Actually, it is opinion. But, it is legal opinion". The best one available in this land!
Posted on 07/19/2008 6:27:30 AM PDT by Kaslin
The Washington D.C. City Council has created so many hoops for handgun owners to jump through before they can exercise their Second Amendment rights, they may require legal counsel just to identify what the hoops are. This sorry state of affairs is much to the satisfaction of The Washington Post, which called for just such an obstructionist policy in an editorial.
At least one of those hoops is illegal, according to the Supreme Court, but a Post news story spun that fact as the opinion of “opponents of the handgun ban.” Is editorial policy coloring the news?
The Washington Post is no fan of the Supreme Court’s recently rendered Heller vs. D.C. decision. Last month when the nation’s highest court told Washington D.C. that its gun ban violated the Second Amendment of the Constitution, a Post editorial called the decision a “misguided ruling.” The Post opined that the District’s mayor and council would be on “solid moral and legal ground” if they re-crafted the District’s gun control laws to make them “as tough as possible” under the Supreme Court’s “puzzling mandate.”
Fast forward 21 days. The July 18 edition of the paper carried a story about the first day of gun registration in the District in which only one person applied for a license. That person was not Dick Heller, the man whose case went to the Supreme Court. In fact, Mr. Heller did show up to apply for his now legal license, but because he did not have his gun with him he could not register it.
According to the Post this misunderstanding didn’t irk Mr. Heller. What did irk Mr. Heller was the “strict storage requirements” mandated by the newly revised D.C. gun laws.
But Heller and von Breichenruchardt angrily criticized the city over other aspects of the handgun ownership and registration process, outlined in emergency legislation approved this week by the D.C. Council and Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D).
The new law includes strict storage requirements that opponents of the handgun ban say violate the Supreme Court ruling. Gun owners must keep their pistols at home, unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks. Weapons can be loaded and used only if the owner reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger from an attacker in the home.
Note the spin. The Washington Post indicates that it is a matter of opinion whether the storage restrictions violate the high court’s ruling.
It’s not opinion. It’s fact. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, stated, “In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.”
It is clear that the D.C. restrictions requiring the gun to be “unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks” render the gun inoperable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.
Further, as reported by Jeff Johnson of One News Now.com (a former NRA employee) but not reported by the Post, the District’s requirement that every gun submitted for licensing be test-fired by police ballistics experts violates a congressional ban on federal agencies creating any kind of gun owner registry.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Heller case did leave room for municipalities and states to put reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. But it also made clear that excessive regulation would violate the Constitution. The Second Amendment-loathing folks as the Post need to set their anti-gun bias aside and report the facts as facts.
DC’s opinion seems to be if violating the Constitution one way doesn’t work. Do it a different way.
Actually, it is opinion. But, it is legal opinion". The best one available in this land!
this is the typical liberal playbook. Treat ‘em like the South was treated in the civil rights era, and send in the National Guard to register the gun owners.
Yep.
As for Bar-B-Que. Have you ever tried “The Shack” at Lake Logan Martin?
What DC is trying to do is not even remotely permitted pursuant to the Supreme Court decision.
If I lived there, I would keep my loaded pistol with additional spare clips handy. I wouldn’t register it and I wouldn’t submit it for police ballistics testing.
That’s crap.
If I used the gun for self-defense and was charged by the city for violating their new gun laws, I would win the court case. These liberal morons can pass any new unconstitutional regulation they wish, but they can’t enforce it.
O.K. Now, when is something going to actually be done to reverse (legally stay) this bizarre requirement and the many others in the new DC laws?
So far it has just been "Yada, yada, yada" from the "winners" of this SCOTUS ruling. DC gets to do just as they wish so far with NO repercussions.
Lets Create the same Hoops for Abortion.
Typical. When they win a supreme court case, we dont resist and are stuck with the decision. When we win a supreme court case, nothing changes and we still get screwed.
If it didn't bankrupt you first.
A fundamental problem in our society is the oft-unstated assumption that justice is frictionless: i.e., quick, impartial, affordable. In fact, the best way to screw up society is to fund special interest legal groups, or to co-opt the state's legal process, so that unfair legal power is arrayed against the individual. That's a big part of the liberal, environmental, and CAIR playbook.
I'll anticipate the next question. Do conservatives ever abuse the courts? Of course they do, although more commonly against institutions and government (think of the endless wrangling on both sides about evolution). Misuse of the legal system (and politicization of same) gums up the regulation of society big-time.
Rant mode off. I'd do the same as you.
Ditto. Isn’t it the case that right now, D.C. has no gun registration law? Wasn’t it struck down?
I guess I’d try to register my gun, and if they blocked me some way I’d say screw it, take it home, and keep it anyway. Maybe sooner or later there’ll need to be a new class action suit against these thugs.
Treat ‘em like the South was treated in the civil rights era
From what I’ve seen and know of DC residents, many own, have owned, and will continue to own firearms. They are not going to register them with the MPDC. They will just take their chances, and protect their families which MPDC is not really capable of doing.
If these folks kept their guns for the 30 years the ban was in effect, why would they now give that information to the MPDC or any entity within the DC government? Would any of us?
Why does Justice Ginsburg have a toilet seat around her neck?
Typical gun-grabbers. They know the new rules are unconstitutional. They also know it may take another 15 years for them to work their way up the courts and be dismissed. Until then, the gun ban remains in effect.
The most likely Justices to retire next are Stevens and Ginsburg (both firmly in the liberal wing), but anything can happen in the next four to eight years. All that we can count on is that anyone Obama picks to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court will be ultra liberal and young.
Best case, Obama gets to cement the liberal wing in place for another 20 to 30 years. Worst case, the liberal wing takes over for the next 20 to 30 years.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Thomas is telling Breyer that he’s dumber than a bag of hammers...
Ginsburg looks like she’s ready to keel over...
Stevens looks like he’s passing gas...
Alito is thinking, I could wap Souter upside the head and get away with it...Because what are you gonna do??? Take me to Court???
Scalia is trying to get Roberts to use the Force...
Kennedy “?” (absolutely)...
Just remember...If Obama wins in November...Stevens and Ginsburg are gone by the end of January...That will give Obama his legacy less than a month into his presidency...And I bet Clinton is going to be one of those nominees...
If McCain wins, well, there will be no changes to this line up till someone dies...
We need to get a pool going on this one...
That's not to say there wouldn't be a large measure of aggravation along the way, but the further offset to that is the increased security in one's own home, needed to protect one's assets and loved-ones.
I go repeatedly in thought to friends of mine who live near in a row house near Rotterdam. Burglars are commonplace in the community, and strictly enforced disarmament of the citizenry leaves them with only kitchen knives. My belief is that the powers-that-be literally relish a helpless populace that is dependent on the state for their protection. A populace that boldly takes up its own defence would be a threat to their ways, means, tax-base and permanence.
HF
All DC has done in response to the SC decision is to say, you can have a pistol if you do this and this and this and then make it inoperable.
You can possess a gun if you jump through a thousand hoops that effectively block that, but if you’re successful, you still can’t use it for self-defense.
You’re under no obligation to comply with an invalid law and when your family’s personal safety is at stake, you have a moral obligation NOT to comply with it. The law is invalid, and every reasonable person knows it. The first time it is attempted to be enforced, a court will invalidate it. The Supreme Court does not like to be ignored.
You heard the conjecture here first.
HF
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.