More on the DC Gun Ban
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) introduced the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act of 2007, a bill to restore Second Amendment rights in Washington, D.C.
“The constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens do not end when they cross into the borders of the District of Columbia,” said Sen. Hutchison.
“The gun ban has been proven ineffective by the trend of increased violent crime in the District. The citizens of Washington, D.C., deserve to have the same right to defend themselves and their families in their homes that lawful Americans enjoy.
“This requires both a legislative and judicial remedy. I hope the Parker case goes before the Supreme Court and that the court asserts that the right to bear arms is an individual, and not a collective, right as the D.C. Circuit and Fifth Circuit Courts have affirmed.”
The District of Columbia enacted the Firearms and Control Regulations Act in 1976 that banned handguns and required rifles and shotguns to be registered and stored unloaded and either locked or disassembled, giving it the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Prior to the gun ban’s implementation, the murder rate in the District was on the decline. Following the ban, the murder rate began to rise while violent crime was decreasing nationally. According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, in 2005, the most recent year from which statistics are available, the District of Columbia led the nation in violent crime.
This comes up every couple of years. With Parker v. DC, it might actually get done. But I would not want this bill to interfere with Parker heading to the supreme court. My source says:
As I understand it, the goal is to put this legislation on the table to be enacted after a SCOTUS review of Parker, so that it would not interfere with the Parker decision.
Well, in theory, it wouldn’t be needed then.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
But would it actually interfere? I am a little fuzzy on that deal when you commit an offense, get convicted the first run and all that, and it later is no longer an offense, that still does not get you out of anything or does it?
March 29th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
That’s ideally what we want I think. We want the politicians talking about it now, so when it comes before The Court, it feels better about doing the right thing and ruling in our favor. The more bad things we hear the Congress Critters say about the ban, I think the more likely the Supreme Court will be to rule in our favor.
March 29th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
I agree with Guy and Sebastian. The Court decision is superior to any legislative act, including an act of Congress. No matter what Congress does, it is law in the DC Circuit and precedent everywhere else in America. Congress can pass a law today and repeal it tomorrow. The Court decision remains law until the Supreme Court reverses it or overules it.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
The law would interfere, if it were to pass before the Parker case was reviewed by the Supreme Court. If the offending law is removed from the books, the Court won’t hear the case because it is moot. Congress would then be free to repeal the law and continue to deny the 2nd amendment rights to the citizens of Washington.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Keep in mind that even if Parker succeeds in the SCOTUS, DC law still treats any semi-auto capable of holding more than 12 rounds as a prohibited ‘machine gun’, and the Waffen MPD interprets this as prohibiting any semi-auto with a removable magazine (so any modern semi-auto pistol/rifle is still verboten)…And there is the matter of the registration requirements. If DC were ever to have a SHTF scenario, [current mayor] Fenty would certainly pull a Nagin.
Even post ‘Parker’, there are still many DC laws that need to be addressed.
When DC has ‘Shall Issue’ and ‘Castle Doctrine’, then congress can take a breather.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
I agree with Robert. If Congress repeals the laws at issue in Parker before the issue reaches the Supreme Court, the Supremes will likely dismiss the case as moot, and vacate the DC Circuit ruling on the same basis. Guy is right that repealing the law may not make the issue moot as to those who have already been convicted of violating the ordinance in question, but AFAIK none of the Parker plaintiffs have been.
March 29th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Xrlq,
Ok, mootness doctrine is what the Supreme Court says it is at the time (as in the baby having being born in Roe v. Wade did not make the case moot) and they can use that not to hear the case but how can it be the basis for vacating the DC Circuit decision? There was a case and controversy when the case was heard and the decision rendered. The law was amended to conform with the decision. “Thank you for respecting the court’s decision. Be sure you continue to do so.”
Anyway, we may be skipping a step. Do we know that there won’t be a hearing en banc?
March 30th, 2007 at 2:03 am
We urge everyone to contact Congress and urge your Representatives and Senators to REJECT the Huchison and Ross-Souder bills.
These bills will destroy the Parker case, plain and simple. They are totally unnecessary — if we win, they will be pointless, and in the unlikely event that we lose, there is plenty of time to respond legislatively.
There are many ridiculous and harmful laws on the books that were not addressed in our case which Congress can and should repeal to fully implement the Parker decision. We have suggested language, which may yet be introduced, that would enable Congress to vote on the D.C. gun bans without hurting Parker.
Anyone who believes that mooting Parker will avoid a Supreme Court showdown on the meaning of the Second Amendment is delusional. Inaction by our community has led to losing the Second Amendment right at the federal level in 47 out of 50 states, because nobody controls the criminal defense bar.
Considering the aggressive way in which criminal defendants are now making Second Amendment claims, the circuit split, the DOJ’s pro-individual rights position, the level of debate in the legal academy, and the seven decades of Supreme Court silence on the topic, it is just a matter of time — and not much of it — before the issue goes to the high court.
It is Parker, or the next case. Plain and simple. You’re not going to like the next case.
It is nice that Sen. Huchison and NRA have expressed a desire to be supportive of Parker. Let’s see some conduct that is consistent with that position. This bill doesn’t cut it.
If you agree, then call Sen. Huchison, call your Senators and your Representatives, and by all means call NRA, and let them know that you understand this issue.
Thanks,
Alan Gura
Lead Counsel, Parker v. D.C.
P.S.: As for en banc, it will probably be a few months before we find out. We will probably be ordered to respond to the en banc petition. We’re confident of prevailing at any en banc rehearing and after that, if need be, at the Supreme Court.
March 30th, 2007 at 9:05 am
[…] Here, I wrote of the bill to repeal the DC gun ban: I would not want this bill to interfere with Parker heading to the supreme court. […]
March 30th, 2007 at 9:40 am
I don’t live in Texas, but I’ll fire off a letter to Hutchinson explaining my position, in addition to one to my Senator Monkeys. I do think that there’s no way the house will go for actual repeal though, as long as Pelosi is speaker, so I think we’re relatively safe there.
March 31st, 2007 at 6:54 pm
The bill would render the Parker case moot – and while the SC once decided to hear a case that was moot when it was clear that due to a certain built-in 9-month time limit no similar case would ever make it’s way through the process to reach them before it became moot, they wanted to hear that case. The interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is something they’ve been bending over backwards to avoid for nearly 70 years – because the logic of the Miller decision of the late 1930’s quite clearly implies that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms which must not be infringed, where “arms” includes at least the sort of individual weapons commonly issued to soldiers all over the world. Parker relied upon that to protect the RKBA for semi-auto pistols, but those are only the second-most common military weapon. The most common is a full-auto assault rifle – and the SC is going to hate letting us peons own “machine guns”.