The Most Significant Second Amendment Case In History

Last March, the District of Columbia saw judicial activism replace the will of the people.

Today, with news that the US Supreme Court has taken the appeal of DC v. Heller, the Justices can set things right.

Over 30 years ago, the elected representatives on the DC City Council decided to enact a system of strict gun laws to help protect public safety. The people in DC strongly support these laws. The District's police strongly favor them as well.

The District's decision has been attacked over and over again by outside interests more concerned with pleasing the gun lobby than respecting the will of the people. Some in Congress have tried multiple times to overrule the District's preference for strict gun regulations, but have failed each time.

In 2003, however, a wealthy benefactor decided to fund a challenge in Federal court to the District's strong gun laws. A fellow of the libertarian Cato Institute, his argument lost soundly at trial.

On appeal to the Federal circuit court, however, two judges handed him a "victory." They decided to ignore almost 70 years of Supreme Court precedent [pdf], over 200 years of American history [pdf], and even the text of the Constitution itself [pdf]. In so doing, they imposed their own policy preferences on the people of DC.

It was a textbook example of judicial activism at its worst.

For over 200 years, communities across America have used their right to vote for gun laws they believe are needed to protect their safety. Yet the Federal appeals court decided to limit that authority with a misguided view of the Constitution. That was wrong.

The people of this country know that sensible gun laws save lives. For example, Hawaiians banned assault weapons and required a permit to purchase handguns. Californians banned assault weapons and required universal background checks for every gun purchase. Coloradans closed the gun show loophole. Illinoisans closed the gun show loophole and required child safety locks sold with each handgun. Michiganders require lost or stolen guns to be reported to the police. New Yorkers banned assault weapons and closed the gun show loophole. Virginians limited handgun purchases to one per month.

All across America, the power of the people to pass laws like these was put at risk by the reasoning in the lower-court decision.

I am hopeful, however, that the Supreme Court will do the right thing.

If the Justices read all 27 words of the Second Amendment and give them meaning; if they respect the right of the people to enact their own strong gun laws, as we have throughout American history; and, if the Justices reject judicial activism and refrain from substituting their own policy preferences for the people's elected representatives, then the District of Columbia will prevail. And so will the American people.

As a lawyer and a lifelong Republican, I have deep respect for judicial precedent, for American history, and for a close reading of all the words in the Constitution. As one who served as Mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana for 12 years, I also believe in the importance of local communities being able to pass the laws they believe will help keep them safe.

These are common values we all share, and I am optimistic that the US Supreme Court shares them, as well.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

Comments

[dvcrsn]

I looked at how the Brady Campaign to Promote Handgun Violence defines the term "militia" today (I admit I should have followed the link earlier, but even after 10 years active work in the NRA Member Council program here in the People's Republik of Kalifornia (home of some of the looniest HCI sponsored gun laws in the country)I still forget how much childish schlock and outright falsehood (try bullflop and roadapples) that you try to pass off as solid "research"--I see more honesty and better knowledge of the process in third and fourth graders. The militia is not and never has been an organization under strict governmental control. Since draft registration came back in the 1970's, the registration component from the first laws concerning the militia is (in essence) back in play--now to get the second component--the militia weapons. Since the first laws specified that these weapons were to be supplied by the members themselves (with governmental assistance to purchase, if needed) I was wondering where I could get my Springfield M1A at government expense (since I cannot afford the $2000 needed to purchase this rifle) since the M14 is very popular as the substitute standard rifle in both Irag and Afghanistan. As a vet, I still have 14 years to go in the unorganized militia

[dvcrsn]

Proposal to all those who have contributed to this blog--that since any attempt to make a straw purchase is illegal, I suggest that Michael BLoomberg be prosecuted for every OJesque sting his private dicks performed and that he be sentenced to maximum terms for each one to be served sequentially. Now that is gun control I can support.

[shedances]

Honestly, DC's handgun law was not unconstitutional; because the District had every right to pass such a law (thanks to Congress) & it never violated the 2nd Amendment 'right to bear arms' language, as it applies to state militias.

I'll refrain from using the term 'state' loosely here, when referring to DC ~ just for the purposes of this discussion ... but everyone should understand why its handgun ban was wrongly struck down. I am strongly optimistic that it will be reversed by more knowledgeable Supreme Court justices.

Lastly, there is no unregulated constitutional right to bear arms in this country under the 2nd Amendment. None. And if gun-extremists try to do what the Klu Klux Klan tried to do years ago ~ & consider themselves a 'militia' in order to be armed ~ they too will fail.

That's all I've got time to post this week. Thanks for reading, concerned & dedicated gun control advocates & friends. Do keep your chin up, District of Columbia residents & Mayor Fenty! Many are behind you in this very important fight.

~ KELLI

p.s. ~ Oh & BTW, kaveman's article (though from a very fine source, the NY Times) is dated last March ... what we refer to in journalism as "old news."

[kaveman]

Stop the presses!

Looks like Souter and Ginsburg might rule in our favor.

By the way Kelli, these are current Supreme Court Justices. Thought I'd inform you since you know nothing about the Justice system.

Looks like we might by looking at a 7-2 split in our favor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/washington/10gun.html?ei=5124&en=7dd8851de712becd&ex=1331182800&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&pagewanted=all

[kaveman]

Listen to Kelli and think...

You know ...

If the U.S. Supreme Court wasn't going to overturn the lower court, then it need not even agree to review the case. The High Court could simply have declined to hear it, which it did not.


Kelli



1. Kelli believes that Judges DECIDE cases BEFORE they HEAR cases? This sounds like a wonderful judicial system, don't ya think?

Who cares what evidence is presented before me, I've already made up my mind on this issue. That attitude may be acceptable to some low level Brady Bunch lacky, but it's not OK for a Judge. Imagine that you are arrested yourself Kelli for walking down the street in the seedy part of town late at night. The arresting officer charges you for prostitution.
You have a perfectly good explanation for why you were in that neighborhood at that time of night. You await your day in court to explain to a Judge the circumstances of the night in question. But the Judge has decided that you are indeed a prostitute BEFORE YOU GIVE YOUR TESTIMONY, BEFORE YOUR COURT DATE, in fact, this Judge has always ASSUMED you were a prostitute. You are sent to jail, lose your job, your husband, your life.

This is what you believe our justice system should be?

The charter of the Supreme Court is to review and rule on cases which have a connection to the Constitution AND which there is disagreement amongst the lower courts. SCOTUS is doing exactly what it is expected to do. The 2A is a Contitutional ammendment and the lower courts do not all agree on its interpretation.

2. It only takes 4 of the 9 Justices to decide to hear a case. Notice how I used the word HEAR? Any Judge who would sink so low as to decide a case without first hearing the evidence from both sides of that case has no business wearing that black robe, and yet you have no problem whatsoever with the very thing your beloved Paul Helmke claims to rally so hard against...

judicial activism.

[dragn1]

Kelli
I am going to make this as simple as I can. Do you understand that the framer of the constitution were afraid of large central government. They worried about over and over; it was a major concern for many not taking up arms initially against the British. Mel Gibson’s line in the patriot was well said from History references “why would I give up a tyrant 3000 miles away for one 300 miles away.” They worried any strong American centralized government would be a danger to the states powers and the peoples freedoms. The second amendment was written to be able to overthrow a government. No one wants to speak about it but that is the bottom line it is there so people can fight a government gone mad. We have seen a government on this soil like that recently during Katrina. You speak of assault rifles the Kentucky rifles used in the revolution were the assault rifles of the day. They were easily 2 to 3 times more accurate. Marksmen would pick off English Officers from Tree lines. The English felt it was very bad form. Be honest and say that they scare you and you want them all to go away at least that I can respect. Not the bingo group rewriting of History.

[dvcrsn]

For all the liberal/pr­ogressives out there who oppose the Patriot Act for limitting the "rights of the people" enumerated in the first, fourth, ninth and tenth amendments, what justifies completely ignoring the second amendment (which is also a "right of the people). If the second amendment is anachronistic or "out of date" or out of date because "times have changed"--what is to keep your favorite right(s) for being invalidated for the same reason?

[dvcrsn]

Kelli-I have noticed that Paul, metamorphosis and you are big fans of using "will of the people" to justify all sorts of positions (even those that are unConstitutional) when you agree with the results and throw histrionic temper tantrums when you disagree with the results. In fact, you and JN pretend that your opponents condone criminal activity. One of the cases you cited involved the KKK using firearms to terrorize innocent fisherman and pretended that was supporting proof for your side. In my book--it supported your opponents, since laws against assault with a deadly weapons would be totally unaffected by DC VS Heller--and if you were at all "reasonable", you would support armed self defense in a situation like this. Kelli do you support "reasonable" gun control on do you only support laws that empower criminals (laws like those in DC)?

[shedances]

You know ...

If the U.S. Supreme Court wasn't going to overturn the lower court, then it need not even agree to review the case. The High Court could simply have declined to hear it, which it did not.

No wonder the gun lobby/NRA & its goons are coming on here with so much nastiness & trying one argument/c­ounter-arg­ument after another. I think they must be scared shitless ... for lack of a better term.

Kelli

[dvcrsn]

Kelly--in the comments section of the Massengil blog, I backed another of your opponents in his challenge you.The challenge was show us where we could get a legal fullauto AK47 for $200 out the door and between the 2 of us, 40 firearms would be publicly destroyed. So far Kelli--no response, or were you and Paul LYING??

[MSorgy]

This documents government genocide around the world during the 20th Century and the gun control laws they used to disarm their citizens before they murdered them.

"Down through history, governments have disarmed their citizens only to tyrannize those citizens once they were disarmed.

The following chart documents just a few examples from recent history where "gun control" laws were enacted and then tyranny by the government proceeded."

http://www.mercyseat.net/genocidecharts/chartmain.htm

Michael

[shedances]

Hi Splashy,

Like you, I too am getting real tired of hearing the progun political crowd here continually lying about the District of Columbia ... this time, by claiming that the District cannot pass gun laws due to lack of statehood. Congress has authorized the District of Columbia to pass its own laws & ordinances regarding police power, such as the regulation of firearms.

"... It is not disputed that the District is a part of the United States and that its residents are entitled to all the guarantees of the United States Constitution, including the privilege of trial by jury and of presentment by a grand jury ... Legislation restrictive of liberty and property in the District must find justification in facts adequate to support like legislation by a State in the exercise of its police power."

From: Callan v. Wilson, (1888); Capital Traction Co. v. Hof, (1899); United States v. Moreland, (1922); Wright v. Davidson, (1901); Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, (1923) & West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, (1937).

Kelli

[dvcrsn]

JN--I have a question for you in particular. If the term "right of the people" in the second amendment's "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" a collective right, why are the rights enumerated in the first,fourth, ninth and tenth considered to be individual rights when the phrase "right of the people" is in those amendments as well. And by the way, since "A well regulated militia being essential to a free state" is a dependent clause, it give a reason for the independent, but does not limit, the indepdent clause--"the right of the people...".

[dannyS]

I'd rather take my chances with a lone gunman than with a shooting gallery if everyone were carrying guns.
"guns don't kill people, bullets traveling very fast kill people"

[Sneaky]

I'm alarmed at the number of people confusing a preference for a right.

A right is something we are born with. It is something that no other human has authority to take away from us, unless by due process of law we have warranted our rights suppressed (i.e., we commit a crime).

A preference is an opinion. Everyone has their own opinion, and no two people will ever agree whole-heartedly on every single issue, word-for-word.

Splashy, let me direct this to you since this argument spawns from your recent post. We have a RIGHT to have weapons in this country. If they make you uncomfortable, and you prefer to be away from them, that is your PREFERENCE. Nobody's preferences ever have authority of a person's rights. If the exercise of my RIGHT is not interfering with you exercising your rights, then there is nothing wrong with it. If one person carrying a gun threatened you with it, they have endangered and violated your rights. If a second person carrying a gun never commits a crime and never hurts a person, should they be punished because of your opinion, formed because of the first bad person?