Court Calls District Gun Laws Unconstitutional
Court Alerts
[##_1L|1095539745.jpg|width="120" height="88" alt=""|_##]The US DC Circuit Court of Appeals Friday invoked the Second Amendment to reverse a lower court ruling and strike down a three-decades old ban on individuals in the District of Columbia having handguns in their homes. The 2-1 ruling is likely to be appealed to the US Supreme Court.
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution provides: "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." Senior Judge Laurence Silberman wrote for the majority:
...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. 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.
In dissent Judge Karen Henderson, a Reagan appointee, countered that the Second Amendment did not properly apply to the case, as prior caselaw, statute, and the Constitution itself recognized that the District of Columbia is not a state subject to the jurisdiction of the Bill.
Related listings
-
Failed Abortion Sparks Child Care Lawsuit
Court Alerts 03/07/2007A woman who had an abortion but still gave birth has filed a lawsuit against two doctors and a family planning organization seeking the costs of raising her child. The complaint was filed by Jennifer Raper, 45, last week in Suffolk Superior Court and...
-
Supreme Court rejects Ebbers fair-trial
Court Alerts 03/06/2007[##_1L|1118279500.jpg|width="100" height="132" alt=""|_##]The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal by the ex-WorldCom Inc. chief of his federal fraud and conspiracy conviction in the $11 billion accounting scandal that destroyed his former...
-
New Jersey verdict for Vioxx drugmaker upheld
Court Alerts 03/06/2007A New Jersey superior court judge Monday upheld a Friday jury verdict for Merck & Co, finding that the company had given adequate warning to physicians of the risks associated with its painkiller Vioxx. Judge Carol Higbee rejected a motion ...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.