Reader Mail
Dissent and Concurrence
Henderson the Bush I appointment. Gratitude enrichment. Newt is primed. Gasoline volleys. More hot terrible times. Hedge funds honored. Rudy and the single issue. Plus more.
p>
STATE OF CONFUSION
br>
Re: Robert VerBruggen’s
Locating
Gun Rights
:
/p>
Robert VerBruggen writes, “In a footnote, [dissenting judge and GHWB appointee, gee thanks dad] Henderson even noted United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, a case that ruled the term ‘the people’ meant ‘a class of persons who are part of a national community’ and specifically mentioned the Second Amendment. To this she responded that as the Tenth Amendment relegates some rights to the States, and not to the District, so does the Second.”
But Mr. VerBruggen fails to note that the majority on page 50 in Parker directly rebutted Henderson as follows “Our dissenting colleague —in order to give a meaning to ‘the people’ in the Second Amendment consistent with her interpretation — analogizes to ‘the people’ in the Tenth Amendment. Dissent at 5 n.5. Contrary to her suggestion, however, the Tenth Amendment does not limit ‘the people’ to state citizens. Rather, the Tenth Amendment reserves powers to ‘the States respectively, or to the people.’ The dissent provides no case holding that ‘the people,’ as used in the Tenth Amendment, are distinct from ‘the people’ referred to elsewhere in the Bill of Rights. The one case relied upon, Lee v. Flintkote, 593 F.2d 1275, 1278 n.14 (D.C. Cir. 1979), is inapposite. That case merely contrasts the District, on the one hand, with the states, on the other; the meaning of ‘the people’ as used in the Tenth Amendment was not at issue. Indeed, Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. at 265, directly contradicts the dissent’s reading of ‘the people’ in the Tenth Amendment, just as it contradicts the restrictive reading of ‘the people’ in the Second.”
And if that doesn’t bring a smile to your lips, take a gander at the majority’s footnote on page 55:
p>”Of course, the District’s virtual ban on handgun ownership is not based on any militia purpose. It is justified solely as a measure to protect public safety. As amici point out, and as D.C. judges are well aware, the black market for handguns in the District is so strong that handguns are readily br> available (probably at little premium) to criminals. It is asserted, therefore, that the D.C. gun control laws irrationally prevent only law abiding citizens from owning handguns.” /p>If I understand the process correctly, D.C authorities will appeal first to D.C. Court of Appeals en banc. Then it will proceed to the Supremes.
p> Parker
