Second Amendment victory

The DC Court of Appeals has ruled on the District’s gun ban:

To summarize, we conclude that 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 (or a threat from abroad). 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.

It’s important to note that Georgia’s Attorney General Thurbert Baker filed a brief in support of the appellants (hat tip to Steve Perkins).

You can view the full ruling here.


  1. StevePerkins says:

    We were talking about Baker in an earlier crosspost on Jason’s own site. If you are strongly pro-2nd Amendment, I think it’s worthwhile to send a quick note to the Attorney General’s office thanking him for the support. I’m not a Baker cheerleader at all. However, it’s even more important to acknowledge pro-2nd Amendment Democrats than it is Republicans or Libertarians, because it takes far more courage for them to take such positions in the face of internal Party pressure… and they have more incentive to falter if they believe nobody cares or notices.

    The portion of the D.C. Court of Appeals ruling that REALLY fascinates me is the dissenting option from Judge Henderson. She finds that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to the District of Columbia, because D.C. is not a state! I wonder how Karen Henderson would rule if I purchased a slave in Washington, or passed a city ordinance barring women from voting…

  2. AlanSmithee says:

    Baker has always been a strong 2nd Amendment supporter. I recall a few years ago when he intervened to help stop Bill Campbell’s ridiculous lawsuit against gun manufacturers.

  3. Jimbo says:

    Doesn’t the city of Atlanta have a similar ordinance as D.C. that bans firearms? Will their ordinance be over turned?

    I am glad Baker stood up for gun owners.

Comments are closed.