
Multiple media sources report that Mayor Adrian Fenty of Washington, D.C. announced that he will appeal the District of Columbia handgun law to the Supreme Court. The case is
Parker v. District of Columbia. There is some question as to the deadline and timing, but during the appeal application, the law apparently will remain in effect, despite a three-panel Appeals court ruling turning down the handgun law, covered on this blog on March 9, 2007 (see blog archive links on the left); the Appeals Court turned down a subsequent appeal for an
en banc rehearing (rare, but it happened in Joe Steffan's case in this Circuit in 1994 regarding gays in the military). NBC4 reports that it is not at all certain that the Supreme Court will take the case; if it dismisses it, the law will be vacated and the appeals court ruling will stand.
The Cato Institute offers a story
here. A related story by Robert A. Levy “Should Congress or the Courts Decide D.C. Gun Ban’s Fate” is
here. Even if the Supreme Court upholds the appeals court ruling, there are other practical difficulties. Levy maintains that Congress should allow interstate handgun sales when legal in both states. Apparently these are legal with rifles but not handguns, so even with a victory DC residents could still not legally buy handguns.
David Nakamura has a story in The Washington Post, July 17, 2007, p A01, “D.C. Wants High Court to Hear Gun Case: City Defending Restrictive Law,”
here.
Generally, the ideological constitutional battle concerns whether the “right” is an individual right to own firearms, or applies collectively to “militia.” The legal arguments might be complicated by archaic statutes that name most adult males as members of an unorganized militia (never important in practice, but sometimes mentioned in arguments about restoring conscription). An underlying issue is that the 1791 Bill of Rights really was intended to protect individuals from the federal government (which governs the District, with the context of limited home rule – itself another potential constitutional controversy). The practical argument is that citizens believe that they should be able to defend their own property and families without waiting for belated response from law enforcement in emergencies. Residents in the DC area (often including GLBT residents in some areas of the District such as Capitol Hill) report that ownership of a weapon is often a practical deterrent against home invasion and burglary. DC law does not allow people to carry pepper stray, but some other cities do, and gay men sometimes carry it in areas near gay bars, as do many women in general. I am aware of some specific cases where District residents have been prosecuted for defending themselves. In one case, a man moved to Virginia to escape continued legal risks.
Wikipedia has an instructive article on the 1939 Supreme Court case
“United States v. Miller” with the general impression left that the Court held that the 2nd Amendment applied on to organized militia and to weapons that a militia could reasonably use. Link is
here: The Wikisource text of the 1939 Opinion is
here.
There has been disagreement as to whether this is an adequate precedent now, and a feeling that the current Supreme Court is more geared to literal interpretations of concepts of individual rights, v. “collective” rights. Also, the DC law seems to apply only to handguns and allows their possession if disassembled or locked up according to certain specifications.
Here is my own slide show on fundamental rights:
Update: Nov. 13, 2007The Supreme Court has yet to decide if it will take the case. It may be debating whether it is a jurisdictional issue (should the District of Columbia be viewed as a "state") or a fundamental rights issue to be incorporated to the states under the 14th Amendment (or just a group right protecting states from federal intrusion). The next opportunity for information on whether to take the case can come on Monday Nov. 27.
Update: Nov. 20, 2007There was a surprise. The Supreme Court announced that it would take the case. The AP story is by Mark Sherman, "High court to weigh ban on gun ownership,"
here.
The Washington Post story Nov. 21 on p A01 is by Fred Barnes, "Justices To Rule On D.C. Gun Ban; 2nd Amendment Case Could Affect Laws Nationwide," link
here. The Supreme Court specifically said that it would decide whether D.C. law would "violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes." It sounds like they are going to look at the grammar issue and may have a predisposition to look at self and familial defense as a fundamental right.
Update: January 5, 2008The District of Columbia has filed its arguments in its appeal to the Supreme Court. Walter Dellinger was chosen to defend the law. The NBC4 news story is
here.
The link for the brief is
here. The most controversial argument starts on page 11: "The Second Amendment protects only militia-related firearm rights." Soon this sentence appears: "The Second Amendment does not support respondent's claim of firearms for self-defense."
Personally, this reminds me of another old chestnut and canard, "homosexuality is incompatible with military service." Libertarians see these ideas the same way.