[antimedia] antimedia: A landmark decision by the DC DistrictCourt....

[Email subscription to blog articles]

A beautifully written summary--many thanks 

-----Original Message-----
From: antimedia-bounces at lists.powerblogs.com
[mailto:antimedia-bounces at lists.powerblogs.com] On Behalf Of Email
subscription to blog articles
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 6:31 PM
To: antimedia at lists.powerblogs.com
Subject: [antimedia] antimedia: A landmark decision by the DC
DistrictCourt....

Posted by antimedia:
A landmark decision by the DC District Court....
http://www.antimedia.us/posts/1173483041.shtml


   ....must have gun control advocates [1]quaking in their boots. The
   District of Columbia passed a very stringent gun control law that not
   only limited gun ownership to a select few but required that they keep
   the guns unloaded and with trigger locks intact. The law effectively
   neutered gun owners, which, from the [2]language argued (75 page pdf)
   in court, appears to be exactly what their intent was.

     The provisions second comma divides the Amendment into two
     clauses; the first is prefatory, and the second operative.
     Appellants argument is focused on their reading of the Second
     Amendments operative clause. According to appellants, the
     Amendments language flat out guarantees an individual right to
     keep and bear Arms. Appellants concede that the prefatory clause
     expresses a civic purpose, but argue that this purpose, while it
     may inform the meaning of an ambiguous term like Arms, does not
     qualify the right guaranteed by the operative portion of the
     Amendment.
     The District of Columbia argues that the prefatory clause declares
     the Amendments only purposeto shield the state militias from
     federal encroachmentand that the operative clause, even when read
     in isolation, speaks solely to military affairs and guarantees a
     civic, rather than an individual, right. In other words, according
     to the District, the operative clause is not just limited by the
     prefatory clause, but instead both clauses share an explicitly
     civic character. The District claims that the Second Amendment
     protects private possession of weapons only in connection with
     performance of civic duties as part of a well-regulated citizens
     militia organized for the security of a free state. Individuals
     may be able to enforce the Second Amendment right, but only if the
     law in question will impair their participation in common defense
     and law enforcement when called to serve in the militia. But
     because the District reads a well regulated Militia to signify
     only the organized militias of the founding erainstitutions that
     the District implicitly argues are no longer in existence
     todayinvocation of the Second Amendment right is conditioned upon
     service in a defunct institution. Tellingly, we think, the District
     did not suggest what sort of law, if any, would violate the Second
     Amendment todayin fact, at oral argument, appellees counsel
     asserted that it would be constitutional for the District to ban
     allfirearms outright. In short, we take the Districts position to
     be that the Second Amendment is a dead letter.

   A dead letter is precisely what gun control advocates want to make of
   the Second Amendment.
   The Court, however, did not agree with the District's reading of the
   amendment. After a lengthy review of court precedent, theories
   propounded by the legal academy and American history, the Court
   concluded that the Second Amendment refers to an individual's right to
   keep and bear firearms.

     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 Amendments civic purpose, however, the activities it
     protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individuals
     enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or
     intermittent enrollment in the militia.

   The significance of this clear statement must not be underestimated.
   There has been a battle raging in the legal academy for quite some
   time. The Court describes the theories as the "collectivist right"
   theory and the "individualist right" theory. The former would permit
   control and confiscation of firearms. The latter would prohibit it
   constitutionally. A third theory, smugly named the "sophisticated
   collectivist right" theory is nothing more than a pig with lipstick
   hiding it's agreement with the former theory.
   What the court has done is reject the collectivists' arguments in
   toto. Although anything is possible, it's hard to imagine the Supreme
   Court reversing the Court. The effective result should be, then, a
   more skeptical legal eye examining gun control arguments nationwide.
   That can only be good for America. Now if can just get the Court to
   overturn the brain-dead decision they made regarding Campaign Finance,
   we will have at least restored some of our freedoms.

References

   1. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/03/lookit_what_the.html
   2.
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf