Gun Ruling; Residents Suing D.C. Explain Motivation
Date: Mar 12, 2007 9:04 AM
PUBLICATION: The Washington Post
DATE: 2007.03.11
SECTION: Metro
PAGE: C01
BYLINE: Elissa Silverman and Allison Klein
WORD COUNT: 1048

————————————————————————
——–

Plaintiffs Reflect on Gun Ruling; Residents Suing D.C. Explain
Motivation

————————————————————————
——–

George Lyon says he wants a gun in his home because it’s his
constitutional right. Tom Palmer says he used a gun to ward off a
beating. And Gillian St. Lawrence says her shotgun is useless because it
has to be unloaded and have its trigger locked.

They are among the six city residents who successfully challenged the
District’s long-standing gun law, winning a major ruling Friday in a
case that could reach the Supreme Court. The three men and three women
share a strong desire to keep guns legally in their homes in what they
say is a violent city.

“We live in a society where having a handgun at home can be the
difference between life and death,” Palmer said.

D.C. officials contend that easing the gun ban will put citizens at an
even higher risk of crime and say they will appeal the decision. An
appeal would be likely to delay any change to the law. Officials
maintain that the gun law is just as important as when it was enacted 31
years ago. Even with a ban, guns are used in more than 80 percent of the
city’s homicides, and police are struggling to get them out of the hands
of criminals: More than 2,600 were seized last year.

Alan Gura, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, said the residents who
brought the suit are just like many District residents who want to feel
safe and secure in their homes. They believe the Second Amendment gives
them the right to possess a gun for that purpose.

“These are just six average, normal people who come from all walks of
life,” Gura said. “They just want to have their rights respected by the
city.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in their favor
Friday with a 2 to 1 vote that found the Second Amendment gives them the
right to have handguns in their homes. It was the first major blow to
the District’s law, which bars all handguns unless they were registered
before 1976. The court also struck down a provision requiring registered
guns, including shotguns, to be disassembled or bound with trigger
locks.

The case drew formidable lineups on both sides, with the National Rifle
Association and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence filing court
papers. The ruling marked the first time that a federal appeals court
has overturned a gun control law by declaring that the Second Amendment
grants a person the right to possess a firearm.

Gura declined to say how he assembled the plaintiffs, who came to the
case with different backgrounds and motivations.

Some of the plaintiffs grew up with guns in and around their homes and
belong to the National Rifle Association. A few are involved with
libertarian organizations, including the Cato Institute, which provided
legal assistance in the lawsuit.

Lyon, 52, of Adams Morgan, said he kept a pistol in his home when he
lived in Virginia and still owns several firearms, which he keeps
outside of the city. He moved to the District in 1984.

“Guns are a tool, and they have a use. The use is protection and
security,” said Lyon, who practices communications law at a firm in
Tysons Corner. “The District of Columbia’s laws prevent that.”

Palmer, 50, said that his gun rescued him 25 years ago when he was
approached by a group of men in San Jose. Palmer, who is gay, said he
believed the men were targeting him because of his sexual orientation.
He said he and a friend started to run away, but then he took action.

“I turned around and showed them the business side of my gun and told
them if they took another step, I’d shoot,” he said, adding that that
ended the confrontation.

Palmer moved to the District in 1975 and lives in the U Street NW
corridor, where police have struggled lately to curb assaults and other
crimes. He said he considers it a fairly safe neighborhood, although his
home was broken into once. He works as director of educational programs
for the Cato Institute and travels to war-torn countries including Iraq.

He keeps a shotgun and several pistols stored in Colorado and Virginia.
Guns have been used in his family for generations. “My mother always had
two, and she kept one under her bed,” Palmer said.

St. Lawrence, 28, said that crime is on the rise in her Georgetown
neighborhood and that criminals don’t worry about violating the
District’s gun ban. “We have no way to defend ourselves,” she said.

A mortgage broker who was raised in a military family, St. Lawrence owns
a shotgun, which she bought in Virginia. She said it sat at the store
for two years while she went through the city’s lengthy permit process.
Abiding by District law, she said she keeps it unloaded and bound by a
trigger lock in her home.

When she learned about the lawsuit through the Institute for Justice, a
libertarian group, she said she was happy to join. “We have a Second
Amendment; we should be able to rely on it,” she said.

The court ruling hinged on the Second Amendment, which states, “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.”

The District said the amendment applies solely to militias — a position
endorsed in the past by all but one of the nation’s federal appeals
courts. But the D.C. appeals panel said it covered individual rights of
people who own guns for other purposes, such as hunting or self-defense.
The Supreme Court has not taken up the issue since 1939.

Plaintiff Shelly Parker said in the lawsuit that she wanted a gun to
ward off drug dealers in Northeast Washington. Tracey Ambeau also said
she wanted a gun for self-defense for her home in Northwest. Neither
could be reached for comment.

Dick Heller, 65, said he became involved in the firearms debate in 1997
after he read a news story about a burglary in the District in which the
homeowner shot the intruder — and the homeowner was charged with a
crime.

“That’s what made us really livid,” said Heller, who lives with his
wife
in Capitol Hill. “After that, I knew we had to be proactive.”

Heller’s decision to join the lawsuit proved fortuitous for the pro-gun
contingent. The appeals court ruled that he was the only plaintiff with
legal standing because he attempted to register a handgun in the
District and was turned away.

When the suit was filed in 2003, Heller worked as a special police
officer providing security at a federal court building near Union
Station. He said he found it insulting that he could not bring his gun
home.

The Second Amendment IS Homeland Security !