Skip to content

Court rules Washington DC public handgun ban is unconstitutional

July 27, 2014
tags: , , , , ,

  Back in 2008, in the District of Columbia v Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Washington DC handgun ban was unconstitutional. The court also reaffirmed that the second amendment applied to individuals and not just militias.

  There are still those gun control advocates out there who believe the second amendment is not an individual right because of the use of the word ‘militia’ in the second amendment–they believe the second amendment refers to the National Guard. Of course those people have never read the United States code because it clearly states there are two classifications of militia–the organized militia (which is the National Guard) and the unorganized militia (which is the people.)

  Here is the definition according to the United States code:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
  And just for the record: the exceptions listed above allow retired officers of the military to be members of the militia passed the age of 45.
  But I have gotten off topic so allow me to return to the point of this post: the Heller decision also stated that reasonable gun control legislation is not unconstitutional. But who defines what reasonable is and what do they consider to be reasonable?
  Washington DC determined that if handguns were legal in the District that outlawing them in public was its definition of reasonable and that is what they did in response to the Heller decision.
  Yesterday the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia ruled that this ban was also unconstitutional.Here is more:

The court based its decision in the case, titled Palmer v. District of Columbia, on the Supreme Court’s famous ruling in D.C. v. Heller that affirmed an individual’s right to possess a firearm under the second amendment.

“In light of Heller, McDonald, and their progeny, there is no longer any basis on which this Court can conclude that the District of Columbia’s total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny,” read the statement of Judge Frederick Scullin Jr.

“Therefore, the Court finds that the District of Columbia’s complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional.”

  The court also ruled that qualified non-residents of  Washington DC can also carry in theDistrict. This is a great victory for defenders of the Constitution and of the second amendment but it is sure to be challenged so we must watch this closely as it makes it way through the courts.

from → Constitution, gun control, Politics
2 Comments leave one →
  1. Petermc3's avatar
    Petermc3 permalink
    July 27, 2014 4:34 pm

    Not to worry kids. As we already know Obalama is free to interpret, ignore, change, enforce or not enforce the law and/or the constitution at his leisure/discretion. My guess is the ban stays.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment