I heard about this story on the radio. It seems like the most damning opinion written about gun control legislation I've ever seen.From the Associated Press:
A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's long-standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.
In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia."
The court also ruled the D.C. requirement that registered firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled and under trigger lock was unconstitutional.
The court went on to explain that the cramped definition of "militia" given by the District of Columbia disagrees significantly with writings from the founding fathers indicating that "bear arms" was an individual right.
The court stated that the Second Amendment could still be subject to restrictions such as gun registration. According to the A.P. if the Supreme Court takes the case, it will be the first time in 70 years it has taken up the issue of the scope of the Second Amendment.
Eugene Volokh has the decision boiled down to its salient points, including this one:
In determining whether the Second Amendment’s guarantee is an individual one, or some sort of collective right, the most important word is the one the drafters chose to describe the holders of the right — “the people.” That term is found in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. It has never been doubted that these provisions were designed to protect the interests of individuals against government intrusion, interference, or usurpation. We also note that the Tenth Amendment — “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people” — indicates that the authors of the Bill of Rights were perfectly capable of distinguishing between “the people,” on the one hand, and “the states,” on the other. The natural reading of “the right of the people” in the Second Amendment would accord with usage elsewhere in the Bill of Rights.
Allahpundit at HotAir explains why the SCOTUS might take the case.
|