Parker v DC_anon

Parker v DC_anon - 2. Do all of the appellants have...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
POLS 365 Parker v. District of Columbia 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007) Facts: Six residents of the District of Columbia are contesting the dismissal of their challenge to D.C. Code §§7-2502(a)(4), 7-2502.02, 22-4504. They are claiming that these codes violate their Second Amendment rights. These three laws “generally bar the registration of handguns” (retired D.C. police officers excluded), “prohibit carrying a pistol without a license,” and “require all firearms to be kept unloaded and disassembled or [equipped with] a trigger lock device.” All of the appellants take issue with at least one of the three restrictions. One of the appellants, Heller, is a D.C. police officer who is petitioning because he was denied registration of a handgun. Procedure: The district court dismissed the appellants claim citing that the Second Amendment does not refer to an individual’s right to bear arms, rather the militia’s right to bear arms. Issues: 1. Does the Second Amendment apply to the individual?
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: 2. Do all of the appellants have standing, or grounds for bringing their case? Holding : 1. YES. The court reverses the ruling of the district court. 2. NO. Only Heller has standing and the case is remanded. Reasoning : 1.The court concluded that the Second Amendment’s use of “The right of the people” did in fact extend to the individual when interpreted “intratextually and in light of the United States Supreme Court Precedent.” The court also held that all other provisions of the Bill of Rights pertained to the individual; the Tenth Amendment was the only exception cited. Furthermore they concluded that the D.C. Codes in question imposed an “unconstitutional prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. 2. Only Heller had standing because he was the only appellant actually injured by the D.C. Code. The other five appellants were petitioning because they could be punished, but had yet to actually be punished....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 04/22/2008 for the course POLS 365 taught by Professor Mccracken during the Spring '08 term at Lake Forest.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online