Federal Judge Ruling a Quintuple Victory for Second Amendment Rights

Citing the findings of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, Judge Ramona Manglona ruled not only that the territory must rescind it’s ban on handguns in public, but also that a tax on them, caliber restrictions for long guns, a ban on assault weapons, and a law forcing gun owners to register their weapons with the government must all be overturned. For this reason, Manglona’s decision might be the single most important consequential decision for gun rights in recent history:

In a quintuple victory for Second Amendment rights, a federal judge last weekoverturned a ban on carrying handguns in public, a ban on so-called assault weapons, caliber restrictions for long guns, a $1,000 tax on handguns, and a requirement that all guns be registered with the government. “The individual right to armed self-defense in case of confrontation…cannot be regulated into oblivion,” declared Ramona Manglona, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands.

In her September 28 ruling, Manglona notes that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (which includes the Northern Mariana Islands) has said “there is no constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon in public.” But the 9th Circuit has not addressed the broader question of whether the right to armed self-defense recognized by the Supreme Court in the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller extends beyond the home. Adopting the historical analysis and logic that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit applied when it overturned an Illinois ban on carrying guns in 2012, Manglona concludes that “the Second Amendment, based on its plain language, the history described in Heller I, and common sense, must protect a right to armed self-defense in public.” While “the right of armed self-defense, including in public, is subject to traditional limitations,” she says, “it is not subject to elimination.” Since the law enforced by the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) “completely destroys that right,” Manglona writes, “it is unconstitutional regardless of the level of scrutiny applied, and the Court must strike it down.”

“Manglona is likewise unpersuaded that the CNMI ban on long-gun calibers larger than .223, which appears to be the only caliber limit that strict in the country, is reasonably related to public safety. The official rationale is that larger bullets travel farther, creating a greater hazard for innocent bystanders. But other factors affect a rifle’s maximum range, Manglona notes, and ‘given the prevalence of dense jungle, hills, and buildings within the CNMI, most bullets fired from almost any gun would probably be stopped before reaching its effective range.'”

The exorbitant CNMI tax on handguns, which raises the cost of the cheapest pistol by almost 700 percent, is also unusual. ‘The power to tax is not just the power to fund the government,’ Manglona observes. ‘It is the power to destroy.’ Because a $1,000 tax ‘comes close to destroying the Second Amendment right to acquire ‘the quintessential self-defense weapon,” she writes, ‘the Court will strike it down.’

Manglona also deemed the burden imposed by the CNMI’s gun registration system, which requires a separate application for each weapon, unjustified by public safety concerns. By contrast, she upheld the commonwealth’s licensing requirement for gun buyers, mainly because it goes beyond federal law by ‘requiring background checks for all aspiring gun owners,’ and not just those who purchase their firearms from federally licensed dealers. She also upheld the commonwealth’s ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, saying it probably would not have much impact on self-defense and might reduce deaths in mass shootings. Manglona in any case had little choice but to uphold that restriction, since the 9th Circuit last year approved an ‘identical ban’ imposed by Sunnyvale, California.

Manglona notes the perseverance of the plaintiff in this case, a former U.S. Army Ranger named Paul Murphy who represented himself through years of litigation. ‘Murphy’s battle for justice began more than nine years ago when he first applied for and was denied possession and use of his firearms,’ she writes. ‘Plaintiff has valiantly pursued all lawful efforts to protect and defend his rights in a community where the voice of the majority can often overpower the equally important rights of the minority.'”

Source: Reason