Heller Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Messages
1,686
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080728/washington_gun_ban.html?.v=1&printer=1


Lawsuit filed against new DC gun regulations
Monday July 28, 4:59 pm ET
By Brian Westley, Associated Press Writer
Lawsuit claims new DC firearms regulations violate recent Supreme Court ruling

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The plaintiff in the Supreme Court case that struck down Washington's 32-year-old handgun ban filed a new federal lawsuit Monday, alleging the city's new gun regulations still violate an individual's right to own a gun for self-defense.

Dick Heller and two other plaintiffs argue that the city's regulations are "highly unusual and unreasonable" in the complaint filed in U.S. District Court.

The lawsuit claims the District of Columbia continues to violate the intent of the Supreme Court's June 26 decision by prohibiting the ownership of most semiautomatic weapons, requiring an "arbitrary" fee to register a firearm and establishing rules that make it all but impossible for residents to keep a gun in the home for immediate self-defense.

The D.C. Council was immediately criticized by gun rights advocates when it unanimously passed emergency gun legislation July 15. The law will remain in effect for 90 days, and the council expects to begin work in September on permanent legislation.

The regulations maintain the city's ban of machine guns, defined in the law as weapons that shoot more than 12 rounds without reloading. That definition applies to most semiautomatic firearms.

Handguns, as well as other legal firearms such as rifles and shotguns, also must be kept unloaded and disassembled, or equipped with trigger locks in the home unless there is a "reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm."

"A robber basically has to make an appointment" for a resident to be able to prepare the weapon for use, Heller's attorney, Stephen Halbrook, said Monday. Halbrook also called the city's definition of machine guns "bizarre."

"The District's ban on semiautomatic handguns amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of arms that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for the lawful purpose of self defense in the home," the lawsuit alleges.

D.C. interim Attorney General Peter Nickles said the suit came as no surprise and that he expects a long legal fight as the issue makes it way through the courts.

"I think there's a fundamental disagreement with the intent of the Supreme Court's decision," said Nickles, noting that the Supreme Court's ruling did not give officials much guidance with respect to regulating firearms.

"I feel comfortable with what the city has done," Nickles said.

After the Supreme Court narrowly struck down Washington's handgun ban last month in a narrow 5-4 decision, the D.C. Council quickly moved to comply with the ruling, and residents were allowed to begin applying for handguns July 17 for the first time since 1976.

Monday's lawsuit alleges that Heller initially tried to register a semiautomatic Colt pistol, but was denied because D.C. police considered the weapon to be a machine gun.

Besides Heller, the other plaintiffs are Absalom Jordan, whose application to register a .22-caliber pistol was denied, and Amy McVey, who must return to D.C. police headquarters two more times to register her weapon after being photographed and fingerprinted and undergoing a background check, according to the lawsuit.

Washington's gun ban essentially outlawed private ownership of handguns in a city struggling with violence. But what impact the ban has had on crime has long been debated, particularly after homicides more than doubled during a crack epidemic in the late 1980s and early '90s.

The city's gun regulations remain among the strictest in the country under the new regulations, according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
 
I am real glad to hear this.

Any way SCOTUS can lean down and do a little ear whispering, or issue a statement or something less official and less time consuming than having a case wind it's way all the way up the tree?

Could a justice possibly simply state 'DC, our ruling says allow him to register a handgun, and by handgun we mean the federal legal definition as found in 123.456 not whatever you choose to label it.
 
It would be cool to put this thread in Legal. Some people in that room are too serious to fool around with any other room. I would like to hear their thoughts but don't want to start another thread.
 
D.C. interim Attorney General Peter Nickles said the suit came as no surprise and that he expects a long legal fight as the issue makes it way through the courts.
As it makes it's way through the courts? Does that mean the supreme court's ruling doesn't mean squat and this case will linger on for months or years to come in the lower courts? The way I see it is D.C. is in contempt of court by continuing to violate the supreme court's ruling. How can they legally get away with this? Are there 2 sets of laws, one for the people and one for federal, state, and local governments? Sounds like it to me!
 
I propose a one million dollar per day fine for -failure to obey a direct SCOTUS order- against the DC gun control czars. Payable to Mr. Heller.
 
Are there 2 sets of laws...?

Welcome to Earth. The government will never give up anything unless someone takes it from them. In this case, the courts will have to take away their power to restrict ownership.
 
The way I see it is D.C. is in contempt of court by continuing to violate the supreme court's ruling
+1 DC needs a swift swat on the snout with a rolled up newspaper. Pretty arrogant of them to disobey the SCOTUS with their "creative" definitions.
 
In this case, the courts will have to take away their power to restrict ownership
So what your saying here is....,it's going to take a lower court's ruling to uphold the ruling of the supreme court? That just don't make any sense to me at all. :banghead:
 
The federal executive branch should step in and carry out their duty to enforce.

Force a court battle of DC vs. United States (if any), as opposed to Heller vs. DC.
 
Well, glad they didn't wait until someone else was denied under the supposed new rules of DC. They looked alot like the old rules to me.
 
Someone has to enforce the ruling if the parties in question refuse to abide by it. You might recall the National Guard and U.S. marshals enforcing the integration of the University of Alabama a while back.

Someone has to enforce the law, or the law is useless.
 
As my Daddy always said, "Some folks are just plumb ate up with stupid" I think the folks in charge there in DC might be in that catagory.
 
Quote:
"I propose a one million dollar per day fine for -failure to obey a direct SCOTUS order- against the DC gun control czars. Payable to Mr. Heller."

They would just pay it like it wasn't nothing. Its not their money to throw away its the tax's payers. :mad:
 
Since any gun that can shoot more than 12 rounds without reloading is a machine gun, so that means the DC police are walking around with machine guns? Gee, that just can't be right.
 
rugerman07 said:
Why should the federal executive branch have to step in? Does it take a decision by them whether or not to uphold a supreme court ruling?

Legislative branch makes the law (legislates).

Judicial branch interprets the law (judges).

Executive branch enforces the law (executes).

=====

As a practical matter, a Supreme Court decision is on the same level as the U.S. Constitution itself. The federal executive branch could rightfully act upon the SCOTUS decision in DC v. Heller to force DC to act a certain way with respect to handgun registrations. By "force", I mean federal law enforcement officers or military troops show up at DC government buildings to arrest those in power who are violating the SCOTUS decision. If DC doesn't like the way the executive branch is acting, then DC can sue the United States government. We would then have DC v. United States, as opposed to Heller v. DC.

I'm simplifying the process, but you get the idea.
 
As a practical matter, a Supreme Court decision is on the same level as the U.S. Constitution itself. The federal executive branch could rightfully act upon the SCOTUS decision in DC v. Heller to force DC to act a certain way with respect to handgun registrations. By "force", I mean federal law enforcement officers or military troops show up at DC government buildings to arrest those in power who are violating the SCOTUS decision. If DC doesn't like the way the executive branch is acting, then DC can sue the United States government. We would then have DC v. United States, as opposed to Heller v. DC.

I'm simplifying the process, but you get the idea.
Yeah, I get the idea. A supreme court ruling doesn't mean squat!
 
Neither the Bush administration nor the United States Congress has the will or courage to defend the Constitution on this matter.

To all of you who keep saying D.C. is going to get slapped down on this one, did you miss the news last month? The District of Columbia got slapped down and they laughed in the face of the Supreme Court.

This is a real shame. I am truly saddened at the fall of the Constitutuion of the United States of America.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top