Tapsearch Com EditorFederal DC appeals court rules Second Amendment an individual right
March 11th 2007 01:21
In the June 2005 issue of Reason, I wrote about DC's Parker case, where some local gun owners challenged a handgun ban:
"Parker v. District of Columbia, in which Cato's Robert Levy serves as co-counsel, seeks a ruling based solely on the Second Amendment...[It] lost in U.S. district court. U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan 'indicated that he found our arguments credible, but he thought U.S. v. Miller bound him,' Levy says of his case."
People were unsure how the Supreme Court would react:
"David Hardy favors waiting, predicting a 10-year battle. He hopes the Bush administration, which has endorsed the individual-right interpretation of the Second Amendment, will appoint gun-friendly justices to the Supreme Court. 'Now we've got three votes for sure, and the rest are in the other camp,' he says. 'I'd like to see four or five in our back pocket, with a really good test case. Once you have a ruling you're only halfway through, because the lower courts will resist. It will be a battle to get the lower courts in line, and I doubt it would be a quick fight.'"
No one really thought twice about the DC appeals court, however, which recently and very explicitly ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. It found DC's gun ban and "locked and unloaded" laws unconstitutional. It left open the issue of whether the Second Amendment protected the carrying of concealed weapons (I heartily support concealed carry, but I'm not sure it does).
This is great news for freedom. It sets a great tone for the Supreme Court case, assuming they hear it, and now we have at least four judges in our corner.
By Robert VerBruggen
"Parker v. District of Columbia, in which Cato's Robert Levy serves as co-counsel, seeks a ruling based solely on the Second Amendment...[It] lost in U.S. district court. U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan 'indicated that he found our arguments credible, but he thought U.S. v. Miller bound him,' Levy says of his case."
People were unsure how the Supreme Court would react:
"David Hardy favors waiting, predicting a 10-year battle. He hopes the Bush administration, which has endorsed the individual-right interpretation of the Second Amendment, will appoint gun-friendly justices to the Supreme Court. 'Now we've got three votes for sure, and the rest are in the other camp,' he says. 'I'd like to see four or five in our back pocket, with a really good test case. Once you have a ruling you're only halfway through, because the lower courts will resist. It will be a battle to get the lower courts in line, and I doubt it would be a quick fight.'"
No one really thought twice about the DC appeals court, however, which recently and very explicitly ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. It found DC's gun ban and "locked and unloaded" laws unconstitutional. It left open the issue of whether the Second Amendment protected the carrying of concealed weapons (I heartily support concealed carry, but I'm not sure it does).
This is great news for freedom. It sets a great tone for the Supreme Court case, assuming they hear it, and now we have at least four judges in our corner.
By Robert VerBruggen
| 50 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
