Back to Second Amendment and Gun Issues in DC Politics
|
Columns DCWatch
Archives Elections Government and People Budget issues Organizations |
February 10, 2003 Cato Legal Scholars File Second Amendment Challenge to Washington, D.C. Gun BanRegulations are unconstitutional; residents have the right to defend themselves in their homes WASHINGTON - Two Cato Institute scholars announced today that they have filed a civil lawsuit in a Washington, D.C. federal court on behalf of six plaintiffs to vindicate the right of D.C. residents to defend themselves in their home. Robert A. Levy, senior fellow in constitutional studies, and Gene Healy, senior editor, joined by two other D.C.-based attorneys, argue in their complaint that "the Second Amendment guarantees individuals a fundamental right to possess a functional, personal firearm, such as a handgun ... within the home." But D.C. officials "enforce a set of laws [that] deprive individuals, including the plaintiffs, of this important right." The Cato Institute is not itself involved in the litigation, but Cato scholars have argued consistently and vigorously that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of responsible adult citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense. That is the same position now taken by respected legal scholars - both liberal and conservative - by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the recent Emerson case, and by the U.S. Justice Department in friend-of-the-court briefs filed before the Supreme Court. Yet the D.C. city council, which is controlled by Congress and indisputably constrained by the Second Amendment, has enacted one of the most draconian gun bans in the nation. No handgun can be registered in the District. Even pistols registered prior to D.C.'s 1976 ban cannot be carried from room to room in the home without a license. Moreover, all firearms in the home must be unloaded and either disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock. In effect, no one in D.C. can possess a functional firearm in his or her own residence. The lead plaintiff, Shelly Parker, resides in a high-crime neighborhood. As a result of trying to make her neighborhood a better place to live, Ms. Parker has been threatened by drug dealers. She would like to possess a handgun within her home for self-defense, but fears arrest, prosecution, incarceration, and fines because of D.C.'s unconstitutional gun ban. A second plaintiff is a Special Police Officer who carries a handgun to provide security for the Thurgood Marshall Judicial Center. But when he applied for permission to possess a handgun within his home, the D.C. government turned him down. Other plaintiffs include a gay man who has been assaulted on account of his sexual orientation, and the owner of a registered shotgun who cannot lawfully render her gun operational. The plaintiffs are asking the federal court to prevent D.C. from barring the registration of handguns, banning the possession of functional firearms within the home, and forbidding firearms from being carried from room to room without a license. "This is not about carrying a machine gun on the streets," says Levy. "It's about having a garden-variety handgun in your own home." Healy adds that "the right to keep and bear arms includes the right to defend your property, your family, and your life. No government should be permitted to take that right away." The lawsuit is Parker v. District of Columbia and the full text of the complaint is available at http://www.cato.org/pubs/legalbriefs/gunsuit.pdf. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT COMPLAINT SHELLY PARKER, DICK ANTHONY HELLER, TOM G. PALMER, GILLIAN ST. LAWRENCE, TRACEY AMBEAU and GEORGE LYON, Plaintiffs, v.DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA and ANTHONY WILLIAMS, Defendants. COMPLAINTCOME NOW the Plaintiffs, Shelly Parker, Dick Anthony Heller, Tom G. Palmer, Gillian St. Lawrence, Tracey Ambeau, and George Lyon, by and through undersigned counsel, and complain of the defendants as follows:THE PARTIES1. Plaintiff Shelly Parker is a natural person and a citizen of the United States and of the District of Columbia. Ms. Parker resides in a high-crime neighborhood and is active in community affairs. As a consequence of trying to make her neighborhood a better place to live, Ms. Parker has been threatened by drug dealers. Ms. Parker presently intends to possess a functional handgun within her home for self-defense, but is prevented from doing so only by defendants' active enforcement of unconstitutional policies complained of in this action. Ms. Parker fears arrest, criminal prosecution, incarceration, and fine if she were to possess a functional handgun within her home.2. Plaintiff Dick Anthony Heller is a natural person and a citizen of the United States and of the District of Columbia. Mr. Heller resides in a high-crime neighborhood and is a Special Police Officer of defendant District of Columbia. As a Special Police Officer, Mr. Heller is licensed to and does carry a handgun in the course of his employment at the Thurgood Marshall Judicial Center in Washington, D.C., providing security for the federal judiciary. Mr. Heller lawfully owns various firearms located outside the District of Columbia, including handguns and long guns, and presently intends to possess a functional handgun and long gun for self-defense within his own home, but is prevented from doing so only by defendants' active enforcement of unconstitutional policies complained of in this action. Mr. Heller applied to defendant District of Columbia for permission to possess a handgun within his home but was refused. Mr. Heller fears arrest, criminal prosecution, incarceration, and fine if he were to possess a functional handgun and/or long gun within his home. 3. Plaintiff Tom G. Palmer is a natural person and a citizen of the United States and of the District of Columbia. A gay man, Mr. Palmer has been assaulted on account of his sexual orientation and successfully warded off the assault with a handgun. Mr. Palmer lawfully owns various firearms located outside the District of Columbia, including handguns and long guns, and presently intends to possess a functional handgun and long gun for self-defense within his own home, but is prevented from doing so only by defendants' active enforcement of unconstitutional policies complained of in this action. Mr. Palmer fears arrest, criminal prosecution, incarceration, and fine if he were to possess a functional handgun and/or long gun within his home. 4. Plaintiff Gillian St. Lawrence is a natural person and a citizen of the United States and of the District of Columbia. Ms. St. Lawrence lawfully owns a registered long gun, specifically, a shotgun, at her home in the District of Columbia. Ms. St Lawrence presently intends to keep the shotgun assembled and unlocked, and presently intends to use the gun if necessary in lawful self-defense within her home, but is prevented by defendants' active enforcement of unconstitutional policies from rendering the gun useful and from ever using the gun in lawful self-defense within the home as otherwise permitted by District of Columbia law. Ms. St. Lawrence fears arrest, criminal prosecution, incarceration, and fine if she were to render her gun operational and/or use the gun within her home for self-defense. 5. Plaintiff Tracey Ambeau is a natural person and a citizen of the United States and of the District of Columbia. Ms. Ambeau would like to possess a functional handgun for selfdefense within her own home, but is prevented from doing so only by defendants' active enforcement of unconstitutional policies complained of in this action. Ms. Ambeau fears arrest, criminal prosecution, incarceration, and fine if she were to possess a functional handgun within her home. 6. Plaintiff George Lyon is a natural person and a citizen of the United States and of the District of Columbia. Mr. Lyon lawfully owns various firearms located outside the District of Columbia, including handguns and long guns, and would like to possess a functional handgun and long gun for self-defense within his own home, but is prevented from doing so only by defendants' active enforcement of unconstitutional policies complained of in this action. Mr. Lyon fears arrest, criminal prosecution, incarceration, and fine if he were to possess a functional handgun and/or long gun within his home. 7. Defendant District of Columbia is a municipal entity organized under the Constitution and laws of the United States.8. Defendant Anthony Williams is the Mayor of the District of Columbia, and as such is responsible for executing and administering the District of Columbia's laws, customs, practices, and policies. In that capacity, Mr. Williams is presently enforcing the unconstitutional laws, customs, practices and policies complained of in this action, and is sued in both his individual and official capacities. JURISDICTION AND VENUE9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, 2201, 2202 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.10. Venue lies in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. STATEMENT OF FACTS11. The Second Amendment to the United States 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."12. At a minimum, the Second Amendment guarantees individuals a fundamental right to possess a functional, personal firearm, such as a handgun or ordinary long gun (shotgun or rifle) within the home. Defendants currently maintain and actively enforce a set of laws, customs, practices, and policies which operate to deprive individuals, including the plaintiffs, of this important right. Any such exercise of their Second Amendment rights would subject plaintiffs to criminal prosecution, and would lead to incarceration and/or fine. 13. D.C. Code § 7-2502.01 (a) provides that "no person or organization in the District shall possess or control any firearm, unless the person or organization holds a valid registration certificate for the firearm." 14. Although registration certificates are available for certain long arms, such as ordinary rifles and shotguns, D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a) provides in pertinent part, "A registration certificate shall not be issued for a . . . (4) Pistol not validly registered to the current registrant in the District prior to September 24, 1976." "`Pistol' means any firearm originally designed to be fired by use of a single hand." D.C. Code § 7-2501.01(12). 15. Accordingly, defendants maintain a complete ban on the home ownership and possession of handguns by private citizens (non-law enforcement officers) who did not register a handgun prior to September 24, 1976. 16. D.C. Code § 7-2507.02 provides: Except for law enforcement personnel described in § 7-2502.01(b)(1), each registrant shall keep any firearm in his possession unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless such firearm is kept at his place of business, or while being used for lawful recreational purposes within the District of Columbia.17. Accordingly, defendants prohibit the possession of lawfully owned firearms for self-defense within the home, even in instances where self-defense would be lawful by other means under District of Columbia law. Indeed, the prohibition on the possession of firearms extends so far as to deprive a licensed firearms dealer from keeping firearms "for such person's , private use or protection, or for the protection of his business." D.C. Code §7-2502.01(b)(2)(C). 18. A first violation of the District of Columbia's ban on the ownership or possession of handguns or other functional firearms within the home for lawful purposes is punishable as a misdemeanor by a fine of up to $1,000, imprisonment of up to one year, or both. A second offense is punishable as a felony by a fine of up to $5,000, imprisonment of up to five years, or both, in the case of a handgun or other non-registerable firearm. D.C. Code §7-2507.06. 19. Even the movement of a handgun from one location to another on one's property carries a criminal penalty. Former D.C. Code § 22-3204 (emphasis added) provided: However, defendants now maintain and actively enforce D.C. Code § 22-4504, which provides: 20. Thus, while the penalty for carrying a handgun in public is five years imprisonment and/or $5,000, any person who carries a handgun on his or her own property is subject to one year imprisonment and/or a fine of $1,000 as set forth in D.C. Code §22-4515 - even if the handgun could be legally registered. Licenses to carry a handgun are rarely, if ever, issued to private citizens (non-law enforcement officers). FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
21. Paragraphs 1 through 20 are incorporated as though fully stated
herein.
|
Send mail with questions or comments to webmaster@dcwatch.com
Web site copyright ©DCWatch (ISSN 1546-4296)
