By now the news about the decision Parker v. District of Columbia
case has reached many gun owners and rights advocates via Internet.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/washington/10gun.html?
em&ex=1173758400&en=6f0dd1043eae85fb&ei=5087%0A
or http://tinyurl.com/26ow2m
In a nutshell, the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit declared the D.C. gun law unconstitutional to
the extent that the law prohibits all firearms possession.
This decision is better news for the right to keep and bear arms
than was the Fifth Circuit's Emerson decision. Although the Emerson
case contains an excellent and correct analysis of the Second Amendment,
the decision did not strike down any laws and the armed citizen still
lost. In this recent Parker case, the statute was declared unconstitutional
and the armed citizens won.
Our joy must be tempered by two potential factors:
(1) The losing party can petition the D.C. Circuit to review the
matter "en banc" -- which means having the matter redecided
by a panel of *all* of the D.C. Circuit judges. The D.C. Circuit is
authorized to have 12 active judges, so if there are no vacancies,
it would take only seven judges to vote for rehearing. The only reason
to vote for a rehearing en banc would be to reverse the current decision.
It seems likely that there are seven judges on the D.C. Circuit who
would follow their political leanings and vote to reverse.
Truth be told, it would be worse for Second Amendment jurisprudence
if the D.C. Circuit does reverse the Parker decision, because en banc
decisions of federal circuit courts have especially strong precedential
value.
(2) The losing party can petition to the Supreme Court. They have
a very slim chance of having the case heard in the Supreme Court,
but until they have filed their petition and it has been denied, the
possibility exists.
The potential results of a hearing before the Supreme Court are highly
uncertain for two reasons. First, the actual views of the justices
about the Second Amendment are not well known. Second, the "conservative"
justices on the Court are the sort that tend to believe that, when
in doubt, local and state powers should be upheld. This current Court
has no great record of protecting individual rights at all -- not
against state legislatures. Since the D.C. gun laws are the equivalent
of state laws, we could expect the Supreme Court to find a majority
of votes in favor of the easy way out: just support the local law,
and chalk it up to "democracy."
Between possibility (1) and (2), we far more fear (1). The D.C. Circuit
could very likely take this case en banc -- all it takes is a vote
of the judges -- and this great precedent will likely be erased and
disgraced (in the eyes of the "mainstream" judges around
the country).
Nevertheless, it is wonderful news that at least two federal appellate
judges on the D.C. Circuit court can speak the truth accurately, clearly
and publicly. Looking at both the Parker decision and the Fifth Circuit's
Emerson decision, we can now point out that our individual-rights
view is held by distinguished judges as well as by scholars across
the nation. Our position cannot be disregarded as purely a fringe
movement.
Then again, we never did quite realize why the fundamental right
to self-defense -- and the right to possess peaceably the tools to
implement that right -- should be anything other than self-evident.
- The Liberty Crew
