dc gun laws unconstitutional

Byline: | Category: Uncategorized | Posted at: Friday, 9 March 2007

Huge news out of Washington, courtesy of Instapundit.

From the Circuit Court majority opinion (emphasis added):

. . . the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad).

That is significant because it affirms that, along with the other nine, the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights is a limitation of governmental power and an affirmation of individual rights.

I’m sure there will be commentary and roundup from SayUncle, as well as more from Glenn Reynolds. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: Say Uncle’s take

Share this post:

5 Responses to “dc gun laws unconstitutional”

  1. Sean Braisted Says:

    While I’m not that concerned with the court upholding the right to carry a handgun; what does this mean for bans on fully-automatic weapoons? If I were to follow the logic of the court, Fully automatic weapons would be covered under the second amendment too in order to protect from a tyrannical government.

  2. SayUncle Says:

    Sean, there are limits to weaponry. If the SCOTUS takes the case (and how can it not since we have conflict among the circuits?), then that line will have to be drawn. Not sure where said line would be drawn but there is a case for MGs since they have a “reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia” because our troops carry them.

    And I’m not overly concerned about MGs since, to date, there have been two crimes committed with lawfully owned MGs and one of those was a police department weapons.

  3. Sean B Says:


    Couldn’t that be because the legal requirements to purchase them are too high for the average yokel to purchase one? I am personally OK with citizens owning MGs, so long as they are trained and perhaps can show that they have the ability to store them properly. So long as those provisions are in this ruling, I don’t particularly have a problem with it.

  4. SayUncle Says:

    “Couldn’t that be because the legal requirements to purchase them are too high for the average yokel to purchase one? ”

    Nope. Same requirements as purchasing any firearm but they go through ATF to process a $200 tax.

  5. C.J. Says:

    The requirements are a little more stringent than purchasing “any firearm”.

    1)Must be 21

    2)Must reside in a state allowing Class 3 weapons

    3)No felonies

    4)Submit a fingerprint card to the BATF

    5)Must supply two passport photos to the BATF

    6)Certification from the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of your local area that you are mentally stable and are not under indictment.

    7) Pay the $200.00 tax