Charles F. Eckert v. The City of Philadelphia, Pa

Third Circuit

Charles F. Eckert v. The City of Philadelphia, Pa

477 F.2d 610

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMay 2, 1973

Docket71-1865

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 477 F.2d 610 (Charles F. Eckert v. The City of Philadelphia, Pa) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Charles F. Eckert v. The City of Philadelphia, Pa, 477 F.2d 610 (3d Cir. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, here petitioned the district court to enjoin the City of Philadelphia from enforcing its ordinance which regulates the purchase of firearms and transfer of same. Appellant’s theory in the district court which he now repeats is that by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution he is entitled to bear arms. Appellant is completely wrong about that. As long ago at least as 1939 the United States Supreme Court held that there must be “ * * * some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”. There is nothing whatsoever of that kind in this appeal. It must be remembered that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right given by the United States Constitution. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939). Actually the City ordinance attacked by appellant has been rendered moot by declaration of the Pennsylvania Superior Court holding that the Philadelphia Ordinance above presented was preempted by an Act of the Pennsylvania General Assembly in 1962. See Commonwealth v. Ray, 218 Pa.Super. 72, 272 A.2d 275 (1970).

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, here petitioned the district court to enjoin the City of Philadelphia from enforcing its ordinance which regulates the purchase of firearms and transfer of same. Appellant’s theory in the district court which he now repeats is that by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution he is entitled to bear arms. Appellant is completely wrong about that. As long ago at least as 1939 the United States Supreme Court held that there must be “ * * * some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”. There is nothing whatsoever of that kind in this appeal. It must be remembered that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right given by the United States Constitution. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939). Actually the City ordinance attacked by appellant has been rendered moot by declaration of the Pennsylvania Superior Court holding that the Philadelphia Ordinance above presented was preempted by an Act of the Pennsylvania General Assembly in 1962. See Commonwealth v. Ray, 218 Pa.Super. 72, 272 A.2d 275 (1970).

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

477 F.2d 610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-f-eckert-v-the-city-of-philadelphia-pa-ca3-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack