BY CHRISTOPHER M. EGLESON
With its decision in Parker v. District of Columbia, the D.C. Circuit became the first federal appellate court ever to strike down a law under the Second Amendment, which guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” The court in Parker held that provisions of the D.C. Code that ban private possession of handguns and require the safe storage of other weapons violated the Amendment. The Supreme Court mtook the case, now called District of Columbia v. Heller, in November. This Note explains the basic error in the D.C. Circuit’s interpretive approach.
* * *
The District of Columbia all but forbids the private possession of handguns throughout its territory; it does not forbid the possession of shotguns and rifles. The District separately requires a license to carry those handguns that it does allow, and it requires that when residents keep guns of any sort in their homes, they must keep those guns bound by a trigger lock or similar device.6 Dick Heller is a special police officer who carries a handgun while on duty at the federal judicial complex in D.C. In early 2002, Heller challenged the District’s handgun ban, licensing law, and trigger lock requirement in a suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Heller claimed that he wanted to keep a handgun at his home in the District to have ready in case he needed to defend himself and that the Second Amendment guaranteed his right to keep the gun for that purpose. The district court dismissed the complaint, holding that the Second Amendment did not protect an “individual right to bear arms separate and apart from Militia use.”
Click here to read more
Text, Purpose, and the Second Amendment
Posted Monday, March 3rd, 2008 by HLPRonline editorial staff
BY CHRISTOPHER M. EGLESON
With its decision in Parker v. District of Columbia, the D.C. Circuit became the first federal appellate court ever to strike down a law under the Second Amendment, which guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” The court in Parker held that provisions of the D.C. Code that ban private possession of handguns and require the safe storage of other weapons violated the Amendment. The Supreme Court mtook the case, now called District of Columbia v. Heller, in November. This Note explains the basic error in the D.C. Circuit’s interpretive approach.
* * *
The District of Columbia all but forbids the private possession of handguns throughout its territory; it does not forbid the possession of shotguns and rifles. The District separately requires a license to carry those handguns that it does allow, and it requires that when residents keep guns of any sort in their homes, they must keep those guns bound by a trigger lock or similar device.6 Dick Heller is a special police officer who carries a handgun while on duty at the federal judicial complex in D.C. In early 2002, Heller challenged the District’s handgun ban, licensing law, and trigger lock requirement in a suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Heller claimed that he wanted to keep a handgun at his home in the District to have ready in case he needed to defend himself and that the Second Amendment guaranteed his right to keep the gun for that purpose. The district court dismissed the complaint, holding that the Second Amendment did not protect an “individual right to bear arms separate and apart from Militia use.”
Click here to read more