District of Columbia v. Brighter
| District of Columbia v. Brighter | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| Negotiated March 18, 2008 |
||||
| Decided June 26th, 2008 |
||||
|
||||
| facts | ||||
| Dick Heller had been denied registration of a handgun because possession of such weapons was against the District of Columbia Guns Act. He complained about a violation of the 2nd amendment to the constitution. | ||||
| decision | ||||
| The 2nd amendment guarantees the right of the individual to own a weapon and to use it in a lawful manner, such as for self-defense. This applies regardless of any activity in vigilante groups. | ||||
| occupation | ||||
|
||||
| Positions | ||||
|
||||
| Applied Law | ||||
| 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, DC Code §§ 7-2502.02 (a) (4), 22-4504, 7-2507.02 | ||||
| reaction | ||||
|
Registration Amendment Act of 2008 |
District of Columbia v. Heller is a fundamental ruling by the United States Supreme Court which found that Amendment 2 to the United States Constitution protects the right of every citizen to own a gun for private purposes. For the first time in its history, the Court of Justice debated the question of whether an individual can invoke the constitutional right to own a weapon or whether it is a right of the general public.
On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the Parker v. District of Columbia . The Court of Appeal ruled that various provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 were unconstitutional, ruling that handguns were "weapons" for the purposes of the 2nd Amendment and that the prohibition on handguns in the law was unconstitutional. Equally ineffective are those provisions of the law that demand that all weapons, including rifles and shotguns, must be stored unloaded and dismantled or at least specially secured.
backgrounds
In 2002, Robert A. Levy, Senior Scientist at the Cato Institute , went with Clark M. Neily III to find potential plaintiffs in a lawsuit over the 2nd Amendment that Levy wanted to personally finance. Although he had never been in possession of a weapon himself, he wanted to have the scope of the 2nd amendment clarified in court from an academic point of view. He aligned his project with the strategy pursued by Thurgood Marshall , with which he had already overcome racial segregation . The two initiators envisaged a group of plaintiffs who were as diverse as possible in terms of their age, gender and economic background. They ultimately chose Shelly Parker, Tom G. Palmer, Gillian St. Lawrence, Tracey Ambeau, George Lyon and Dick Heller. Levy only knew Tom Palmer, while the six plaintiffs did not know each other.
One of the decisions that had previously dealt with the right of the individual to carry a weapon was the United States v. Emerson from 2001, in which the court ruled for such a right. In contrast, the court in the Silveira v. Lockyer pronounced against such a right in 2002. The United States Supreme Court had not yet committed itself to one position.
Proceedings in the District Court of Columbia
In February 2003, the six residents of Washington selected by Levy and Neily brought a lawsuit in the District Court for the District of Columbia . They asserted the unconstitutionality of various provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 . This law banned Washington residents from possessing handguns. The only exceptions are weapons that were registered before 1975 or that were in the possession of law enforcement officers. In addition, the law stipulated that all weapons, including rifles and shotguns, must be stored unloaded and dismantled or at least specially secured. The court dismissed the lawsuit.
The proceedings before the Court of Appeals
In the appeal hearing , the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit admitted the action with a 2-1 vote and overturned the challenged provisions. Judge Karen L. Henderson, as well as Judges Thomas B. Griffith and Laurence H. Silberman, had to rule on the case, with Judge Silberman issuing the judgment and Judge Henderson issuing the special opinion .
First of all, the court dealt with the question of whether the plaintiffs had legal standing . The judges concluded that of the six plaintiffs, only Dick Heller had legal standing because he had applied for a gun license, but his application was denied. Then the judges turned to the question of the extent to which the 2nd amendment to the constitution grants individuals the right to carry a weapon. They stated that such a right only existed for the private use of weapons, such as hunting, fishing or self-defense , the latter being to be understood as resistance to the lawlessness of private individuals or the actions of a tyrannical government. Next, the judgment established that, although the law above all to carry a weapon vigilante groups should benefit, it is not limited to these. The court regarded handguns as “weapons” within the meaning of the 2nd constitutional amendment and therefore concluded that they should not be prohibited, even if the 2nd constitutional amendment had to set reasonable limits.
The court also ruled unconstitutional the provisions of the law that provided for special storage of weapons. The judges of the District Court had argued that in these provisions an unwritten right to self-defense could be interpreted and they were therefore not unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals countered this with the argument that the form of storage provided for by the provisions amounted to a prohibition.
The special vote
In her special vote, Judge Henderson stated that the Second Amendment did not apply to Washington, DC residents. She justified her view with the fact that the District of Columbia is not a state within the meaning of the 2nd amendment to the constitution. In the United States v. Miller stated that the Supreme Court stipulated that the protection of the 2nd Amendment only applies to federal states.
Request for readmission
In April 2007, Washington DC Mayor Adrian Fenty moved to retrial . He justified his request by saying that the decision contradicted other decisions. On May 8, 2007, the court rejected the retrial with a 6-4 vote.
The Supreme Court decision
The defendants turned to the United States Supreme Court. The plaintiffs supported the motion. The Court of Justice accepted the dispute for decision on November 20, 2007. The Court phrased the question to be decided as follows:
"In the present case, the court has to decide whether §§ 7-2502.02 (a) (4), 22-4504 (a) and 7-2507.02 are the rights of the individual not part of a state-organized vigilante but wants to own hand guns and other firearms for private use. "
This is the first time the Court has sat down since the United States v. Miller diverged with the scope of the 2nd Amendment.
Amicus curiae
Because of the controversial issue, the case attracted a lot of attention. Various interest groups drafted so-called amicus curiae briefs , 47 pressed for confirmation of the verdict, 20 requested a referral back to the Court of Appeals.
A majority of members of Congress endorsed Stephen P. Halbrook's pleading calling for the Court of Appeal's judgment to be overturned and for Congress to pass a ban. The then Vice President of the United States Dick Cheney , as President of the Senate, endorsed this brief, contradicting the position taken by the Bush administration . The brief was also signed by Arizona Senator and later presidential candidate John McCain . The then Senator from Illinois and later President Barack Obama declined to participate.
The majority of American states followed suit , written by Greg Abbott, Texas attorney general , demanding that the appeal judgment be upheld. Abbott emphasized the particular interest of the states in being able to pass the laws banning firearms at the state level.
A number of organizations drafted briefs calling for the case to be referred back, including the Ministry of Justice .
Hearing
The hearing before the Supreme Court took place on March 18, 2008. The minutes and an audio recording were published.
Initially, each party had 15 minutes to present their arguments. Then the Solicitor General Paul D. Clement presented the view of the federal government.
Walter E. Dellinger of O'Melveny & Myers and professor of law at Duke University represented the defendant. He was supported by Todd Kim , the Solicitor General of the District of Columbia , among others .
Alan Gura , a Washington-based attorney, represented the plaintiff before the Supreme Court. Robert Levy and Clark Neily supported him in his work.
The decision
On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled with a 5: 4 vote and upheld the appeal court's decision. Judge Antonin Scalia , who drafted the judgment for the majority, stated:
"We believe the District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of handguns is in violation of Amendment 2, as is the provisions prohibiting the storage of working weapons in private possession for the purpose of self-defense. Therefore, the Court of Appeal's judgment is upheld."
With this decision, for the first time in the history of the United States, an appeal ruling by a federal court was upheld that declared a law unconstitutional based on the 2nd Amendment.
The Court based its decision on the fact that
- The 2nd amendment to the constitution includes the right of every individual to own and carry a weapon for the purpose of self-defense. This is evident from the wording in which the "people" is spoken of;
- This right is not limited to members of a state-organized vigilante group;
- a historical interpretation of the 2nd amendment to the constitution suggests such a right. The historical context in which the 2nd Amendment was passed, the interpretation it received in the 19th century and the granting of similar rights by the constitutions of the states support such an interpretation;
- none of the judgments issued by the Supreme Court so far under the 2nd amendment to the constitution prohibit such an interpretation.
Despite everything, the judges continued, this right is not unlimited. It does not extend to every weapon, every kind of carrying for every purpose. Rather, the judgment should not shake those laws that prohibit the possession of weapons by criminals and the mentally ill or the carrying of weapons in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings. Laws governing the sale of weapons would also exist.
The unconstitutionality arises from the prohibition of a certain type of weapon, which the vast majority of Americans acquire for the legal purpose of self-defense. For the same reason, it is unconstitutional to regulate storage in such a way that weapons must be stored in an inoperative condition. This would deprive citizens of their right to self-defense.
The decision announced by Judge Scalia was joined by Judges Anthony M. Kennedy , Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito , and President of the Court John Roberts .
Addressed aspects of the majority decision
The core of the decision is the close connection between the 2nd Amendment and the right to self-defense.
In the majority decision, which is mainly based on historical material, the court assumes that the right to own a weapon and to carry it is an individual right . Judge Scalia explains that the "people" named in the 2nd amendment are the same as those who benefit from the protection of the 1st and 4th amendments. The wording should be understood from the point of view of the citizens. Although it is open to interpretation, this should not lead to a purely legal application.
Building on this, the majority decision assumed that an absolute ban on handguns would, on the one hand, run counter to the right to self-defense guaranteed by the 2nd amendment to the constitution. On the other hand, such a ban contradicts the United States v. Miller established the principle of common use, according to which handguns, since they are in common use today, are protected.
According to the majority decision, this leads to the result that the District of Columbia must either allow Plaintiff Heller to register his weapon and issue him a license to use it. At least the requirements for obtaining such a license would have to be designed in such a way that the plaintiff would be able to own a weapon and also to carry it with him.
In an obiter dictum , the majority decision is expressed about the scope of the right to own a weapon:
"Even if we have not done a full historical analysis of the scope of the 2nd Amendment, there is no doubt that such laws that regulate the possession of weapons by criminals and the mentally ill, or prohibit the carrying of weapons in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, or such regulations that control private arms sales will continue to have legal force. "
The decision says nothing about the standards by which subordinate courts should decide future, similar cases. Since this case is the first case decided by the Supreme Court under the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, not all questions could be answered comprehensively.
Dissenting opinions
In a dissenting opinion , Judge John Paul Stevens made it clear that he considered the majority decision to be unsustainable and “unconvincing”.
It puts itself in contradiction with a number of precedents and thus leads to an overthrow of previous jurisprudence. Stevens also drew attention to the fact that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution lacks any reference to the right of the individual to own a weapon for private use, unlike the constitutions of Pennsylvania and Vermont .
Stevens' dissenting opinion is based on four points:
- that the founding fathers would have clearly expressed an individual right to own weapons in the wording of the 2nd amendment to the constitution, had such a right been intended;
- that the express reference in the 2nd amendment to a state-organized vigilante group precludes such a private right;
- that decisions of the lower courts, which, according to the Miller decision, were based only on the general public's right to gun possession, are so-called stare decisis , which the court cannot simply ignore;
- and that the Court did not consider the effectiveness of federal laws governing gun ownership in its decision.
Judges David Souter , Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer joined the decision .
Judge Breyer also wrote his own dissenting opinion, in which he stated that even an individual right to own weapons does not affect the effectiveness of the law passed by the District of Columbia.
Breyer argued with early city laws that banned the storage of gunpowder and - in Boston , for example - the carrying of loaded weapons in certain buildings. Accordingly, the 2nd amendment to the constitution should be understood to mean that it should not regulate private gun ownership. There is also a need to regulate private gun ownership, since firearms are responsible for 69 deaths in the United States every day.
Based on these arguments, Breyer came to the conclusion that there was no constitutionally guaranteed right to keep loaded weapons for private use.
Participation of stakeholders
Various interest groups also took part in the discussion about the interpretation of the 2nd amendment to the constitution. The National Rifle Association (NRA), which was initially very reluctant because it feared the case might be lost, eventually supported the plaintiffs. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence , on the other hand, wanted to change the gun laws in the District of Columbia in order to remove the case from the decision-making authority of the Supreme Court.
National Rifle Association
Attorney Alan Gura said in 2003 that the NRA would do anything to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling the case. This assessment was confirmed by Wayne LaPierre , the CEO of the NRA. There had been lively discussions on the part of the NRA about whether a majority of judges could be found who understood the constitution as the plaintiffs did. Ultimately, however, it was decided to support the plaintiff.
Immediately after the court's decision, the NRA filed suits against the gun laws of the cities of Chicago and San Francisco .
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence participated in the discussion from the very beginning. Paul Helmke, chairman of the Brady Campaign, proposed a change in gun law in the District of Columbia. It was, he said, to be feared that - should the Supreme Court rule on behalf of the plaintiffs - a flood of lawsuits against gun laws would set in.
Impact on legislation and case law
On December 16, 2008, the DC Council passed the Firearm Registration Amendment Act of 2008. In this the results found by the Supreme Court were brought into law and new requirements for the registration of weapons were established.
Since June 2008, over 60 cases have been heard in the lower courts, in which the constitutionality of various gun control laws had to be decided. Each and every one of these laws has been declared compatible with the 2nd Amendment. These rulings were based on one of the last sections of the Supreme Court ruling, which states: “This ruling is in no way intended to cast doubt on prohibitions that prevent criminals or the mentally ill from possession of weapons or the carrying of weapons in certain places such as schools regulate public buildings or subject the sale of weapons to certain conditions. "
See also
Individual evidence
- ^ Robert Barnes: Justices Reject DC Ban On Handgun Ownership . Ed .: The Washington Post . 2008, ISSN 0190-8286 ( washingtonpost.com ).
- ↑ Court weighs right to own guns ; Court: A constitutional right to a gun
- ↑ "Carefully Plotted Course propels Gun Case to Top" by Adam Liptak, The New York Times December 3, 2007
- ^ "Lawyer Who Wiped Out DC Ban Says It's About Liberties, Not Guns," by Paul Duggan, The Washington Post , March 18, 2007
- ^ "DC Asks Supreme Court to Back Gun Ban," by Robert Barnes and David Nakamura, The Washington Post , September 4, 2007
- ^ Judgment of the Court of Appeals p. 57 f. (PDF; 199 kB)
- ↑ Decision on the application to restart the proceedings (PDF; 14 kB)
- ^ District of Columbia v. Heller , 128 S.Ct. 645 (2007).
- ↑ Questions presented on the homepage of the Supreme Court (pdf; 22 kB)
- ^ "DC Asks Supreme Court to Back Gun Ban," by Robert Barnes and David Nakamura, The Washington Post , September 4, 2007
- ↑ Amicus Briefs Are Ammo for Supreme Court Gun Case by Marcia Coyle, The National Law Journal March 10, 2008
- ^ Cheney Joins Congress In Opposing DC Gun Ban; Vice President Breaks With Administration by Robert Barnes, The Washington Post February 9, 2008
- ↑ US Supreme Court in historic hearing on gun laws ( Memento of March 10, 2011 in the Internet Archive ) AFP report of March 18, 2008
- ↑ Amicus letter from the Attorney General of Texas (PDF; 346 kB)
- ↑ Brief of the Ministry of Justice (PDF; 139 kB)
- ↑ Minutes of the hearing ( memento of the original from October 14, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.
- ^ Supreme Court to Release Same-Day Tapes by Robert Barnes, The Washington Post March 5, 2008
- ↑ Justices to Decide on Right to Keep Handgun by Linda Greenhouse, The New York Times October 21, 2007
- ↑ DCGunCase.com - About Us ( Memento of the original from January 8, 2008 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.
- ^ District of Columbia v Heller decision of the Supreme Court (PDF; 2.8 MB), p. 64
- ↑ Greg Stohr. Individual Gun Rights Protected, Top US Court Says , Bloomberg News, June 26, 2008.
- ↑ cf. United States v. Sprague , 282 U.S. 716,731 (1931); Gibbons v. Ogden , 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824)
- ^ Text of the decision, p. 57.
- ↑ a b Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights by Linda Greenhouse, The New York Times June 27, 2008.
- ↑ Both Sides Fear Firing Blanks if DC Gun Case Reaches High Court by Tony Mauro, Legal Times , July 30, 2007
- ↑ Carefully Plotted Course propels Gun Case to Top of Adam Liptak, The New York Times , December 3rd of 2007.
- ↑ NRA Targets San Francisco, Chicago CBS News report from June 27, 2008
- ↑ Taking Aim at Judicial Activism , from Paul Helmke in the Huffington Post, March 15, 2007
- ↑ Firearm Registration Amendment Act of 2008 ( English , PDF) DC Council. Retrieved March 14, 2019.
Web links
- District of Columbia v. Heller (PDF; 2.8 MB) on the homepage of the Supreme Court of the United States
- Decision of the Court of Appeals (PDF; 199 kB)
- Text of the brief written by the US Department of Justice (PDF; 139 kB)