Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

D.C. Is Sued Again Over Handgun Rules
Washington Post ^ | July 29, 2008 | Del Quentin Wilber and Paul Duggan

Posted on 07/29/2008 2:00:44 PM PDT by neverdem

The man who successfully challenged the D.C. handgun ban before the U.S. Supreme Court filed a second federal lawsuit yesterday, alleging that the District's new gun-registration system is burdensome and continues to unlawfully outlaw most semiautomatic pistols.

Dick A. Heller, a 66-year-old security guard who lives on Capitol Hill, and two other plaintiffs allege in the lawsuit that the D.C. government violated the letter and the spirit of the landmark Supreme Court decision, issued June 26, that struck down the District's decades-old handgun ban.

The 5 to 4 ruling concluded that the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to possess guns for self-defense but said governments may impose reasonable restrictions. The lawsuit filed yesterday in U.S District Court says the District's restrictions go too far.

The suit urges U.S. District Judge Richard M. Urbina to toss most of the District's new requirements, which include ballistics tests of registered handguns. It also asks him to eliminate restrictions on semiautomatic handguns and to order D.C. police to approve the handgun applications of the three plaintiffs.

The suit could take months, if not years, to resolve. Until then, the new regulations remain in place. The District's top litigator said yesterday that he expects "a long fight" over the rules.

The District's handgun registration is limited almost entirely to revolvers; a previous D.C. law bans machine guns and includes a broad definition of such weapons, encompassing most semiautomatic pistols. Such magazine-loaded semiautomatic pistols -- the kind of...

--snip--

That rule flouts the Supreme Court decision, making it virtually impossible for a gun owner to legally use a weapon in self-defense, said Heller's attorney, Stephen P. Halbrook.

"Under the D.C. [law], a robber has to make an appointment with you so you can get your gun ready for him," Halbrook said in an interview...

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; banglist; dcsaysupyours; democratparty; democrats; heller; rkba; rtc; secondamendment; shallnotbeinfringed; washingtonpost
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-111 next last
To: 668 - Neighbor of the Beast

The only way to avoid a long fight is for some judge to grant class-action status. Then, fear should take over and guide their actions onto the right path.


21 posted on 07/29/2008 2:37:16 PM PDT by steve8714 (Curtis Strange ruined a man better than himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
In other words, under the DC's new rules, one is allowed to defend themselves if they're already dead. It would be funny if it wasn't - ahem - so deadly!

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

22 posted on 07/29/2008 2:39:55 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bamahead

Not to mention that since they’ve never experienced actual oppression, they think things will be hunky dory.

Besides, it’s the trendy cause of Hollywood and the Leftist elitists. After all, the whims and desires of the boomer hippies are law in this land.


23 posted on 07/29/2008 2:45:33 PM PDT by Niuhuru (Don't burn a bra, burn a feminist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: djsherin
Why is the capital of the greatest and freest country on earth filled with such socialist government rats who seek nothing but the dissolution of the true rights of US citizens?

Agreed ... while considering most members in Congress as included!

24 posted on 07/29/2008 2:48:28 PM PDT by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: paul51; Squantos; Eaker; Travis McGee; archy; tubebender; SouthTexas
Unfortunately it is an established fact in this country that politicians, LEO and bureaucrats on the public payroll can pick and choose which laws they will obey or enforce. Too bad the taxpayers and citizens don't have the same latitude.

They certainly do, the Declaration goes hand in hand with the Constitution.

25 posted on 07/29/2008 2:49:17 PM PDT by glock rocks (Baraq Hussein Obama ~ black, white, and red all over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The 5 to 4 ruling concluded that the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to possess guns for self-defense but said governments may impose reasonable restrictions. The lawsuit filed yesterday in U.S District Court says the District's restrictions go too far.

No they did not. They said the second amendment *protects* a right of individuals. They didn't exactly say reasonable restrictions were OK, they listed some restriction that would be OK, such as felon in possession. They specifically mentioned that there can be no "balancing" of the right against some "public good", as one of the dissents would have allowed.

26 posted on 07/29/2008 2:54:07 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SECURE AMERICA

You are correct.

This is more than an attempt to simply wiggle in and around the edges and cracks of a Supreme Court ruling. It is an attempt to completely negate it, largely in two thrusts. First, to back off restrictions only in the tiniest amount, not even to the degree necessary to comply. The second thrust is to ensure the 2nd amendment is interpreted so restrictively that it will never have any real meaning. Despite the USSC’s specific statements about arms in common use, such arms are not going to be tolerated by the DC gov’t. The restriction to revolvers and then only after severe harassment of the citizens who try to comply with the registration law will discourage citizens from thinking they have any hope of restoration of their rights. This is also a message to the citizens to remind them of who is in charge.

Some of DC’s actions are for public propaganda purposes. It suggests to the “less than aware” that DC is complying. The real intent, however, is to show who has the power. The weight of gov’t power is expected to be, and largely is, on the side of the oppressing left. The message to the people is, “We don’t have to pay attention to the Constitution as written or laws as written or anything else for that matter. We decide the law based on what we feel it should be. And, in particular we have considered the court to be our property for the last several years while out of power in the federal legislative branch. We certainly don’t follow rulings we don’t agree with. The court is our vehicle to manipulate the law to our ends. The court is no longer a servant of the people and before long, the federal legislative branch will be ours, too.

I really believe this to be the intent. DC gov’t is trying to show us who is really in control. I do have a couple of questions. One, “Is DC gov’t acting in isolation or is it getting instruction from outside parties?” Also, “Do the members of the USSC who wrote the majority opinion have any opinion about what DC gov’t is doing by insulting the USSC’s ruling?”


27 posted on 07/29/2008 2:55:13 PM PDT by iacovatx (Self-defense is a basic human right and necessity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
There should be recourse so that when rulings by the Supreme Court are ignored by government entities, these types of measures could be struck down almost overnight, and those who conspired to circumvent the laws could be incarcerated.

The trigger lock problem is one the SCOTUS addressed directly. (At least I believe they did.) W.,D.C. has ignored the Supreme Court's ruling with regard to that, blatantly.

Isn't there some way to get this to an appellate court right away.

If this takes years to be remedied, what justice is there in that?

28 posted on 07/29/2008 2:58:19 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (I'm a non Soros non lefitst supporting maverick Gang of 1, who won't be voting for McCain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iacovatx

I am confused by Heller’s tactics, here. 21 days after the USSC ruled, the case reverts to the DC COA for enforcement.

So why didn’t he just file with the COA?

Any lawyers on the thread?


29 posted on 07/29/2008 3:01:57 PM PDT by patton (cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

That’s where I am confused - it IS in front of the DC COA.


30 posted on 07/29/2008 3:03:26 PM PDT by patton (cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: steve8714
The only way to avoid a long fight is for some judge to grant class-action status.

I sure hope that happens soon as I would not put it past the libtards in power to have him killed "resisting arrest" or some other bogus thing like that.

31 posted on 07/29/2008 3:04:12 PM PDT by Centurion2000 (A citizen using a weapon to shoot a criminal is the ultimate act of independence from government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: glock rocks

Thought it may be time to change my tagline, guess not.


32 posted on 07/29/2008 3:05:22 PM PDT by SouthTexas (Invert the 5-4 and you have no rights.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Charlespg
Place the city under martial law and send in federal troops to enforce the courts decision.

And place Commissar Fenty, the D.C. Council, that affirmative action airhead Police Chief Kathy Lanier, and all other parties deemed accomplices to defying the SCOTUS ruling under arrest, and frog march them out of their plush offices and into waiting U.S. Marshal's prisoner vans for transfer to Ft. Belvoir.
33 posted on 07/29/2008 3:08:51 PM PDT by mkjessup (Obama-flakes! = Little suntanned Jimmy Carters with twice the empty rhetoric , from DNC cereals!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

My thoughts (not an attorney):

1. Request an emergency injunction preventing DC from enforcing their restrictions.

2. Move for immediate summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, as DC is clearly not acting in good faith.

3. Request that DC and its officials be held in contempt of court.


34 posted on 07/29/2008 3:09:04 PM PDT by xjcsa (Has anyone seen my cornballer?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iacovatx
The city requires that legally registered revolvers be kept unloaded and either disassembled or secured with trigger locks, unless the owner reasonably fears immediate harm by an intruder in the home.

This is a direct flouting of the Supreme Court's ruling against the preexisting rules which said the same thing.

I would think that one could obtain an emergency restraining order against these bastards.

35 posted on 07/29/2008 3:09:51 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: patton

The the DC COA should call in city council members and tell them they face serious charges including prison for denying citizens their constitutional rights, and be done with it.

This rubs me the wrong way.


36 posted on 07/29/2008 3:10:41 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (I'm a non Soros non lefitst supporting maverick Gang of 1, who won't be voting for McCain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: xjcsa

Bingo!


37 posted on 07/29/2008 3:11:56 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (I'm a non Soros non lefitst supporting maverick Gang of 1, who won't be voting for McCain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
They didn't exactly say reasonable restrictions were OK, they listed some restriction that would be OK, such as felon in possession.

They didn't exactly say even that - they just said that nothing in the opinion should be construed so as to prevent such restrictions, as such restrictions had not been challenged. They did not close off the idea of challenging those restrictions, although they did not leave the option as pointedly open as they did the licensing/registration requirements. It seemed like Scalia was almost inviting a challenge of those requirements, at least as I read it.

38 posted on 07/29/2008 3:12:38 PM PDT by xjcsa (Has anyone seen my cornballer?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

I think the COA should jail them for contempt, frankly.


39 posted on 07/29/2008 3:14:03 PM PDT by patton (cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Long before that, Congress will take away the power from D.C. and mandate legislation that is in line with the Supreme Court decisionm

What have you been smoking? No Congress full of DemonRats and RINOs is going to do that. Allowing the people to exercise the RKBA is against their religion, which is basically "all power to us".

40 posted on 07/29/2008 3:14:34 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-111 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson