Big news out of the nation's capital today, where the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the D.C. Circuit
struck
down 2-1 the District's handgun ban as a violation of the Second Amendment.
Lots of reaction from the blogosphere, which I posted below, but here's the
relevant paragraph of Judge Laurence Silberman's majority
opinion:
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.
Expect this one to decided by the Supreme Court right around, oh, Summer
2008.
The legal experts at Volokh Conspiracy have the wrap-up
here with some
thoughts on how this might play in the presidential race.
Cato's Tim Lynch
sums
it up: "This is a very big deal."