News Release

July 17, 2003

Media Contact: (202) 789-5200

Cato Experts: NRA, Sen. Hatch Try to Prevent Supreme Court from Hearing 2nd Amendment Case
Hatch's "D.C. Personal Protection Act" would invalidate D.C. residents' lawsuit

WASHINGTON--On Tuesday, July 15, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) introduced a bill aimed at repealing many of the anti-gun laws in the District of Columbia. If signed into law, the bill, known as the D.C. Personal Protection Act, would render invalid a pending Second Amendment lawsuit filed by six Washington, D.C. residents, including an employee of the Cato Institute.

Robert A. Levy, Cato's senior fellow in constitutional studies, Gene Healy, Cato's senior editor, and two other local attorneys filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of the six plaintiffs in February, arguing in their complaint that "the Second Amendment guarantees individuals a fundamental right to possess a functional, personal firearm, such as a handgun ... within the home." The case is Parker v. District of Columbia.

Levy and Healy released a statement Thursday describing the Hatch bill as an attempt to derail Parker:

"Hatch and the National Rifle Association (NRA) have acted to prevent the Supreme Court from deciding whether the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and bear arms," Levy said. "Yes, the rights of D.C. residents can be vindicated by either legislation or litigation. But there's no question that a narrow bill aimed at the D.C. Code would have negligible impact on gun owners' rights when contrasted with an unambiguous pronouncement, applicable across the nation, from the U.S. Supreme Court."

Healy added, "The timing is suspicious, to say the least. Last week, the NRA failed in its attempt to assert control over our litigation when federal district court Judge Emmet Sullivan denied its motion to consolidate its copycat lawsuit with ours. This week, Sen. Hatch introduces a bill that would moot our lawsuit. From the start, the NRA has tried to stop our suit from going forward. This looks to be more of the same."

"All the facts point to an NRA effort to frustrate Parker," noted Levy. "Why was the bill introduced by Hatch rather than some back-bencher? Why not wait for a court decision (the legislative option is always open, even if the court were to go the wrong way on the Second Amendment)? Why did the NRA file its suit at the outset? Why did its suit include extraneous legal claims so the court could avoid the Second Amendment altogether? Why did the NRA move to consolidate its suit with Parker even though Parker is a clean Second Amendment case? Why bring John Ashcroft into the NRA suit, when he's so obviously an improper defendant in a civil case? Essentially, the NRA is saying, 'If we can't control the litigation, there won't be any litigation.'"

The Cato Institute is not itself involved in the litigation, but Cato scholars have argued consistently and vigorously that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of responsible adult citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense.