District seeks dismissal of gun lawsuit

Washington Times ^ | September 11, 2009 | Kristi Jourdan

[neverdem]

D.C. Attorney General Peter J. Nickles filed a motion in U.S. District Court Thursday to dismiss a lawsuit brought by four gun advocates who are seeking the right to carry their weapons outside their homes.

Mr. Nickles argues that current city gun laws, which allow licensed gun owners to keep weapons in their homes for their personal protection, fall under the category of "reasonable restrictions" permitted by the court.

The current laws were enacted after the Supreme Court struck down the District's decades-old gun ban in its June 2008 ruling on the District v. Heller case.

"The District's regulation of handguns at issue here is squarely in the mainstream and eminently reasonable, minimally intruding on the right announced in Heller to bear arms for the protection of 'hearth and home,' while at the same time safeguarding public safety under traditional police powers," Mr. Nickles wrote.

The lawsuit, filed last month, argues that city laws banning the carrying of handguns in public violate the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It asks that the District issue licenses to carry guns in public to legal gun owners in the city and to people with valid carry permits from outside the city.

The nonprofit Washington state-based Second Amendment Foundation is named as a plaintiff for the Palmer lawsuit as well as D.C. residents Tom G. Palmer, George Lyon and Amy McVey.

Edward Raymond, a Navy veteran enrolled in law school in New Hampshire, is listed as a plaintiff in the Palmer lawsuit. In April 2007, Mr. Raymond, who is not a D.C. resident, was stopped for speeding in the District while he was transporting a gun for which he had permits in Maryland and Florida. He was charged with carrying a pistol without a...pleaded guilty to misdemeanor unregistered gun and unregistered ammunition...

[neverdem]

unregistered ammunition!!!

[SunkenCiv]

Mr. Nickles argues that current city gun laws, which allow licensed gun owners to keep weapons in their homes for their personal protection, fall under the category of "reasonable restrictions" permitted by the court. The current laws were enacted after the Supreme Court struck down the District's decades-old gun ban in its June 2008 ruling on the District v. Heller case.

Look who's a Constitutional scholar all of a sudden! Thanks neverdem.

[Pontiac]

Alan Gura, who argued the Heller case, is the plaintiff's attorney…"We're going to be responding to this obviously in a few days," he said. "It's quite wrong, the city seems to think it's not down with the Second Amendment, and they'll find out they're wrong."

Is it just me or does this seem like rather poor use of the English language for an attorney.

To me it is unseemly for an attorney to be using rapper ghetto slang.

[SnuffaBolshevik]

To me it is unseemly for an attorney to be using rapper ghetto slang.

Indeed. That goes for the current President, as well.

[JRandomFreeper]

My kids, I kept long enough to register. Most of my wives were registered. I even had one registered dog.

Who keeps ammo or beer long enough to register?

/johnny

[B.O. Plenty]

elections have consequences....bump

[mtnjimmi]

elections have consequences....bump

[Pontiac]

Alan Gura, who argued the Heller case, is the plaintiff's attorney…"We're going to be responding to this obviously in a few days," he said. "It's quite wrong, the city seems to think it's not down with the Second Amendment, and they'll find out they're wrong."

The more I read that statement the more it does not make sense to me.

Perhaps he was misquoted.

I think that it should say: “the city seems to think it's not down with the Second Amendment, and they'll find out they're wrong.”

Or it should say: “the city seems to think it's we’re not down with the Second Amendment, and they'll find out they're wrong..

As I understand the use of the ghetto phrase “down with” it means to understand or to be knowledgeable of some thing. So if the city thinks that it is not knowledgeable of the Second Amendment and they discover that they are wrong in this case it would mean that Gura would lose his case. I doubt that was what he intended to say.

[neverdem]

elections have consequences....bump

Selections have consequences too, as in selections for the Supreme Court. Until Sotomayor joined the SCOTUS, seven of them were appointed by Republican Presidents. John Paul Stephens was mostly good for nothing. Anthony Kennedy is problematic, but he was on the money for D.C. v. Heller.

If Ted Kennedy didn't bork Robert Bork, then we would have lost Heller as Anthony Kennedy replaced Bork. Go figure. Robert Bork was a sometime originalist except for the Second Amendment. How ironic for Ted Kennedy, gun grabber par excellence? Thank you Ted!