The District of Columbia v. Heller
After the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in March 2007 held that the District’s longstanding ban on private possession of handguns in the District violates the Second Amendment, Mayor Adrian M. Fenty requested that Attorney General Linda Singer’s office prepare a brief asking the US Supreme Court to overturn that ruling and uphold the well-supported judgment of the District government that the ban saves lives and is fully constitutional. On September 4, 2007, the District filed a petition for certiorari asking the US Supreme Court to review that March 2007 decision. On November 20, 2007, the US Supreme Court granted the District’s petition and announced that it would hear the case. The District’s brief is now due on January 4, 2008. Briefing will continue for the next two months, and oral argument is expected in mid-March 2008.
As the District’s petition explained, the District believes the DC Circuit’s decision was incorrect on the law, and we hope the Supreme Court will agree with us. There are three basic reasons why the District’s ban on handguns does not violate the Second Amendment.
- First, as the overwhelming majority of circuit decisions conclude, the text and history of the Second Amendment establish that it protects weapons possession and use only in connection with service in state-regulated militias. That conclusion is supported by United States v. Miller, 307 US 174 (1939), in which the Supreme Court unanimously directed that the Second Amendment “must be interpreted and applied” in view of its “obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such [militia] forces.”
- Second, even if there is a right to possess and use weapons unrelated to militia service, the Second Amendment restricts only federal interference with state-regulated militias and state-recognized gun rights. Legislation enacted by the District does not implicate the Amendment.
- Third, in any event, the District law at issue in this case does not infringe whatever right the Second Amendment could be read to protect, because 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.
In short, the DC Circuit’s decision was in conflict with nearly every other federal circuit court in the country, and wrong on the law. Indeed, this is the first time in the nation’s history that any appellate court has overturned a gun law under the Second Amendment.
So far we have had amicus briefs supporting us filed by a group of states led by New York and including Hawaii, Illinois and Maryland and by a group of children’s advocates including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Defense Fund. Because of the importance of the case, we expect to have more states and cities and many more private groups providing support at the Supreme Court level.
