FEDERAL COURT UPHOLDS INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

      In what could prove to be an extremely important precedent- setting decision, a United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas recently dismissed an indictment against a defendant based on the opinion that the federal law he was accused of violating represented an unconstitutional exercise of congressional power that violated rights protected under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

      The law, which was buried within the massive 1994 Clinton Crime Bill, prohibits the possession of a firearm by anyone with a court restraining order. The defendant's wife had petitioned for a temporary restraining order against the defendant prohibiting him from making threatening communications or actual attacks on his wife during the divorce proceedings. Even though no evidence was presented that the defendant posed any threat to his wife or other members of his family, the restraining order was granted, and under the obscure federal law, he could no longer lawfully own firearms. Unfortunately, no one ever told him about this law, and when federal authorities found he possessed firearms, he was indicted.

      The ruling by U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the law violated both the Second and Fifth Amendments. But the most important aspect of this ruling centers around the Second Amendment. Citing a veritable who's-who list of constitutional scholars and attorneys, Cummings explored the historical context of the Amendment, its grammatical structure, judicial interpretations, and how it relates to society today, finding in all cases that it clearly protects an individual right to arms.

      The ruling even discussed the 1939 United States v. Miller case, which is often misinterpreted by anti-gun proponents like Sarah Brady and HCI. In discussing the Miller case, the judge stated that, contrary to the claims of Brady and others, the court did not rule that the Second Amendment protected a collective right, rather than an individual right. He even went so far as to suggest that the Miller case could be used to support the position that the ban on assault weapons is unconstitutional.

      Judge Cummings' decision (excerpts below) will undoubtedly be appealed by the federal government, and, as courts often move cautiously in cases of great importance, it may be some time before the effects of this decision are made clear. Rest assured that NRA will be following it closely, and we will report any further developments.

Excerpts from Judge Cummings' Decision       "A historical examination of the right to bear arms...bears proof that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should still be, construed as an individual right."       "The rights of the Second Amendment should be as zealously guarded as the other individual liberties enshrined in theBill of Rights."       "It is absurd that a boilerplate state court divorce order can collaterally and automatically extinguish a law-abiding citizen's Second Amendment rights...."

=+=+=+=+
This information is provided as a service of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, Fairfax, VA.

This and other information on the Second Amendment and the NRA is available at: http://WWW.NRA.Org

The Full Text of the Decision
Cleveland Live/Cleveland Plain Dealer Story