Welcome to Cato Daily Podcast. This is the Thursday March 13th episode and I'm your host, Anastasia Glova.

Last Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in favor of six DC residents, including Cato Senior Fellow Tom Palmer, who argued

for the right to defend themselves in their home.

The court reversed an earlier dismissal of the case by the district court.

Cato Scholar Robert Levy was one of the attorneys on the case,

and for today's podcast, he talks about the ruling and its implications.

Why did Shelly Parker bring the lawsuit, Parker v District of Columbia?

Well, Shelly lived in a high crime neighborhood in the heart of DC and she was

harassed along with her neighbors

to call the police.

over and over again, she encouraged her neighbors to call the police.

She organized block meetings and for her troublemaking she was labeled as a bad person by the

drug dealers and they threatened her every chance they got.

And finally one dealer after a number of other provocations tried to pry his way into her house,

yelling, I'll kill you, I live on this block too.

So I think the reasons are pretty obvious she would like to possess a functional handgun

within her home for self-defense but because of the DC gun ban which in our view

is unconstitutional she feared arrest and prosecution.

Just briefly then what was the ruling of the court?

The court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

But doesn't the Second Amendment right to bear arms pertain only to militias and the National

Guard?

...