Ammo For Sale

« « Teh Funny | Home | Parker thoughts » »

MAJOR NEWS: Parker V. DC

In DC, circuit court has ruled that the second amendment means what it says. Individual rights. Woot! Volokh has some analysis. So does Kerr.

Here’s the opinion.

I’m still reading.

Insty has more.

Update: Heh:

We note that the Ninth Circuit has recently dealt with a Second Amendment claim by first extensively analyzing that provision, determining that it does not provide an individual right, and then, and only then, concluding that the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge a California statute restricting the possession, use, and transfer of assault weapons. See Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052, 1066-67 & n.18 (9th Cir. 2003). We think such an approach is doctrinally quite unsound.

Update: Now, the DC and the Fifth circuit hold an individual rights view. Other circuits hold the collective rights mythology. Looks like such a split will have to be decided by the supreme court.

Update: For those not familiar, here’s background info.

Update: They address the grammar of the second amendment and conclude what anyone with a basic grasp of English would conclude. Even references to commas.

Giggle: The District’s argument—as strained as it seems to us—is hardly an isolated view.

Shocking: The people means, err, the people.

Update: They get Miller right. Dissent is pretty weak. Well, I couldn’t make it past the first few pages due to all my giggling about states being people on page 63. Is Parker a state?

Update: Another good line (from Chris in comments):

just as the First Amendment free speech clause covers modern communication devices unknown to the founding generation, e.g., radio and television, and the Fourth Amendment protects telephonic conversation from a “search,” the Second Amendment protects the possession of the modern-day equivalents of the colonial pistol.

Update: One more interesting bit:

Reasonable restrictions also might be thought consistent with a “well regulated Militia.” The registration of firearms gives the government information as to how many people would be armed for militia service if called up. Reasonable firearm proficiency testing would both promote public safety and produce better candidates for military service.

23 Responses to “MAJOR NEWS: Parker V. DC”

  1. Snowflakes in Hell » Parker vs. DC Says:

    […] has all the great details.  This is fantastic news, really fantastic news.   But it could have implications.   Our court […]

  2. nk Says:

    Wow! I like to read these things about five or six times before I’m sure that I have understood them but this is as powerful a holding that the Second Amendment protects an INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms as I have never seen before.

  3. DirtCrashr Says:

    I LIKE it!!

  4. South Park Pundit » Blog Archive » Hello? Satan? Says:

    […] Via Uncle […]

  5. magus Says:

    I’m not sure I like some of their arguments re standing, however, they did do a lot of lawyerese to actually grant standing in the face of Seegars (and other) precedent. Standing was a HUGE hurdle to overcome.

    This decision addresses almost every anti-individual rights argument I’ve seen–which is very good–it looks like they’ve covered all the bases for when Parker v DC makes it to the USSC.

    As for the dissent, (DC isn’t a “State” so the Second doesn’t apply) her argument is addressed and gets shredded by the majority opinion in their dicta–again, a good set-up for the challenge in the USSC.

  6. LibertyNews.org - Liberty and Freedom for All » [DC] Victory for DC Gun Owners! Says:

    […] Say Uncle, Volokh, Kerr and Instapundit also have coverage. […]

  7. #9 Says:

    So far so good. Hope for the best.

  8. Bob Krumm » dc gun laws unconstitutional Says:

    […] UPDATE: Say Uncle’s take […]

  9. Oscar Poppa Says:

    […] Uncle has more with MAJOR NEWS: Parker V. DC […]

  10. Chris Says:

    … and it takes a lot to get this fat white guy dancing…

    They’ve covered all the bases. I love this part:

    just as the First Amendment free speech clause covers modern communication devices unknown to the founding generation, e.g., radio and television, and the Fourth Amendment protects telephonic conversation from a “search,” the Second Amendment protects the possession of the modern-day equivalents of the colonial pistol.

  11. Nashville is Talking » Gun Rights News Says:

    […] gun control law deciding in favor of the individual rights view of the second amendment. You know where to go. Spread It Around: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and […]

  12. DirtCrashr Says:

    Chris fat-white dude, thanks for that extra bit for the happy-dance! Whoo!

  13. Anthroblogogy Says:

    DC Majority Opinion says: Individual Liberty not C…

    From the Instapoodle we are served notice of Howard Bashman’s coverage at How Appealing, that the majority opinion of a, “Divided three-judge D.C. Circuit panel holds that the District of Columbia’s gun control laws violate individuals’ Second Am…

  14. Josh Says:

    Looks like someone got their wish.

    Now, if the Ninth Circuit would only start displaying some reading comprehension and linear logic…

  15. Nathan Says:

    I’m dancing in the streets. Figuratively, of course. This really is incredible news.

  16. Xrlq Says:

    I’m not sure I see how this is such a big gamble. If the Supremes think the Second Amendment means anything at all, this is the easiest case to show it. No need to debate incorporation, as D.C. isn’t a state, nor to debate “reasonable” vs. unreasonable regulation, as the issue here is total prohibition.

    My (baseless) prediction: the Supremes will take the appeal, uphold today’s ruling, and set a precedent that ends Chicago’s ban, maybe NYC’s pseudo-ban, and has little or no immediate effect anywhere else. That’s OK. Establishing the basic right is the first step. Extending it can come later. Brown v. Board of Ed. didn’t happen in a vacuum, either, having been preceded by a series of lesser “separate but equal, OK, but this one ain’t equal” victories.

  17. The Countertop Chronicles » BTW Says:

    […] one’s almost as good as Bitters) and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and […]

  18. The Bitch Girls :: A Quickie On Parker Says:

    […] I’ll have more on this (as will every gun blogger in existence) sometime later. For now Say Uncle has a decent round up of the matter. […]

  19. FreedomSight » Blog Archive » 2A Victory in Parker vs. DC Says:

    […] gives high odds of a grant of cert in the Supreme Court) Publicola: A Quickie on Parker Say Uncle: MAJOR NEWS: Parker V. DC, Parker Thoughts, and Quick, call a Waaaahmbulance Talk Left: D.C. Circuit Upholds Individual Right […]

  20. Justin Buist»Blog Archive » DC Handgun Ban Ruled Unconstitutional Says:

    […] Look to SayUncle for a decent round-up of blogging on it. No need for me to repeat all those links. […]

  21. w00t at Standard Mischief Says:

    […] was reacting to the Parker v. DC decision. Yup, I jumped on the social bookmarking bandwagon too: These icons link to social […]

  22. 2nd Amendment Blogburst at Traction Control Says:

    […] From How Appealing (via Instapundit via Say Uncle): […]

  23. Traction Control Says:

    […] From How Appealing (via Instapundit via Say Uncle): […]