Posted on 05/16/2014 1:48:23 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
A federal judge on Thursday ruled that a D.C. law requiring guns to be registered, mandating safety training and limiting the number of pistol purchases per month do not violate Second Amendment protections of the right to bear arms.
U.S. District Court Judge James E. Boasberg dismissed with prejudice a sweeping challenge to the District’s handgun laws brought by a group of plaintiffs led by Dick Anthony Heller in a ruling that opens with a recounting of some of the city’s most notorious recent shootings.
“The District of Columbia knows gun violence. Notorious for a time as the ‘murder capital’ of the United States, it recorded over 400 homicides annually in the early 1990s — more than one for every 1500 residents. While safety in the District has improved markedly in this millennium, residents will not soon forget the violence of the more recent past: the wounding of seven children outside the National Zoo on Easter Monday in 2000, the triple murder at Colonel Brooks’ Tavern in 2003, the five killed in the South Capitol Street shootings in 2010, and the twelve shot to death inside the Washington Navy Yard only a few months ago. These number just a few of the lives lost to guns in our city’s recent memory.”
— Judge James E. Boasberg
“The people of this city, acting through their elected representatives, have sought to combat gun violence and promote public safety,” Judge Boasberg wrote in the opinion released Thursday. “The Court finds that they have done so in a constitutionally permissible manner.”(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
‘Nuff said.
Judge James E. Boasberg = Asshat.
In my opinion, this “decision” is based on political talking points and not based on a constitutional assessment of the law and existing SCOTUS rulings. Given that, I would postulate that this ruling will be over turned on appeal.
However, that is certainly not a forgone conclusion. I have seen a lot of wavering in politicians spines and some judges of late. The danger of the DC court is that they could rule that these restrictions are “reasonable”.
My personal belief is that there should be no more restrictions on the exercise of the 2nd Amendment than the 1st Amendment. If it is abhorant to require the registrations of newspapers or books or religious texts, then it should likewise be abhorant to place those restrictions on arms. My concern is that there appears to be a growing number of facists in the Democrat party who are all to willing to throw out the 1st and 2nd Amendments.
Boasberg was born in San Francisco, California in 1963,[2] to Sarah Margaret (Szold) and Emanuel Boasberg III.[3][4] The family moved to Washington, D.C. when Boasberg’s father accepted a position in Sargent Shriver’s Office of Economic Opportunity, a Great Society agency responsible for implementing and administering many of Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty programs.[5][6]
Boasberg received an A.B. from Yale University in 1985, where he was a member of Skull and Bones,[7] and a Master of Studies the following year from Oxford University.[8] He then earned his law degree from Yale Law School in 1990.[8] After completing law school, Boasberg served as a law clerk for Judge Dorothy W. Nelson of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[8]
During the 111th Congress, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton recommended Boasberg to fill a judicial vacancy on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.[9] On June 17, 2010, President Barack Obama formally nominated Boasberg to the District Court for the District of Columbia.[8] Boasberg was confirmed on March 14, 2011 by a vote of 96 ayes to 0 nays.[10] He received his commission on March 17, 2011.[11]
On April 26, 2012, Judge Boasberg issued a publicly controversial ruling. He denied the public’s right to view government photos of a deceased Osama Bin Laden. Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group, had filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act, but were unsuccessful in convincing the Judge that FOIA rights outweighed national-security factors.[12]
On February 7, 2014 Chief Justice John G. Roberts announced that he would appoint Boasberg to the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for a term starting May 18, 2014 to a seat being vacated by Reggie Walton.[14] [15]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._Boasberg
My concern is that there appears to be a growing number of facists in the Democrat party who are all to willing to throw out the 1st and 2nd Amendments.
Actually the Democrat party is the fascist party and
would throw out the whole constitution if they could just
get the guns out of Americans hands. That’s what all
this infringement is all about.
The Asshat is going to be on the FISA court? Lovely.
Two more days.
What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2312894/posts
Liberal judges are a dime a dozen - which is about what they’re worth.
Heller overturned a ban on handgun ownership. It admitted that certain restrictions on ownership could be applied, just that you couldn't keep someone from having a handgun in their home.
Restricting gun sales will NOT reduce crime. On the other hand, if they restricted the proliferation of more and more illegal babies and “residents”, perhaps they would achieve their goal. The guns don’t cause the crimes, the people do. Guess they haven’t figured that out yet.
They figured out the answer to your next to last sentence long ago. Reducing crime is not their goal, Dave. They could not care less if crime is reduced one iota. That phrase is only to pacify the sheep. What they are interested in is control, control and power. They are not against guns per say, they just want to be the only ones that have them. they intend to keep the slaves helpless and under their control. Paying taxes to continue them in the lifestyle they believe they deserve. In return, the slaves are allowed certain privileges to enjoy as long as they remain in their place.
Judicial precedent needs to be taken for circuit court judges and left strictly to the appellate and supreme court levels. The Heller decision has spoken, and the circuit courts need to sit up straight, get in line, and do what they’re told.
The Circuit Courts are the appellate courts. Judges used to "ride around the circuit" and hear appeals. The lower courts, in the federal system, are the District Courts.
The case this post is about was also brought by Dick Heller! I don't know if it would be Heller II or Heller III. II, I think, although the case was bifurcated in that he lost his argument relating to magazine size restrictions at the trial and appellate levels (in 2011), and now, in 2014, lost the rest of his arguments.
I figure a request to SCOTUS to take the case will be denied. Probably a good ting, because SCOTUS is apt to rule that magazine size and onerous registration/licensing for possession are constitutional, and that "may issue" licensing for bearing is also constitutional.
Ah, I see. Yes, then District courts should be limited. My confusion. And no I didn’t realize Heller brought this one too.
The assault weapon question was answered by one court in 2011 in a second suit filed by Dick Heller, the plaintiff from the landmark Supreme Court case. This time, Heller challenged an ordinance that banned AR-15s and magazine clips that hold more than 10 rounds. In a case often referred to as Heller II, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the ban. Quoting from Heller I, the court referred to AR-15s as "dangerous and unusual" and based its decision on the important government interest in "protecting police officers and controlling crime."Consider This (left-wing pap) - October 18, 2013
You can see that federal Courts are a "fact free zone," with AR-15s being deemed to be unusual. The appellate and SCOTUS courts are especially adept at revising history and precedents.
Exactly my impression.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
