In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has upheld the Constitution of the United States and the natural rights of free people:
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.
The decision is here.
Here’s the original complaint.
Congrats! A big victory for DC residents who obey gun laws–since, ipso facto, if they didn’t, they’d own a gun already.
Eugene Volokh, though, says (http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_03_04-2007_03_10.shtml#1173453865) the Supreme Court will eventually have to decide the case…
I support the right to bear arms, but two things (I’ve asked this before, but I’m lazy):
-What about home rule and states rights?
-What about that “well-regulated militia” clause-who’s considered a “militia”?
Oh, and congrats though!
Congratulations to you and to the people and the Constitution.
My amateur reading of the opinion makes me think the court also held that “bear” is the same as “carry” so therefore the people have the right to carry.
Adam,
The court addressed those concerns in its opinion. The dissenting opinion held that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply in D.C., because it’s not a state, which is an absurd reading. It would entail that the DC government could shut down any church, mosque, or synagoge they don’t like and arrest the editors of the Washington Post, since the First Amendment also wouldn’t apply. Moreover, the history is backwards, since the Bill of Rights originally did not apply to the states until the incorporation doctrine based on the 14th Amendment; until then, it only applied to the federal government, which does have jurisdiction over D.C.
Congratulations Tom! I know that it has already riled up debate here in my Constitutional law class with people lining up for a Supreme Court battle. It was great to see you on TV as well stimulating people’s sense of constitutionality.
Congratulations! That is a huge victory.
Congratulations!! It’s a wonderful opinion! I read the whole thing last night.
Thanks for fighting for all our 2nd amendment rights. I’m hopeful this will make it to the U.S. Supreme Court for an opinion with more precedential authority. There seems to be a clear circuit split on the issue, though the D.C. opinion is the most straightforward.
Chuck Moulton
Vice-Chair, Libertarian National Committee
Spring 2006 Intern, Cato Institute
Congrats and thanks for all of your work on this.
Congrats Dr Palmer!
Congratulations!!!
Congratulations, Dr. Palmer!
I add my congratulations to the list!
Let’s hope that the Supreme Court follows through with a clear and correct authoritative decision.
Well, it’s true that the Constitution has to be respected. But is there still a need for the Second Amendment? Isn’t it the right time to abolish it? Spread of light arms all over the planet is one of the most serious security problems. Is the right to bear arms (that is to say, a right to have an opportunity to kill a human being) an inalienable right or a distortion of the society that we now have to get rid of?
Allow me to join in the praise for a very good job. All of planitiffs are to commended. The NRA deserves a big boo.
Congratulations!
R2D2,
Violence in general may be a scourge of our society, but to legally ban all violence–including self-defensive violence–would be a mistake.
What’s true of violence in general is true of gun violence in particular.
Looks like I was wrong, and happily so.
When can I expect reciprocity with Colorado?
😉
Matt Tievsky,
The humankind has found a solution to the riddle of indispensable violence. When the violence stays an exclusive prerogative of a democratic state based on the rule of law, and arms are only given to state’s agents, then you have a dicrease in violence. If you choose spread of light arms as your way of self-defence, you eventually get Columbine etc.
R2D2: “The humankind has found a solution to the riddle of indispensable violence. When the violence stays an exclusive prerogative of a democratic state based on the rule of law, and arms are only given to state’s agents, then you have a dicrease in violence.”
You’re describing a fantasy, not a proven claim. No state has ever succeeded in monopolizing violence in general or gun violence in particular.
Congratulations from me too, Tom, but I have to correct you on the “D.C. is not a state” argument. The dissent’s argument does not imply that the D.C. government could shut down newspapers and churches. The “D.C. is not a state” argument applies to the Second Amendment, not the First, because of the “being necessary to the security of a free state” language.
The dissent said that (1) the whole amendment should be interpreted in light of that initial clause, and (2) “state” in the initial clause only refers to federal states.
Both parts of the dissent’s argument are wrong. For Part (1), I’ll refer you to Eugene’s article on The Commonplace Second Amendment. For Part (2), I’ll refer you to Eugene’s blog post documenting the use of the “free state” expression by Blackstone.
But the dissent’s argument, even if it were correct, wouldn’t limit the applicability of the First Amendment in D.C.
Thanks for the clarification, Sasha. I read through it more carefully after my post and should have come back and corrected it. I still find the argument absurd, but there you go.
Tom: Keep up the good work!
R2D2: In direct answer to your original question — yes, every person has the inalienable right to kill in self defense. This is a basic corollary of the right to one’s own life.
This is a fundamental principle. A system which denies this right is a system which essentially turns us into domestic animals, rather than sovereign individuals.
Warmest congratulations on this wonderful outcome!
Onto the Supreme Court! How about a 9-0 ruling?