ebooksgratis.com

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

CLASSICISTRANIERI HOME PAGE - YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions
District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

District of Columbia v. Heller

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article documents an ongoing legal case.
Information may change rapidly as the case progresses.
District of Columbia v. Heller
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 18, 2008
Full case name: District of Columbia, et al. v. Dick Anthony Heller
Docket #: 07-290
Citations: U.S.
Prior history: Provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 infringe an individual's right to bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment. District Court for the District of Columbia reversed.
Procedural history: Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Argument: Link to Oral Argument
Holding
Court membership
Chief Justice: John Glover Roberts, Jr.
Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito
Case opinions
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. II; D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4), § 22-4504, § 7-2507.02

District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290, is a case pending before the Supreme Court of the United States. It is an appeal from Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007), a decision in which the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit became the first federal appeals court in the United States to rule that a firearm ban was an unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the second to expressly interpret the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right to possess firearms for private use.[1]

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case on March 18, 2008 and a decision is expected by the end of June[2].

Contents

[edit] Background of the case

In 2003, six residents of Washington, D.C. (Shelly Parker, Tom Palmer, Gillian St. Lawrence, Tracey Ambeau, George Lyon and Dick Heller) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the constitutionality of provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, a local law enacted pursuant to District of Columbia home rule. This law restricts residents from owning handguns, excluding those grandfathered in by registration prior to 1975 and those possessed by active and retired law enforcement officers. The law also requires that all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock."[3] The District Court dismissed the lawsuit.

[edit] D.C. Circuit's decision

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the dismissal in a 2-1 decision, striking down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act as unconstitutional. Judges Karen L. Henderson, Thomas B. Griffith and Laurence H. Silberman formed the Court of Appeals panel, with Senior Circuit Judge Silberman writing the court's opinion and Circuit Judge Henderson dissenting.

The court's opinion first addressed whether appellants have standing to sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in section II (slip op. at 5–12). The court concluded that the plaintiff Heller—who applied for a handgun permit but was denied—had standing.

“ Essentially, the appellants claim a right to possess what they describe as "functional firearms", by which they mean ones that could be "readily accessible to be used effectively when necessary" for self-defense in the home. They are not asserting a right to carry such weapons outside their homes. Nor are they challenging the District's authority per se to require the registration of firearms.[4] ”

The court's summary of its substantive ruling on the right protected by the second amendment is given on page 46 of the slip opinion (at the end of section III):

“ To summarize, we conclude that 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). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia. ”

The court concluded:

“ Once it is determined - as we have done - that handguns are 'Arms' referred to in the Second Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them ... That is not to suggest that the government is absolutely barred from regulating the use and ownership of pistols. The protections of the Second Amendment are subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment. ”

The court also struck down the portion of the law that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." The District argued that there is an implicit self-defense exception to these provisions, but the D.C. Circuit rejected this view, saying that the requirement amounted to a complete ban on functional firearms and prohibition on use for self-defense:[5]

“ Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional. ”

[edit] Henderson's dissent

In dissent, Judge Henderson wrote:

“ To sum up, there is no dispute that the Constitution, case law and applicable statutes all establish that the District is not a State within the meaning of the Second Amendment. Under United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, the Second Amendment's declaration and guarantee that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" relates to the Militia of the States only. That the Second Amendment does not apply to the District, then, is, to me, an unavoidable conclusion.[6] ”

[edit] Petition for rehearing

In April 2007, the District and Mayor Adrian Fenty petitioned for rehearing en banc, arguing that the ruling creates inter- and intra-jurisdictional conflict.[7] On May 8, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied the request to rehear the case, by a 6-4 vote.

[edit] Supreme Court review

Both the defendants and the plaintiffs petitioned the United States Supreme Court to hear the case. The questions posed for review by the petitioner (the District of Columbia) differed significantly from those posed by the respondent (Heller). The District of Columbia's petition stated that the question presented was, "Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns." Heller replied that the question was broader, to wit, "Whether the Second Amendment guarantees law-abiding, adult individuals a right to keep ordinary, functional firearms, including handguns, in their homes." As discussed below, the Supreme Court adopted neither question, but came closer to the question posed by Heller in framing the question to include review of the District's prohibitions against possession of all types of firearms, and not just handguns.

The District of Columbia and Mayor Fenty petitioned the Supreme Court on September 4, 2007, to overturn a portion of the lower court's ruling. The Washington Post noted that most legal experts believed the Supreme Court would likely accept the case. Now that the Court has granted certiorari, this will likely be the first time since the 1939 case United States v. Miller that the Supreme Court has directly addressed the scope of the Second Amendment.[8]

Five of the original plaintiffs in the case cross-petitioned the Supreme Court on September 10, 2007 to reinstate their legal claims against the District. The appellate court ruling held that of the original six plaintiffs, only Heller had the necessary standing to challenge the law. The five plaintiffs other than Heller now ask that the court restore their case against the district. [9]

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on November 20, 2007.[10] The court has rephrased the question to be decided as follows:

“ The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes? ”

[edit] Oral argument

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case on March 18, 2008, and is expected to publish its decision in late June of 2008. Both the transcript[11] and the audio[12] of the argument have been released. Each side was initially allotted 30 minutes to argue its case, with U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement allotted 15 minutes to present the federal government's views[13]. During the argument, however, extra time was extended to the parties, and the argument ran 23 minutes over the allotted time.[14]

Walter E. Dellinger of the law firm O’Melveny & Myers argued the District's side before the Supreme Court. Mr. Dellinger was assisted by Thomas Goldstein of the Akin Gump law firm, Robert Long of the Covington & Burling law firm and D.C. Solicitor General Todd Kim. The law firms assisting the District are working pro bono.[15]

Alan Gura, of the DC Based law firm Gura & Possessky, is lead counsel for Mr. Heller and argued on his behalf before the Supreme Court.[16] Robert Levy, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and Clark Neily, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, are his co-counsel.[17] [18]

[edit] Non-party involvement

This case has been incorrectly attributed to various organizations which had no direct involvement in bringing or funding the case, e.g., the NRA and the Cato Institute.[citation needed]

[edit] National Rifle Association

Attorney Alan Gura, in a 2003 filing, used the term "sham litigation" to describe the NRA's attempts to have Parker (aka Heller) consolidated with its own case challenging the D.C. law. Gura also stated that "the NRA was adamant about not wanting the Supreme Court to hear the case".[19] These concerns were based on NRA lawyers' assessment that the justices at the time the case was filed might reach an unfavorable decision.[20] Cato Institute senior fellow Robert Levy, co-counsel to the Parker plaintiffs, has stated that the Parker plaintiffs "faced repeated attempts by the NRA to derail the litigation."[21]

Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s chief executive officer, confirmed the NRA's misgivings. “There was a real dispute on our side among the constitutional scholars about whether there was a majority of justices on the Supreme Court who would support the Constitution as written,” Mr. LaPierre said. Both Levy and LaPierre said the NRA and Mr. Levy’s team were now on good terms.[22]

Elaine McArdle wrote in the Harvard Law Bulletin "If Parker is the long-awaited “clean” case, one reason may be that proponents of the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment—including the National Rifle Association, which filed an amicus brief in the case—have learned from earlier defeats, and crafted strategies to maximize the chances of Supreme Court review." The NRA did eventually support the litigation by filing an amicus brief with the Court arguing that the plaintiffs in Parker had standing to sue and that the D.C. ban was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.[23]

Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, had indicated support of federal legislation which would repeal the D.C. gun ban. Opponents of the legislation argued that this would have rendered the Parker case moot, and effectively eliminated the possibility that the case would be heard by the Supreme Court.[24]

[edit] Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is opposed to the arguments made by the plaintiffs in Parker, and filed amicus briefs against those arguments in both the District and Circuit courts.

Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign, has suggested to D.C. that it modify its gun laws rather than appeal to the Supreme Court.[25] Helmke has written that if the Supreme Court upholds the Circuit court ruling, it "could lead to all current and proposed firearms laws being called into question."[26]

[edit] Amicus curiae briefs

Due to the controversial nature of the case, it has garnered much attention from many groups on both sides of the gun rights issue. Many of these groups have filed amicus curiae ("friend of the court") briefs, about 47 urging the court to affirm the case and about 20 to remand it.[27]

A majority of the members of Congress[28] have signed the friend of the court brief authored by Stephen P. Halbrook advising that the case be affirmed overturning the ban on handguns not otherwise restricted by Congress.[29] Vice President Dick Cheney, in what may be an unprecedented departure for a vice president, has joined in this brief, acting in his role as President of the United States Senate, and breaking with the administration's official position.[30] The presumptive Republican candidate for president, Arizona Senator John McCain, has also signed the brief; Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have not.[31]

A majority of the states have signed the brief of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott advising that the case be affirmed while at the same time emphasizing that the states have a strong interest in maintaining each of the states' laws prohibiting and regulating firearms.[32][33][34]

A number of organizations have signed friend of the court briefs advising that the case be remanded, including the United States Department of Justice[35], Attorneys General of New York, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, California, and Puerto Rico.[36] Additionally, friend of the court briefs to remand have been filed by a spectrum of religious and anti-violence groups,[37] a number of cities and mayors,[38] and many police chiefs and law enforcement organizations.[39]

[edit] Political reaction

Several politicians from the state of Montana, including the Montana Secretary of State, have signed a joint resolution asserting that, if the Supreme Court rules against an individual-rights interpretation of the second amendment, the compact between the United States and Montana would be violated, and that the state "reserves all usual rights and remedies under historic contract law" should that occur. [40][41]

[edit] Scholarly commentary

Various experts have expressed opinions on the D.C. Circuit's decision.

Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe contends that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, and predicted that if Parker is reviewed by the Supreme Court "there’s a really quite decent chance that it will be affirmed."[23] However, Professor Tribe has also argued that the District's ban on one class of weapons does not violate the Second Amendment even under an individual rights view.[42]

Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, then of Duke Law School and now dean of University of California, Irvine, argued that the District of Columbia's handgun laws, even assuming an "individual rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment, could be justified as reasonable regulations and thus upheld as constitutional. Professor Chemerinsky believes that the regulation of guns should be analyzed in the same way "as other regulation of property under modern constitutional law" and "be allowed so long as it is rationally related to achieving a legitimate government purpose."[43]

Cato Institute senior fellow Robert Levy, co-counsel to the Parker plaintiffs, agreed with the court's ruling but describes that his interpretation of the Second Amendment would not preclude all governmental regulation of private ownership of weapons:

“ Even the NRA concedes that you can’t have mad men running around with weapons of mass destruction. So there are some restrictions that are permissible and it will be the task of the legislature and the courts to ferret all of that out and draw the lines. I am sure, though, that outright bans on handguns like they have in D.C. won’t be permitted. That is not a reasonable restriction under anybody’s characterization. It is not a restriction, it’s a prohibition.[44] ”

[edit] References

  1. ^ The first federal case that interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right was United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001).
  2. ^ Courts weighs right to own guns [1]
  3. ^ "D.C. Asks Supreme Court to Back Gun Ban" by Robert Barnes and David Nakamura, The Washington Post, September 4, 2007
  4. ^ Page 4 of the decision
  5. ^ Senior Circuit Judge Silberman (2007-03-09). Case No. 04-7041, Parker v. D.C. (pdf) 57. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Retrieved on 2008-02-12. “He simply contends that he is entitled to the possession of a "functional" firearm to be employed in case of a threat to life or limb. The District responds that, notwithstanding the broad language of the Code, a judge would likely give the statute a narrowing construction when confronted with a self-defense justification. That might be so, but judicial lenity cannot make up for the unreasonable restriction of a constitutional right. Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional.”
  6. ^ Page III-17 of dissent.
  7. ^ Petition for rehearing en banc for the District of Columbia
  8. ^ "D.C. Asks Supreme Court to Back Gun Ban" by Robert Barnes and David Nakamura, The Washington Post, September 4, 2007
  9. ^ " Citizens in Gun Challenge Ask Supreme Court to Reinstate Their Case Against the District of Columbia" Press Release, September 10, 2007
  10. ^ Cert. granted, District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 645 (2007).
  11. ^ Oral Arguments of Case No. 07-290 (pdf). United States Supreme Court (2008-03-18). Retrieved on 2008-03-18.
  12. ^ Video available at rtsp://video.c-span.org/archive/sc/sc031808_2amendment.rm
  13. ^ Robert Barnes. "Supreme Court to Release Same-Day Tapes", Washington Post, 2008-03-05, p. B03. Retrieved on 2008-03-05. 
  14. ^ D.C. v. Heller on Scotuswiki. Retrieved on 2008-03-19.
  15. ^ Gary Emerling. "Fenty arms self with new lawyer to defend gun ban", Washington Times, 2008-01-05. 
  16. ^ Linda Greenhouse. "Justices to Decide on Right to Keep Handgun", New York Times, 2007-10-21. Retrieved on 2008-03-18. 
  17. ^ "DCGunCase.com - About Us". 
  18. ^ Supreme Court Dared to Uphold Handgun Ban by Man Who Has None. Retrieved on 2008-02-20.
  19. ^ Both Sides Fear Firing Blanks if D.C. Gun Case Reaches High Court, Tony Mauro, Legal Times, July 30, 2007
  20. ^ NRA Had High Court Misgivings, Debra Cassens Weiss, ABA Journal, July 30, 2007
  21. ^ Levy, Robert A. "Should Congress or the courts decide D.C. gun ban’s fate?", The Washington Examiner, April 3, 2007.
  22. ^ Liptak, Adam [2], The New York Times, December 3, 2007.
  23. ^ a b Lawyers, Guns and Money, Elaine McArdle, Harvard Law Bulletin
  24. ^ Opening Shots, Jennifer Rubin, National Review Online, March 29, 2007
  25. ^ Washington Gun Ban Under Fire, Associated Press
  26. ^ Taking Aim at Judicial Activism, Helmke's blog at bradycampaign.org
  27. ^ Marcia Coyle. "Amicus Briefs Are Ammo for Supreme Court Gun Case", The National Law Journal, 2008-03-10. Retrieved on 2008-03-11. 
  28. ^ Robert Barnes (February 9, 2008). "Cheney Joins Congress In Opposing D.C. Gun Ban; Vice President Breaks With Administration". Washington Post. 
  29. ^ Stephan Holbrook amicus brief.. Retrieved on 2008-02-26.
  30. ^ Robert Barnes (February 9, 2008). "Cheney Joins Congress In Opposing D.C. Gun Ban; Vice President Breaks With Administration". Washington Post. 
  31. ^ "US Supreme Court in historic hearing on gun laws", AFP, 2008-03-18. Retrieved on 2008-03-18. 
  32. ^ Amicus brief of 31 States pg 36. Retrieved on 2008-02-27.
  33. ^ JENNIFER McKEE (February 13, 2008). "State signs gun rights brief". Missoulian.com. 
  34. ^ Hutchison, Abbott Fight For Gun Rights. KXAN.com.
  35. ^ U.S. Department of Justice brief. Retrieved on 2008-02-26.
  36. ^ Amicus States. Retrieved on 2008-02-24.
  37. ^ Amicus coalition. Retrieved on 2008-02-24.
  38. ^ Amicus Cities. Retrieved on 2008-02-24.
  39. ^ Amicus Brady Center. Retrieved on 2008-02-24.
  40. ^ "'Any person' has right to gun, state says, Montana claims 2nd Amendment questions already resolved" (February 20, 2008). WorldNetDaily.com. 
  41. ^ "Letters to the Editor, Second Amendment an individual right" ([dead link] – Scholar search) (February 19, 2008). Washington Times. 
  42. ^ "Sanity and the Second Amendment" by Laurence H. Tribe, The Wall Street Journal, March 4, 2008
  43. ^ A Well-Regulated Right to Bear Arms, Erwin Chemerinsky, The Washington Post, March 14, 2007]
  44. ^ Interview: The Way of the Gun, Leigh Ferrara, MotherJones.com, April 19, 2007

[edit] Other references

[edit] External links


aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -