Appeals Court Guts D.C. Gun Ban

By Bill Miller and Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, March 9, 2007; 4:26 PM

A federal appellate panel today struck down parts of the District's gun law as unconstitutional, ruling that the city cannot bar people from keeping firearms in their homes.

The decision was a victory for six D.C. residents who said they wanted to keep firearms for self-defense. But it could have much broader implications: The case eventually could wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court as a test of the thorny issues surrounding the Second Amendment and the public's right to keep weapons.

The District has one of the strictest gun laws in the nation -- barring all handguns unless they were registered prior to 1976 -- and that law has come under attack over the past three decades in Congress as well as the courts. Today's ruling guts key parts of the law, but does not address provisions that prohibit people from carrying unregistered guns outside the home.

D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) called a news conference this afternoon to announce that the city would pursue additional appeals. "I am personally deeply disappointed and frankly outraged by this decision. It flies in the face of laws that have helped decrease gun violence in the District of Columbia," Fenty said.

He said the city will "do everything in our power to work to get the decision overturned and we will vigorously enforce our handgun laws during that time."

Tom G. Palmer, one of the six plaintiffs, said that the court's ruling will help residents protect themselves from being victims.

"Let's be honest: Although there are many fine officers in the police department, there's a simple test. Call Domino's Pizza or the police and time which one gets there first," he said. Palmer is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a non-profit group that advocates personal liberties, which aided the plaintiffs.

The ruling came on a 2-to-1 vote by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote the majority opinion, also signed by Thomas B. Griffith. Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented.

"We conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms," Silberman declared in the 58-page majority ruling.

The residents filed their lawsuit against the District in early 2003, months after then-Attorney Genral John D. Ashcroft declared that gun bans violate the Second Amendment.

The suit said the ban on handgun ownership violated the Second Amendment, which states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan dismissed the suit a year later, upholding the D.C. law, and saying the Second Amendment was narrowly tailored to membership in a "militia" -- which he defined as an organized military body.

CONTINUED     1        >

© 2007 The Washington Post Company