D.C. Gun Possession Appeal Might Alter Private HANDGUN Ownership "Rights" !
Akneigh Wombuster
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed."
-- 2nd Amendment, U.S. Constitution
The betting at this juncture is that the Supreme Court will voice an
opinion on the side of gun-control advocates if it agrees to hear the
case being prepared by the District of Columbia government.
Some legal experts -- who requested anonimity because the case has yet
to be submitted for consideration -- have weighed in on the potential
case, and a majority seem to be leaning toward the Court finding that
the Second Amendment was and is intended to apply to states and their
right to raise militia for defense and law and order enforcement.
"There is no way the framers of the Constitution were thinking about
giving the little guy the unrestricted right to acquire and use
firearms. Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion provided the
drafters sufficient evidence that individual citizens could cause a
lot of trouble if they had the wherewithal to band together in
opposition to U.S. laws," said one attorney, a Constitutional
specialist.
Another lawyer said that if the term militia can be construed as
defining any loosely-organized group of gun-owners, "We are looking
at an unregulated mob, not a militia in the true sense."
Of course, if the Court sides with the organized militia advocates,
the next related case might deal with what do we do with the firearms
-- more specifically the handguns -- even more specifically the stolen
hanguns -- now in circulation?
With the present administration's Department of Homeland Security and
the intelligence agencies seeming to want to reduce or contract
citizens' Constitutional rights and freedoms, will the notional "right
to bear arms" be altered or redefined?
Time will tell.
------------------------------
"D.C. Case Could Shape Gun Laws"
"Supreme Court Is Asked to Uphold Ban"
By Robert Barnes and David Nakamura
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 5, 2007; A01
The District asked the Supreme Court yesterday to save the city's ban
on handgun ownership, saying an appeals court's decision overturning
the prohibition "drastically departs from the mainstream of American
jurisprudence."
If the court agrees to take the case, as most legal experts believe is
likely, it could lead to a historic decision sometime next year on
whether the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects an
individual's right to own a gun or simply imparts a collective, civic
right related to maintaining state militias.
It is a question that has been hotly debated in the nation's courts
and legislatures for years, and a decision by the Supreme Court to
settle the issue could carry broad implications for local governments
and thrust gun control as an issue into the 2008 elections.
The District argues in its petition that its law -- one of the
strictest in the nation -- should be upheld regardless of whether the
court sides with the individualist or collective legal theory.
"It is eminently reasonable to permit private ownership of other types
of weapons, including shotguns and rifles, but ban the easily
concealed and uniquely dangerous modern handgun," states the petition,
filed by D.C. Attorney General Linda Singer. It adds: "Whatever right
the Second Amendment guarantees, it does not require the District to
stand by while its citizens die."
Most petitions for review focus on why the court should take the case,
but the District's filing serves as more of a preview of its defense
of the law, filled with statistics about gun violence and the harm
caused to children, women and police officers.
"No other provision of the Bill of Rights even arguably requires a
government to tolerate serious physical harm on anything like the
scale of the devastation worked by handguns," the petition states.
Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) said at a news conference outside D.C.
police headquarters that the law has strong support among District
residents. "The only possible outcome of more handguns in the home is
more violence," he said. "Our appeal will help the District of
Columbia be able to continue to reduce gun violence."
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit voted 2 to 1 in March to throw out the District's
law, which prohibits handgun ownership except by active and retired
law enforcement officers. It also struck down a law requiring that
rifles and shotguns kept in private homes be unloaded and disassembled
or bound by trigger locks.
The court ruled that the Second Amendment "protects an individual
right to keep and bear arms" and that "once it is determined -- as we
have done -- that handguns are 'Arms' referred to in the Second
Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them."
The court acknowledged that its decision was groundbreaking; only one
other federal appeals court -- that of the 5th Circuit, based in New
Orleans -- has recognized an individual's right to gun ownership, and
it nevertheless upheld the federal gun-control law at issue. Nine
other circuits around the country have endorsed the collective right.
That split is what makes it likely that the justices will accept the
case. The lawyers who brought the case on behalf of six D.C. residents
who wanted to overturn the ban also want the court to take the case.
"We support the court granting [review] and plan on responding very
quickly," said Alan Gura, one of the lawyers who brought the case.
Both sides expect that the court could decide by November whether to
hear the case, which would mean a decision could come by next summer.
The Supreme Court has not specifically addressed the gun-rights
guarantees of the Second Amendment since 1939, when it upheld a
federal gun-control law and seemed to side with the collective-right
argument.
The Second Amendment provides: "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 appeals court's decision to focus on "the right of the people to
keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" rather than "a well
regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
reflects a growing trend in the legal and academic community.
Some gun-control groups are nervous about taking the appeals court
decision, which now affects only the District of Columbia, to the
national level. The District's petition asks the court to decide a
fairly narrow question: "Whether the Second Amendment forbids the
District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while
allowing possession of rifles and shotguns."
The petition argues that the appeals court's decision ignored the
"obvious military character" of the Second Amendment's language.
It argues further that the amendment was meant to protect the states
from federal intervention, not to restrict their legislative
decisions. "States remain free to regulate arms within their
boundaries so long as they do not thereby deprive the United States of
the ability to obtain the assistance of an armed citizenry in time of
need," the petition states.
District lawyers argue that the ability to own shotguns and rifles
satisfied the desire of the law's challengers for a means of self-
protection. The appeals court found that argument "frivolous."
Although the case decided by the appeals court was called Parker v.
District of Columbia, District lawyers have filed their petition as
District of Columbia v. Dick Anthony Heller. That is because the
appeals court found that Heller, a security guard, was the only one of
the six plaintiffs who had legal standing to challenge the law. His
application for a handgun permit was denied by the government.
Gura said he will ask the high court to reinstate the others as
parties to the suit.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/04/AR2007090401977.html
John Fartlington Poopnagel
UNDERSCORES THE PAUCITY OF RIGHTS IN THAT CITY ------------