The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down Washington DC’s ridiculous handgun law, citing of all things the Second Amendment.

In all seriousness what is intriguing is “why’ they did, and even more curious is what the Dissenting Justice and the City Cited as their justification to keep the law.

D.C.’s Ban On Handguns In Homes Is Thrown Out

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.

Right there strikes to the heart of the issue.  Most gun control lovers cite the militia provision in the Second Amendment as proof that private gun ownership is not covered.  But the Appeals Court ruled the opposite, which is the main argument pro gun groups have consistently maintained:

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

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.

The Opinion states:

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.

Refreshing.

But the fun part is why the opponents claim they can bypass the constitutional aspect:

DC is not a State, so therefore it has not ratified the constitution and is not bound by it.

Both the city and the dissenting justice believe this argument.

The prevailing judges did not, and the residents of DC should be grateful.

Consider the wider ramifications of a city that suddenly is not bound by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Gun laws are not the only things at stake.

• Habeas Corpus?  Gone.
• Illegal searches?  Open season.
• Miranda laws?  Gone.
• Free Speech, press and religion?  Nope.

Had the city actually set that precedent and successfully claimed to not be bound by the constitution, the possible abuse of the precedent could have been huge.

And the fact is that if the city acts in compliance to the constitution in any place, it must in all, so by their normal adherence to it, they in effect defeat their own argument.

Many people are frustrated by the lack of representation in congress due to DC’s lack of statehood.

I imagine they would miss the Bill of Rights more.

Sister Toldjah and Michelle Malkin have some great reactions.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Virtuous Republic, Big Dog’s Weblog, Shadowscope, A Few Shiny Pebbles, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, Rightlinx, Right Celebrity, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein… has no mercy, , Pirate’s Cove, Overtaken by Events, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Right Pundits, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Random Yak, A Blog For All, 123beta, Adam’s Blog, basil’s blog, Phastidio.net, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao’s Blog, The Florida Masochist, Conservative Cat, Jo’s Cafe, Conservative Thoughts, Allie Is Wired, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, High Desert Wanderer, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS