Home > The Second Amendment > Second Amendment Fantasy

THE D.C. CIRCUIT'S OPINION IN PARKER v. D.C. (renamed D.C. v. Heller in the Supreme Court appeal)

Click here to read the Brady Center's and law enforcement's Supreme Court brief.

Click here to download the full six-part Brady Center critique of Parker v. D.C.

On Friday, March 9, 2007, for the first time in American history, a federal appeals court struck down a gun law as a violation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In a 2-1 decision, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in Parker v. District of Columbia, invalidated the District of Columbia's restrictive handgun law, along with separate provisions of D.C. law requiring that registered firearms be kept unloaded or locked when stored at home.

Continue the introduction.

MANGLING MILLER: How the Parker Opinion Distorted and Defied Supreme Court Precedent

The 2-1 panel decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia made errors of history, errors of law, and errors of logic. But perhaps no error was more fundamental, and troubling, than the court's misinterpretation — and disregard — of the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).

Introduction

The Second Amendment reads: "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." Especially on matters of constitutional interpretation ...Read the full critique.

DECISION BY ERASER: How the Parker Court Obliterated Half of the Second Amendment.

In this second installment, we explain how the Parker panel also botched its textual and historical analysis of the Second Amendment. At every turn of its decision, the Parker panel treated the first thirteen words of the Amendment — containing its militia purpose — as irrelevant surplus, with absolutely no binding effect. In its place, the court assumed that the Second Amendment protects ownership and use of firearms for "private purposes," even though this is found nowhere in its text or legislative history. We have entitled this piece Decision by Eraser because Parker treats the Constitution as if courts are empowered to selectively erase its words and replace them with unexpressed meanings that support the court's predilections. ...Read the full critique.

MILITIA MADNESS: How the Parker Court Substituted an "Armed Populace" for the "Well Regulated Militia" of the Second Amendment

In this third installment, we explain how the Parker court, while disregarding the militia purpose of the Second Amendment as having no limiting effect, also totally mischaracterized the "well regulated Militia" that the Framers meant to protect. To the Framers, the "well regulated Militia" was an armed, organized, and disciplined governmental military institution made up of citizens. It helped fight the British during the Revolutionary War, and afterwards was called out to suppress armed insurrectionists like the farmers in Shays's Rebellion. Thereafter, it was formally embodied in the Constitution and protected by the Second Amendment. It has existed, in some form, ever since. The "well regulated Militia['s]" value to our society has always been to serve the three purposes laid out for it in the Constitution: "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." Service in the militia was a civic duty, not a right. ...Read the full critique.

PARKER AND "THE PEOPLE": How the Parker Court Obscured the Real Issue in the Second Amendment Debate

This installment exposes how the Court of Appeals' flawed treatment of the phrase "the people" in the Second Amendment obscures the real issue: the nature and scope of the right "to keep and bear arms." ...Read the full critique.

WISHFUL THINKING: How the Parker Court Twisted and Misrepresented the Holdings of Supreme Court and State Cases

This installment addresses the Parker majority's citation to state and Supreme Court case law containing passing references to the Second Amendment in footnotes and dicta, or even a brief mention of the Amendment in a dissent, as support for its activist re-interpretation of the Second Amendment. All told, of the eleven state and Supreme Court cases examined below and cited by Parker as holding that the Second Amendment grants a right to possess firearms for private purposes, only two state cases can possibly be read to support such a theory. Yet these two cases contain only brief references to the Second Amendment in dicta that even Parker admits is contradicted by binding Supreme Court precedent. ...Read the full critique.

RISKY BUSINESS: What if the Supreme Court Affirmed the Parker Ruling?

The decision of the United States Supreme Court to review the Parker decision obviously raises the stakes. Whereas the D.C. Circuit's "private purpose" reading of the Second Amendment at least was limited in effect to the District of Columbia (and unlikely to be adopted by the nine other federal circuit courts that repeatedly have rejected it), Supreme Court review poses the prospect of a ruling that will affect the constitutional validity of local, state and federal gun laws across the nation for years to come. The Supreme Court may well issue the most significant judicial ruling in history on the Second Amendment. ... Read the full critique.

Go to top.

Click here to download the full six-part Brady Center critique of Parker v. D.C.