Heller v. D.C - it's on AGAIN!

[Sam Adams]

I agree, the Supremes won't hear another case related to Heller for decades (maybe even any 2a case). From here on out this is all going to happen in the lower courts.

I disagree.

While I would agree that the Supremes generally don't like to hear multiple cases on very similar issues, here there will be tremendous fights (like the one the DC is causing) by cities and states unwilling to give up the ghost.

You will have Circuit Courts doing the same thing. The 9th Circus won't willingly give up the ghost on the gun issue, IMHO, and when there's a disagreement between Circuits, the USSC will pretty much have to decide the issue.

This particular case may well end up in the USSC - notice that the plaintiff has asked that all fees for registration be waived. Do you think that the same idiots that allowed Heller I to go all the way will let their precious fees go without a fight?

I also forsee a USSC case over incorporation and over the '86 machine gun ban.

 

[hill billy]

If I'm out of line here someone please correct me. Wasn't the ban struck down by the ninth circuit? Therefore if this case were to go that high wouldn't it again go to the ninth circuit? In that case wouldn't the ninth be likely to rule in the same fashion as they have previously on the same issue (with the same plaintiff)? PLus I have to believe that seeing what amounts to essentially the same case come before them after being decided by them and affirmed by SCOTUS, they would be majorly annoyed, then wouldn't they be even more likely to rule in favor of the plaintiff?

 

[Sam Adams]

If I'm out of line here someone please correct me. Wasn't the ban struck down by the ninth circuit?

Heller was in the DC Circuit. The 9th Circus is out west, California, etc. Circuit Court map: http://www.uscourts.gov/courtlinks/ The 9th won't touch this case. Otherwise, I agree with you - the DC Circuit itself ruled decisively in favor of Heller and his fellow plaintiffs, and I think it a slam dunk to have it rule that any semi-auto pistol is protected by the 2nd Amendment. If that is the extent of the ruling, the Supreme Court will deny Cert. if Fenty, et al appeal it.

However, the new filing has also challenged the fee charged by DC to register a firearm. Aside from the arbitrary & capricious standard (i.e. no standard) set up, there is the question (presented in the filing) of whether ANY fee is constitutional. THAT issue has a much, much greater chance of ending up in the Supreme Court.

 

[hill billy]

Is it possible to see a ruling where the semi auto ban is broken up and fees are found to be constitutional as long as they are well documented and reasonable without it going to a higher court than the DC district court??

 

[ilbob]

This is still a keeping an arm case. Just extending the scrutiny over keeping an arm in DC. DC had the golden opportunity to nip this all in the bud.

You have to remember a few things.

DC is run by radical leftist liberals. Nothing they believe in makes sense, and they have a world view that is completely out of touch with reality.

They probably figure that if they put up a few road blocks, we will just go away.

Its seems to me that all they have done is annoy us, and make us push all that much harder.

It may also annoy the courts who may not take DC wasting their time on this lightly. It make well get us more than we would have otherwise gotten and faster. If DC has to pay out even 50 cents in legal fees, that could well be the sign a lot of more restrictive areas are waiting on to reduce their exposure to court costs.

Look at the cities in Illinois that have already seen the light.

 

[AntiqueCollector]

Heller was in the DC Circuit. The 9th Circus is out west, California, etc. Circuit Court map: http://www.uscourts.gov/courtlinks/ The 9th won't touch this case. Otherwise, I agree with you - the DC Circuit itself ruled decisively in favor of Heller and his fellow plaintiffs, and I think it a slam dunk to have it rule that any semi-auto pistol is protected by the 2nd Amendment. If that is the extent of the ruling, the Supreme Court will deny Cert. if Fenty, et al appeal it.

The 9th Circuit partially overturned the 86 machine gun ban (they said a person could make their own machinegun) but on interstate commerce issues not second amendment rights, and it was reversed as a result of a SCOTUS decision on a different case that expanded the definition of "interstate commerce."

 

[M14/11B]

Has anybody noticed that since the Heller decision that we are clearly open to gun registration now? That used to be a super gripe with everyone that "NO GOVERNMENT GUN REGISTRATION" should ever be allowed. Now no one has said much about it?

M14

 

[ilbob]

Has anybody noticed that since the Heller decision that we are clearly open to gun registration now? That used to be a super gripe with everyone that "NO GOVERNMENT GUN REGISTRATION" should ever be allowed. Now no one has said much about it?

I don't see that. Heller was never about registration. Fleshing out what is reasonable and what is not reasonable regulation will take a long time.

I am less worried about gun registration with the courts ruling that keeping guns is an individual right. Its far less of an issue now that the chances of some massive gun grab are all but eliminated.

Just think what could have been. BHO gets in, and the next day congress passes a law banning all handguns in private hands and gives you 30 days to turn them in for a $100 gift card each. Anyone caught after that date with a handgun is a felon. You can bet your bottom dollar that is exactly where he would have headed without this ruling.

 

[Drgong]

I think that gun registration is something that will be fought in the elections more then the courts.

 

[ZeSpectre]

Has anybody noticed that since the Heller decision that we are clearly open to gun registration now? That used to be a super gripe with everyone that "NO GOVERNMENT GUN REGISTRATION" should ever be allowed. Now no one has said much about it?

Are you KIDDING? People have been screaming their heads off about the registration aspect, it's just that we have to get past the first hurdle of actually having some guns to register <sigh>.

 

[Deanimator]

I am less worried about gun registration with the courts ruling that keeping guns is an individual right. Its far less of an issue now that the chances of some massive gun grab are all but eliminated.

In Chicago, FORCING registration is a VICTORY for our side.

What all of this does is show up "reasonable gun control" for the LIE it is. ALL of the "reasonable" gun controls these clowns SAID they wanted, they now DON'T want.

Well, they're going to GET "reasonable gun control", and rammed right up their fourth point of contact. I hope they enjoy it.

As was pointed out, registration, licensing, etc. are now POLITICAL issues, and ones heavily hemmed in by the Heller decision and its inevitable follow-ups. Under Heller, licensing and registration are probably ALLOWED, if they're "reasonable". That means no $5,000 license or registration fees (maybe no fees AT ALL), no requirement to outshoot Ed McGivern, and no storage requirements that exceed those for nuclear weapons. And that's just if your jurisdiction WANTS those restrictions... AT ALL. Ohio DOESN'T.

If you have to get a license and they HAVE to issue you one, or if you have to register your guns and they HAVE to let you. Fenty and Daley have LOST.

 

[Happiness Is A Warm Gun]

Registration like it or not is here to stay (at least in some locations, luckily VA has no license or reigstration). There is NO court precedent that says you can't register a right. Voting registration has been found legal and constitutional. If SCOTUS believes voter registration is legal WHY would anyone think SCOTUS would rule that gun registration is not legal.

Voting registration = legal.
Gun registration = not legal.

Before I get flamed I am not FOR registration. I will fight hard to keep registration away from VA. The truth is there is little legal argument that registration is not legal.

However the courts have ruled many times that charging a fee or tax on a RIGHT is illegal. Look at voting or trial by jury. Both are very expensive (magnitude more than guns) for tax payers. In neither case can a government charge a tax or fee even to "cover their costs".

If registration fees on a right (2nd ammendment) are ruled unconstituional image that that will do
1) 11% excise tax on firearms and manufacturing is also illegal. Anyone for price of firearms and ammo dropping 11%?
2) All registration must be at no cost to citizen (just like voting). This increases gun ownership and makes the overall voting block stronger.
3) Cities like NY use high fees to prevent licensing & registration ($300+) which would go away.
4) NFA likely will remain but without a fee. Remember the $200 fee is not set in stone. When it was implemented adjusted for inflation it is like $3000 today. It was 100% intended to prevent people from exercising their rights. There is nothing to say that is Obama wins white house new head of BATFE won't change fee from $200 to $5000. Ruling that fees are unconstitutional would prevent that from happening.
5) Many cities will drop registration (or at least simplify it) if they have to cover the cost. When budgets get tight many will look at VT w/ $0 spent on licensing or registering firearms.

Personally I don't think NFA will ever go away. Voting is regulated so likely guns will also be regulated.

What we could see in our lifetime is:
1) No fees on purchase, ownership, or registering of firearms
2) Nationwide reciprocity
3) Stronger "castle" statutes to protect self defense.
3) Less burdensome regulation. Striking down regulation intended to prevent exercise of right.
4) Overturn of 86 ban (87 machine guns are more dangerous/lethal than 85 machine guns)?

Just because the NFA won't get overturned or that registration will disappear nationally doesn't mean that we can't win some substantial victories.

 

[Harpo]

Heller files new suit against semi-auto ban...

Dick Anthony Heller, who successfully challenged the District’s handgun ban in a landmark Supreme Court decision, is again suing the District of Columbia, LL has learned.

According to a complaint obtained by LL, Heller, along with co-plaintiffs Absalom M. Jordan Jr., and Amy McVey, are taking particular aim at the effective ban of semiautomatic pistols by the District’s gun regulations, which in essence ban all semiautomatic weapons as “machine guns.”

The lawsuit also takes two other exceptions to the District’s new gun regs. One is that the District’s registration process is unduly “onerous,” citing specifically the legislatively unrestricted fees that can be levied on a gun registrant. The other count holds that the District’s doctrine that a gun can only be loaded in the presence of a “reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm” constitutes a unreasonable infringement of handgun owners’ rights under the Heller decision.

The suit asks the court to issue injunctions that would (a) allow semiautomatic weapons that hold fewer than 12 rounds, (b) order the District to register handguns without a ballistics test, and (c) order the District not to enforce the “reasonably perceived threat” part of the handgun law.

When the new gun regulations were announced earlier this month, acting attorney general Peter Nickles told reporters he was certain that new lawsuits would be filed in response.

More to come.

Source: http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/...&cof=FORID:11&q=heller&cmsKeyword=heller#1131

Complaint text: http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/0728heller.pdf

 

[30 cal slob]

IBTL

 

[M14/11B]

All I meant is that if all guns are
registered and SCOTUS changes with new administration the guns are already in a nice database for collection at the will of some tyrant...remember, registration first, disarmament follows. Check history, Nazis, etc.

M14

 

[Happiness Is A Warm Gun]

All I meant is that if all guns are
registered and SCOTUS changes with new administration the guns are already in a nice database for collection at the will of some tyrant...remember, registration first, disarmament follows. Check history, Nazis, etc.

Nobody (not even the antis) are trying to use SCOTUS to force all states to make registration mandatory. On the other hand there is not legal argument that registration if unconstitutional. Wasting time, money, and resources only do lose and embolden the antis is useless.

Work locally to prevent any form of license or registration. However nationally is fees & taxes on firearms was ruled unconstitutional (which I believe it is and there is sufficient legal argument) it would help everywhere.

POST EDITED: for clarification.

 

[Zoogster]

remember, registration first, disarmament follows. Check history, Nazis, etc.

You don't have to look that far back, just look at Australia and the UK.

Registration means when they sudenly consider a type of firearm too evil to have they take it away. Of course they do so with a team of people armed with even more powerful weapons.
Most people just hand them in. A few have to be 'visited'.

 

[Tyris]

Nobody (not even the antis) are trying to make registration mandatory. On the other hand there is not legal argument that registration if unconstitutional. Wasting time, money, and resources only do lose and embolden the antis is useless.

They've already made it mandatory in numerous states and cities. NY, NJ, MI, CA, Las Vegas, OR (plus more that Im sure I have not included).

Work locally to prevent any form of license or registration. However nationally is fees & taxes on firearms was ruled unconstitutional (which I believe it is and there is sufficient legal argument) it would help everywhere.

We've already failed on the national level. When NICS checks are phoned in, do you honestly believe that the information is not being saved? While the serial number may not be sent over the phone the rest of the buyers details are. Some states DO send the serial number + make & model.

-T

 

[PercyShelley]

Can you imagine seeing that on CNN? Military vehicles and troops rolling into the nation's capital. They declare martial law and remove the local gov't.

Can you even close your eyes and imagine seeing things on the news that you only ever saw go on it other countries far, far away? Things you saw when the wall fell, for example? Things that at the time you could never envision in your darkest dreams happening here?

When I close my eyes and imagine seeing such things, I get chills and my heart sinks to the pit or my stomach.

Based on the relative popularity of the US media and the US military, according to the Gallup polls, the declaration of martial law may well be greeted as the single best thing ever to happen to Washington DC.

Not saying it's right; just thinking to the coup in Thailand in 2006. The international community was aghast, but the move actually had quite a bit of popular acclaim in Thailand!

 

[M14/11B]

They're not pushing to make registration mandatory because it already is everytime you buy a gun--form 4473, in CA the DOJ keeps records too. If you're ccw there is more records on file etc. so why encourage ANY more? Fight it any way you can.

 

[Happiness Is A Warm Gun]

They've already made it mandatory in numerous states and cities. NY, NJ, MI, CA, Las Vegas, OR (plus more that Im sure I have not included).

I misspoke. Yes antis are for registration. Yes they are for it because it is burdensome and help to keep guns out of law abiding peoples hands.

However even the anti aren't bold enough to try and get courts to say not having registrations (like in VA) is illegal. They despite what citizens want it doesn't matter and weapons MUST be registered.

I don't like registration.
I don't think constitution requires registration.
I also don't think the constitution prevents registration (given that other rights such as "voting" require registration).

To file a lawsuit saying "registration is violation of 2nd amendment" and lose (which I am 100% certain will happen) will only give antis ammo.

 

[ctdonath]

With such a narrow win, a couple of the floppers in that group may thing that the new restrictions are perfectly logical

Don't think so. It's pretty clearly a refusal to comply, and even the dissenters will likely side with "we told you what to do, now DO IT!"

Now no one has said much about {registration}?

Oh, plenty still gets said. This is part of the "one step at a time" approach, and DC is doing a great job of laying out the next step. Mr. Heller made a point of not bringing up certain issues, yet DC is bringing them up for systematic dismantling: absurd categorizations, pointless prohibitions of categories, excessive fees (to wit "poll tax"), excessive delays, catch-22 requirements, etc. all of which add up to "abolish registration entirely because they're plainly abusing the concept to no good end".

 

[ctdonath]

Voting registration = legal.
Gun registration = not legal.

Note however that voting registration is done as a matter of coordination to facilitate the common exercise of the right, whereas gun registration is done as means to hinder exercise of the right.

The same Founding Fathers that wrote the 2nd Amendment also, almost immediately, wrote the Militia Act of 1792, which required registration - NOT to prevent ownership, but to facilitate the "well-regulated militia" by letting the organizers know who was available and equipped with what. In this case, registration facilitates the right by helping the enumerated primary purpose of the right.

Also at the time, broadly, concealed carry was generally considered presumptive evidence of criminal intent (you could carry openly as you liked), and apparently CCW licensing was developed (at least in part) to give an affirmative defense for doing so. In this case, registration facilitates the right (arguably) by assuring law enforcement that a traditionally criminally suspicious activity is not.

These are not to be confused with wholesale bans on unlicensed possession enacted for the purpose of disarming the general populace via harassment which only a tiny percentage thereof are willing to put up with - THAT kind of licensing is downright unconstitutional.

 

[brickeyee]

Does this mean my Tikka T3, Browning A-Bolt and old Remington 788 (all bolt actions with detachable box magazines) are machine guns?

Is that possible?

Poper

No, they have to be at least semi-auto.

District of Columbia Official Code 2001 Edition
Division I. Government of District.
Title 7. Human Health Care and Safety. (Refs & Annos)
Subtitle J. Public Safety.
Unit A. Firearms Control Regulations.
Subchapter I. General Provisions. (Refs & Annos)

§ 7-2501.01. Definitions.
Chapter 25. Firearms Control.
(10) "Machine gun" means any firearm which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to shoot:
(A) Automatically, more than 1 shot by a single function of the trigger;
(B) Semiautomatically, more than 12 shots without manual reloading.

 

[hvengel]

The same Founding Fathers that wrote the 2nd Amendment also, almost immediately, wrote the Militia Act of 1792, which required registration - NOT to prevent ownership, but to facilitate the "well-regulated militia" by letting the organizers know who was available and equipped with what. In this case, registration facilitates the right by helping the enumerated primary purpose of the right.

To expand on this the anti's might try to use "facilitating the well-regulated militia" as a pretext for implementing registration. But if this is not done in the context of a broader set of laws dealing with the militia (IE. there is only a registration law) it may not pass muster with the courts since the pretext is clearly fallacious. I expect that at some point we will see this argument being made by the other side.

Also at the time, broadly, concealed carry was generally considered presumptive evidence of criminal intent (you could carry openly as you liked)...

This was a widely held belief until about 40 years ago so this was true for most of our history not just around the time of the founding. Remember that California allowed open carry until the late 1960s (Black Panthers...) which is about the time open carry prohibitions started to appear. At no time have open carry prohibitions been universal (IE. some states never prohibited open carry). Where as concealed carry laws, at least in some locations, predate the Republic and have existed threw out our history.