| | ''District of Columbia v. Heller'' is the most significant [[gun control]] case in the [[United States]] in about 70 years.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/washington/13scotus.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss NY Times article].</ref> In March 2007, The Court of Appeals for the [[D.C. Circuit]] invalidated a 31-year-old [[gun control]] statute in the [[District of Columbia]] based on an interpretation that the [[Second Amendment]] protects an individual right to own firearms, by declaring that "the right in question is individual" and not, as gun control proponents claim, a collective right limited to membership in a state militia.<ref>''Parker v. District of Columbia'', 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007).</ref> The D.C. statute had completely prohibited residents of the [[District of Columbia]] from possessing firearms in a manner compatible with [[self defense]]. The Court, in striking it down, relied on a Department of Justice memo that observed, "The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias."<ref>[http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf DOJ Memo].</ref> | | ''District of Columbia v. Heller'' is the most significant [[gun control]] case in the [[United States]] in about 70 years.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/washington/13scotus.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss NY Times article].</ref> In March 2007, The Court of Appeals for the [[D.C. Circuit]] invalidated a 31-year-old [[gun control]] statute in the [[District of Columbia]] based on an interpretation that the [[Second Amendment]] protects an individual right to own firearms, by declaring that "the right in question is individual" and not, as gun control proponents claim, a collective right limited to membership in a state militia.<ref>''Parker v. District of Columbia'', 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007).</ref> The D.C. statute had completely prohibited residents of the [[District of Columbia]] from possessing firearms in a manner compatible with [[self defense]]. The Court, in striking it down, relied on a Department of Justice memo that observed, "The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias."<ref>[http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf DOJ Memo].</ref> |
| − | That appellate struck down the 31-year-old statute in D.C. as unconstitutional. Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007). The Court cited how the D.C. gun control prohibited ownership of handguns for self-defense even within one’s home, and the panel of judges relied on a Department of Justice memo that observed, “The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias.” http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf | + | That appellate struck down the 31-year-old statute in D.C. as unconstitutional. ''[[Parker v. District of Columbia]]'', 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007). The Court cited how the D.C. gun control prohibited ownership of handguns for self-defense even within one’s home, and the panel of judges relied on a Department of Justice memo that observed, "The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias." http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf |