February 11, 2009 5:13 PM

D.C. Handgun Ban Reversed By Federal Court

(CBS/AP)  A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's longstanding 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" on enrollment in a militia.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the city cannot prevent people from keeping handguns in their homes. The ruling also struck down a requirement that owners of registered firearms must keep them unloaded and disassembled. The court did not address provisions that prohibit people from carrying unregistered guns outside the home.

D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty said the city plans to appeal.

"I am personally, deeply disappointed and quite frankly outraged," Fenty said.

Washington and Chicago are the only two major U.S. cities with sweeping handgun bans. Washington's ban on owning handguns went into effect in 1976 and is considered to be the toughest in the nation, according to the National Rifle Association. While courts in other parts of the country have upheld bans on automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns, the D.C. law is unusual because it involves a prohibition on all pistols.

In 2004, a lower-court judge told six city residents that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who wanted the guns for protection.

Plaintiff Tom G. Palmer told CBS News Radio he's thrilled with the ruling. Palmer said having a gun when he was attacked in California years ago saved his life.

"I am quite confident that had I not had that gun, you and I would certainly not be having this conversation," Palmer told reporter Kate Ryan.

On Friday, Judge Laurence Silberman, writing for the majority, said "The district's definition of the militia is just too narrow. There are too many instances of 'bear arms' indicating private use to conclude that the drafters intended only a military sense."

Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state.

The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue. If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in nearly 70 years to address the Second Amendment's scope.

"I think this is well positioned for review of the Supreme Court," said Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University.

Even as the appeals court overturned the city's 1976 ban on most handgun ownership, Silberman wrote that the Second Amendment is still "subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment."

Such restrictions might include gun registration, firearms testing to promote public safety or restrictions on gun ownership for criminals or those deemed mentally ill.


© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Add a Comment See all 140 Comments
by rheola-2009 March 11, 2007 7:33 PM EDT
darkmeat4

Good on you, I think we are travelling in a similar direction, even if we have opposing views on guns.
Lets call it quits, and go and enjoy our day.

Sorry I was late appearing, got involved in a call out.

Have a good one.
Reply to this comment
by rheola-2009 March 11, 2007 7:05 PM EDT
guysdigdirt

The forerunner of modern guns was a flintlock, invented by James Puckle in 1718.
He invented two forms.

1/. To be used against Christian enemies.
2/. To be used against Muslim Turks.

Both proved unsatisfactory.

However canon and more primitve type guns were used as far back as the 13th century, always with the aim of killing or maiming an enemy.

In later era's the gun was used for hunting etc. however that was a secondary use to its prime purpose.
Reply to this comment
by rheola-2009 March 11, 2007 5:54 PM EDT
Every country in the world has had a dramatic increase in violent crime, sadly it is a product of our times.

However irregardless to what spin you attempt to put on it, there is no denial that gun related deaths have fallen dramatically in those countries I previously mentioned

Darkmeat states that only 10% of crime in the U.S. invoves a gun, as I would not know otherwise,I shall accept his figure.

That means at least 90% of gun related deaths do not involve criminal behaviour.

Not a very good picture.

Incidentally the figures I used for Australia were supplied in an earlier post by a pro gun person "corpknot" who obviously had no idea of the true situation.

You can attempt to push this criminal behaviour excuse as much as you would wish, however it just does not hold up, all countries, gun controlled or not, have had large increases in criminal behaviour, mostly invoved in that sickness of drugs.

I fully agree with those that say there should be a greater crackdown on such criminal behaviour.
Reply to this comment
by guysdigdirt March 11, 2007 3:33 PM EDT
the number of gun related deaths has dropped dramatically in Australia, and is on a per capita basis, a fraction of that in the U.S.
A similar situation exists in England, and throughout most of Europe.

Posted by rheola

As I am not privy to the same stats you are will you tell me the number of serious crimes in Australia and England before the gun ban and 1 year after? It is not all about gun related deaths. Also, a good friend of mine in Englad told me most crime there is not reported anymore as the police are too busy with the crime since the gun ban.
Reply to this comment
by guysdigdirt March 11, 2007 3:28 PM EDT

"To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them."
-- George Mason

"When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour."
-- President George Washington

"The Constitution shall never be construed... to
prevent the people of the United States who are
peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
-- Samuel Adams

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at
large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- President Thomas Jefferson

"Americans have the right and advantage of being
armed -- unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
-- James Madison

"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."
-- President John F. Kennedy


Posted by GunOwnerDan

Those who wish to take our guns away feel themselves smarter than those who came before, they should have their power stripped before they cause more damage.
Reply to this comment
by guysdigdirt March 11, 2007 3:21 PM EDT
Clearly the work of activist judges. The justices took to over ruling the will & safety of the people. Legislating from the bench a much wider interpretation of the constitution than the designers had intended is outrages.
Posted by macusweil

So an individuals right to free speach means for everyone, but an individual's right to own a gun does not? It is, and has been, a travisty of justice as it has been in DC to this date, this just corrects the mistake.
Reply to this comment
by guysdigdirt March 11, 2007 3:18 PM EDT
I thought what happened in Germany was because he gave every arrogant,ignorant crazy a gun and a uniform to go with it

My understanding of history is either really bad, or maybe others are twisting fact to suit their argument.
Posted by rheola

Yes rehola, if you believe that you are grossly misinformed. He took the guns from the regular citizens so they could not protect themselves, then sent his goons in. Do you want to be the unprotected?
Reply to this comment
by guysdigdirt March 11, 2007 3:15 PM EDT
Guns were invented to kill and maim people.
In an absolute miority of situations the death or injury was the result of an accident.
Posted by rheola

Guns were inveneted to allow people to kill, but not humans, they were invented to allow people to hunt, to eat. It does not matter what they were invented for, it is what they are used for today. It is only a small percentage of guns that are ever used in an illegal manner, probably a smaller percentage than thenumber of cars used in a similar manner.
Reply to this comment
by rickywatkins March 11, 2007 6:30 AM EDT
The DC Mayor & Chief of Police should be ousted! No officer has ever arrested a firearm. Screaming about statistics touting the number of illegal DC guns seized is illogical. They are (were) all illegal in DC. They got the from criminals!

Criminals don't sip tea & eat bisuits reviewing current statutes to determine how they can legally commit assault, murder, or robbery. Why? They break laws.

When more stringent gun laws are passed, criminal shout "Thanks DC! You've made my job easier & safer! Whew!"

Anti-gun groups frighten people by saying that law abiding folks who own or possess a handgun are vigilantes, want to take justice into their own hands; however, the most outrageous rant is "It's going to turn into the Old West!" Hogwash!

Look at the places where only criminals are allowed to posses firearms (because law abiding people obey gun laws). DC, NYC, & yes, take a look at the UK and Australia. too. These are all demonstrate that gun prohibition experiments do NOT lower violent crimes.

Law abiding gun owners don't seek situations to use handguns. I avoid things so that I don't put myself in a bad event.

I'm a cancer survivor. I'm blessed to have this life. If a criminal (the BAD guy) presents the ability & intent to take MY life, YOURS, or one of YOUR loved ones, the Constitution secures my right to defend our lives. Unless of course, you're in DC, NYC, UK, or Australia! Then, you've protected the criminal's rights to decide that it's your time to go.
Reply to this comment
by rheola-2009 March 11, 2007 5:40 AM EDT
Hullo Mr. Darkmeat4

As I have here and previously stated, criminals will get their guns no matter what, your statement just does not really stand up, in the matter of general gun control.

You may wish to portray stats in a manner to suit your argument, we all attempt that.
However no matter what spin you put on it the number of gun related deaths has dropped dramatically in Australia, and is on a per capita basis, a fraction of that in the U.S.
A similar situation exists in England, and throughout most of Europe.

Unfortunately as I have to get some sleep, I will not be back here until late in the morning, if you wish to respond, do so, I shall have a look tomorrow.
Have a good night.
Reply to this comment
See all 140 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook