2007   9:43 Ranten N. Raven said: I guess I feel better about this than you.  There is a trend now.  Other courts can cite this ruling (just as it cited Emerson and others).  I loved the whack they put on the Ninth! » Sun   11 Mar 2007   0:43 You must be registered and logged in to comment.