Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

“That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want…No principle … can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom … a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle — but only in degree — between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure.”     Lysander Spooner

September 4, 2007

Washington, D.C. Files It’s Appeal In Parker v. D.C.

by Doug Mataconis

The District Of Columbia today formally set forth the legal basis for it’s petition for an appeal of the decision earlier this year that struck down a decades-old gun ban as unconstitutional:

The District today asked the Supreme Court to uphold the city’s ban on private ownership of handguns, saying the appeals court decision that overturned the law “drastically departs from the mainstream of American jurisprudence.”

Most legal experts believe the court will accept the case, which could lead to a historic decision next year on whether the ambiguously worded Second Amendment to the Constitution protects private gun ownership or only imparts a civic right related to maintaining state militias.

The District argues in its petition for review that its law–one of the toughest handgun bans in the nation–should be upheld regardless of whether the court sides with the so-called “individualist” or “collective” legal theories.

“It is eminently reasonable to permit private ownership of other types of weapons, including shotguns and rifles, but ban the easily concealed and uniquely dangerous modern handgun,” states the petition, filed by District Attorney General Linda Singer. It adds: “Whatever right the Second Amendment guarantees, it does not require the District to stand by while its citizens die.”

“We’re going to fight to uphold a law that . . . has public support,” Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) said at a news conference outside D.C. police headquarters. “The only possible outcome of more handguns in the home is more violence. Our appeal will help the District of Columbia be able to continue to reduce gun violence.”

Because, you know, there’s been so much less gun violence in the District of Columbia in the thirty years that the handgun ban has been in effect.

Oh, never mind.

TrackBack URI:
Read more posts from
• • •


  1. There’s nothing ambiguous about the 2nd Amendment unless you believe that the 2nd Amendment was a right created by the Founding Fathers to protect the government from its citizens, which would be contrary to the entire point of the Bill of Rights and a laughable suggestion considering they’d just fought a revolution. The idea that guns are a collective right and not an individual one is a 20th century fabrication created by an FDR Supreme Court.

    Peter Bagge did a great cartoon on this:

    Comment by UCrawford — September 5, 2007 @ 8:18 am
  2. Sanctions for frivolous litigation and an award of Attorney’s fees against those appellate lawyers in DC would be appropriate under FRCP Rule 11. Let’s encourage the Appellate Court to send a message.

    Comment by Chris Kachouroff — September 5, 2007 @ 7:31 pm
  3. What a bunch of idiots who run that city. Don’t they realize that gun control has done jack shit for it? D.C. earned its title ‘The Murder Capital’ WHILE guns were banned.

    Comment by mad dog — September 12, 2007 @ 4:57 am

Comments RSS

Subscribe without commenting

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML