This is a new, landmark decision affirming our individual right to keep and bear arms! Please take the time (and have the patience) to read and understand the court's decision at http://www.drudgereport.com/04-7041a.pdf

The Federal Appeals Court decision lays out all the arguments, pro and con, examines the history of the Second Amendment and legal precedent, denies the 'collective right' (organized militia only) on which the gun banners depend, and affirms the RKBA as an individual right for hunting and self-defense as well as militia purposes!

This is an elegant defense of the RKBA. Read it. Remember it. Pass it on.

Good news, indeed. -- Ed

For the meat of the opinion cut to page 46. I wanted to save the pdf to my computer but they don't allow it as an option. I guess I'll have to print all 75 pages.

Let us all be greatful and give thanks that contrary to most decisions there are some sane, "real" people in the DC area. Best, DR. Bill

From the decision:

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).

That's about as good as we could hope for!

Good decision. Will it go to the Supreme Court or will it stand? This would surely force a SC decision on the subject.

Sounds good, so far. Heard about it on Rush's show, this AM.

High risk night for stroke or heart attack among the national news analyassts. Doubt they can just ignore it!!

Yes and no. The ninth circuit and the DC circuit courts of appeal now have opposed viewpoints. This obviously must be settled in the supreme court... someday. Now? Do we have the requsite judges in our pocket? The stakes are VERY high...

It appears that finally a supreme court hearing is unavoidable. They have historically avoided the issue. They seem to understand that a ruling against the individual freedoms guaranteed by the 2nd amendment would result in civil unrest and perhaps an armed uprising - this is why they have not accepted a case for so long. The fray now seems unavoidable.

The good thing is that the supreme court now has a well researched decision in our favor by the DC appeals court.

Good sense could well prevail... but remember they overturn themselves seldom, and 'Miller' is still the law of the land. Miller says, if you read the text of today's decision, that you have no intrinsic right to any weapons without militia applications. That the item in question in 'Miller' was one banned under NFA is a moot point.

This could still go either way. Remember, these are the self-same idiots who ruled after strict reading of The Constitution, that the government does have a compelling reason to racially discriminate (UM law admissions) and the same folks who ruled against the very concept of private property by extending the power of eminent domain to non-governmental bodies.

I would imagine that due to the overreaching language of the 2nd amendment ("shall not be infringed"), that if this stood it could potentially be the death knell for every bit of legislation that has chipped away at it for the last 200 years. If so I'd be very surprised if it didn't wind up in front of the supreme court before too long.

The story has already hit Yahoo News, so I think the media will be forced to cover it. It will be interesting to see how they handle it.

Best,
David

Did you see that that ACLU submitted an Amicus Curiae brief IN SUPPORT of the Appellants?

I don't see that. I see the American Civil Rights Union.

It wouldn't surprise me. ACLU gets a bad rap sometimes from the right, but they're about the most conservative organization going in my book--they're so far right, they're left sometimes.

I stand corrected. Sorry.

Todd

The fifth circut has also ruled, U.S. vs. Emmerson, that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, but that it does not mean there will be no gun control and that any gun control legislation must be carefully worded and narrowly defined, such as prohibiting criminals from owning firearms.

No question this will be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Many gun control laws can be eliminated if this gets upheld by the high court, but I predict they will allow some things to stand even if it is upheld, basically letting them have it both ways.

Let's also not forget that guns can be severely restricted or even banned de facto by many other means: enviornment, safety, etc.

This fight will never be over...

March 9, 2007
The New York Times

Appeals Court Says Gun Ban Violates 2nd Amendment
By ADAM LIPTAK

A federal appeals court in Washington today struck down on Second Amendment grounds a gun control law in the District of Columbia that bars residents from keeping handguns in their homes.

The court relied on a constitutional interpretation that has been rejected by nine federal appeals courts around the nation. The decision was the first from a federal appeals court to hold a gun-control law unconstitutional on the ground that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals, as opposed to a collective right of state militias.

Linda Singer, the district’s acting attorney general, said the decision was “a huge setback.”

“We’ve been making progress on bringing down crime and gun violence, and this sends us in a different direction,” Ms. Singer said.

Lawyers on both sides of the case said the decision had created a conflict among the federal courts of appeals on a significant constitutional issue, making review by the Supreme Court likely.

The case was brought by Dick Heller, a police officer in the district who was permitted to carry a gun on duty and wanted to keep one at home. His application was denied.

He challenged provisions of the district’s law that barred the registration of handguns, that prohibited carrying handguns without a license even from one room of a private home to another, and that required lawfully owned firearms to be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock.

In a 2-to-1 decision, a panel of the court, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, ruled those provisions unconstitutional. The Second Amendment says, “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.”

The basic question in the case was whether the first clause limits the second one.

Most federal appeals courts have said that the amendment, read as a whole, protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias — in modern terms, the National Guard. But in yesterday’s decision, the majority focused on the second clause, saying that the amendment broadly protects the rights of individuals to own guns — an approach that has been embraced by the Justice Department and by some constitutional scholars.

The court's sound reasoning from historical records will be a huge surprise to many who promote or sympathize with gun control based on the common assertion that the militia language in the 2nd amendment is defining and operational rather than merely prefatory.

Gunflint Charlie, the problem is that those who sympathize with the gun grabbers usually get their information about the 2nd amendment from the gun grabbers and their friends in the media who are not going to say much at all about the historical evidence of the 2nd amendemnt.

We're likely to hear claims from them about a "judicial activist" court overturning seventy years of legal precedent. Of course, the joke is that they are ignoring 161 years of prior legal precedent.

This fight will never be over...

Finally some good news for a change!!!! I've always wanted a Federal Judge to just stand up and yell to the heavens, " You live in this country to be FREE!!!!" These good judges were probably appointed by President Bush, so don't forget that either!!!!!
All the best

The two that ruled in favor of the individual rights interpretation were appointed by Reagan and Bush II, the other was appointed by Bush I.

The court relied on a constitutional interpretation that has been rejected by nine federal appeals courts around the nation. The decision was the first from a federal appeals court to hold a gun-control law unconstitutional on the ground that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals, as opposed to a collective right of state militias.

Nine Federal Courts?? Someones got their head screwed on backwards here. The ONLY Federal court to reject this as an individual right is the NINTH in California and we all know where they stand. Contact whoever stated this and demand a retraction. The FIFTH In Texas also supported this individual right position.
Jim

In what state can a D.C. resident legally purchase a handgun? They won't be able to do it in D.C. even after the ruling is affirmed. There are no longer any gun stores in D.C. I wonder if D.C. residents can be gifted handguns by sympathetic outsiders? As a MD resident, I can't go outside MD to buy a handgun. It can only be transferred through a MD dealer. As far as I know, there are no D.C. dealers who can transfer under the law. Maybe our new mayor will make something happen.

From The New York Times:



As eightbore points out the practical ability of implementing that may be difficult as there are no gunshops presently in DC.

Yes, and I'm going to put this decision in the hands of some of them I'm acquainted with -- and I know they'll be surprised!

Proposed on September 25, 1789
Ratified on December 15, 1791

Amendment II

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.

Pete

Who are the Militia? "Well sir, the miltia are the people" James Madison
We haven't heard from the left yet but there is cause for modest celebration! I think I'll go shooting today! David

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session ( February 1982 )

This morning I raised our flag on my flagpole over the Virginia flag with its motto "Sic Semper Tyrannis" Thus always to tyrants. An early morning breeze lifted the flags into the first rays of the sun as I watched and reflected on our heritage and how we have let our liberties be erroded. I have given the NRA more money than I could afford and voted against those who would deny our freedoms, but it is not enough. Today I will celebrate a victory. Let us endevor to pass our country on to the next generation in a form that reflects our values. I will try harder. I have a son-in-law who was a Clinton advance man and a personal friend of Bill. I think I have reached him and that he agrees with my stand on our freedoms. I will endevor to get him to take up the use of arms. Cheers! David

Could a DC resident buy a handgun in Maryland or VA? That would depend on the laws in those states. In Iowa, I have to have either a permit to purchase or a CC permit to buy a handgun. (No requirement for long guns, and my CC permit trumps the ATF background check requirement.) Have never tried buying a handgun in another state, although I've bought plenty of long guns out of state.

I wouldn't be surprised by Bush 41 man's ruling - he was a one worlder of the first order - Skull & Bones don't you know!

D.C.'s Ban On Handguns In Homes Is Thrown Out
Fenty Promises to Fight Appellate Court's Ruling

By David Nakamura and Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, March 10, 2007; A01

A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that the District's longtime ban on keeping handguns in homes is unconstitutional.

The 2 to 1 decision by an appellate panel outraged D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and other city leaders, who said that they will appeal and that gun-related crimes could rise if the ruling takes effect. The outcome elated opponents of strict gun controls, because it knocked down one of the toughest laws in the country and vindicated their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution's language on the right to bear arms.

The panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit became the nation's first federal appeals court to overturn a gun-control law by declaring that the Second Amendment grants a person the right to possess firearms. One other circuit shares that viewpoint on individual rights, but others across the country say the protection that the Second Amendment offers relates to states being able to maintain a militia. Legal experts said the conflict could lead to the first Supreme Court review of the issue in nearly 70 years.

The District's law bars all handguns unless they were registered before 1976; it was passed that year to try to curb gun violence, but it has come under attack over the past three decades in Congress and in courts. Yesterday's ruling guts key parts of the law but does not address provisions that effectively bar private citizens from carrying guns outside the home.

Fenty (D) said the city is committed to pursuing additional appeals, adding: "I am personally deeply disappointed and frankly outraged by this decision. It flies in the face of laws that have helped decrease gun violence in the District of Columbia."

City attorneys said that it would take at least 30 days for the court's decision to go into effect, during which time the District probably will file its appeal. During an appeal, which could last more than a year, the current law would remain in effect, the lawyers said.

Fenty said city officials will "do everything in our power to work to get the decision overturned, and we will vigorously enforce our handgun laws during that time."

The ruling was the latest development in four years of litigation waged by six D.C. residents who said they wanted to keep guns in their homes for self-defense. Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said, "This is a tremendous victory for the civil rights of all Americans."

Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote the majority opinion, also signed by Thomas B. Griffith. Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented. All three were appointed by Republican presidents.

"We conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms," Silberman said in the 58-page majority ruling.

The residents filed their lawsuit -- Parker v. the District of Columbia-- months after then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft declared that gun bans violate the Second Amendment. They were aided by the Cato Institute, a nonprofit group that advocates personal liberties.

The suit said the ban on handgun ownership violates the Second Amendment, which states: "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."

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan dismissed the suit a year later, saying the amendment was tailored to membership in a "militia," which he defined as an organized military body.

The case moved to the appellate court, with the National Rifle Association siding with the pro-gun faction, and with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence joining the District. Reflecting the case's national importance, various state governments lined up on each side.

In the majority opinion, Silberman wrote that federal and state courts have been divided about the extent of protections covered by the Second Amendment. Some have sided with the District's position, that a militia means just that. Others have ruled that the amendment is broader, covering the individual rights of people who own guns for hunting or self-defense.

The Supreme Court addressed the Second Amendment in 1939, but it did not hold that the right to bear arms meant specifically that a person could do so.

Yesterday's majority opinion said that the District has a right to regulate and require the registration of firearms but not to ban them in homes. The ruling also struck down a section of the D.C. law that required owners of registered guns, including shotguns, to disassemble them or use trigger locks, saying that would render the weapons useless.

In her dissent, Henderson wrote that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms relates to those Militia whose continued vitality is required to safeguard the individual States." She also said that because the District is not a state, the Second Amendment does not apply.

Silberman, a staunch conservative, was nominated to the appellate court by President Ronald Reagan, and Griffith was nominated by President Bush. Henderson was nominated by President George H.W. Bush.

Critics have long said that the D.C. law is ineffective, noting that the city has had hundreds of homicides in recent years, most of which were committed with handguns. Of last year's 169 homicides, 137 were committed with firearms, D.C. police said. Enforcing the strict handgun ban is difficult with so many guns on the streets, but police recovered more than 2,600 guns last year.

This was not lost on the Court of Appeals. In a footnote, Silberman noted that "the black market for handguns in the District is so strong that handguns are readily available (probably at little premium) to criminals. It is asserted, therefore, that the D.C. gun control laws irrationally prevent only law abiding citizens from owning handguns."

People in Virginia may legally carry guns openly or conceal them in their homes or businesses. They also may carry concealed weapons in public if they obtain a court-issued permit. In Maryland, residents can own handguns, and gun owners with "good and substantial" reasons can apply for permits to carry them.

Tom G. Palmer, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and one of the plaintiffs who prevailed yesterday, said he once used a handgun to ward off potential attackers when he lived in San Jose. He said the ruling would help residents protect themselves.

"Let's be honest: Although there are many fine officers in the police department, there's a simple test. Call Domino's Pizza or the police, and time which one gets there first," Palmer said.

Plaintiff Gillian St. Lawrence, 28, who lives with her husband in Georgetown, said she has a shotgun in her home and, following District law, keeps it unloaded and bound with a trigger lock. She said she's looking forward to residents "being able to defend themselves in their homes."

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said, "The only people who have anything to fear from a decision like this are the people who intend to break into someone's home in the middle of the night."

But former U.S. deputy attorney general Eric H. Holder Jr. said that weakening the gun law "opens the door to more people having more access to guns and putting guns on the streets."

If the District appeals, the first step would be to seek a review by the full D.C. Circuit. After that decision, the Supreme Court could be asked to review the case. Constitutional scholars said the case is ripe for an airing before the Supreme Court no matter who might prevail in an appeal. However, some scholars said that a D.C. loss in the high court could create a stronger precedent against strict gun laws.

D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) said the ruling could "lead to the overturning of every gun control law in the city. I don't think we have any choice but to fight it."

D.C. resident Kenny Barnes, who became a gun control advocate after his 37-year-old-son was shot to death on U Street NW, called the ruling "crazy."

"What kind of message are you sending?" Barnes asked. "This is not Dodge City in the 1800s."

Staff writers Tom Jackman, Elissa Silverman and John Wagner and staff researcher Meg Smith contributed to this report.

While we're quoting the "Rag", maybe someone will post today's Washington Post editorial about the action, highlighting the very incorrect and biased comments about how unacceptable it is to give second amendment rights to individuals. Further, the editorial describes as "myth" the point made by NRA that, since the 1976 ban, only criminals have had guns in the city and now law-abiding citizens will be able to arm themselves for protection. I don't quite understand how that point is to be described as "myth". Even our local criminal element will agree that the NRA's point is far from "myth". The tone and emotion of this editorial make me think that the normally liberal but calm speaking editorial staff is off for the weekend.

Lowell, I have not read the dissent opinion yet, but from what I've heard she based it on that the Consitution didn't seem to apply to D.C. since it was not a state. One can just hear the uproar if they had restrictions on abortion, the first amendment, or voting and tried to apply the same so-called logic to uphold it?

Bush I did a miserable job of appointing judges.

David, and if it doesn't turn out as it should, there's the Virginia precedent of 1863.

Bush 1 did a miserable job of several things.

He signed the biggest tax hike in history.

He halted the most successful military advance in history before it reached it's objective.

He bungled the economy so badly that he got himself unelected and the result was 8 years of WJC.

This idiot woman federal judge in DC is a very minor part of his legacy.

Please note that the gun grabbers have been lying about the 1933 Miller decision for years.
Although the Supreme Court (incorrectly) found that the 2nd only covered a collective right for the state militias to bear arms, it remanded the case to the original court simply to find out if Miller's sawed off shotgun was a weapon that the militia might use. There the case ended as Miller had disappeared.
If Miller is upheld then EVERYONE capable of bearing arms between the ages of 17 and 45, the traditional and legal ages for militia service - now extended to females - can own and carry full auto M16s, SAWs and grenade launchers.
Somehow I doubt if they REALLY want the Miller decision to stand!

The U.S. Supreme Court never ruled that the 2nd amendment was a "collective right" in U.S. vs Miller (1939) or in any other ruling they've made. That they ever made such a ruling is part of the anti-gun crowd's lies. Also, nowhere in the ruling does it ever say "state militia", only militia.

They ruled that the weapon in question, a shotgun having a barrel length of less than 18 inches, had to be a weapon used by the military or it was not protected under the 2nd amendment. The court was unaware that short barreled shotguns were indeed used by the military, especially during WWI where it was an effective close range weapon when clearing out an enemy's trench. Germany complained that the shotgun was inhumane and if we did not stop using them, they would stop prisoner exchanges.

Miller and his attorney never appeared at the U.S. Supreme Court, nor did the attorney file any brief with the court. The U.S. Supreme Court heard only one sided arguments, and they must make their rulings based on the arguments of the case.

Regarding the "militia" in the 2nd amendment, they stated: "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

We are the militia.

Speaking of "anti-gun crowd's lies," the NY Times bit about "9 other courts disagreeing" with the ruling was repeated (phrased differently" by the Washington Post -- and probably will be by most local rags, since so many pick up their news from the Times.

It's important for the FACTS on this to reach as many papers as possible, if only as a well-written letter to the editor.

Can anyone (perhaps an attorney) state the truth about other appellate rulings on the matter?

That only confuses them, Fred...

Fred, please reread your last line. Maybe if you eliminated the parenthetical portion, it would make sense. And don't be cute and replace "attorney" with "stockbroker" or some such.

Handguns cannot be purchased and received in a state you do not reside in. If there are no licensed dealers in DC you could only purchase from private people ie people who have just moved in and brought handguns with them or people who had handguns hidden away during the ban.(heaven forbid, they would probably be hardened criminals) The only other way I can see one comming in is that you can recieve firearm through legitimate inheritance. Interesting