Judge Uphold's DC's post-Supreme Court Gun Laws

[usmarine0352_2005]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36054892/ns/politics/

Judge upholds DC's post-Supreme Court gun laws


Posted on March 26, 2010 at 12:00 PM

By SARAH KARUSH (AP) – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Friday upheld limitations on gun ownership that the District of Columbia put in place following a 2008 Supreme Court decision overturning the city's outright ban on handguns.

Dick Heller, the plaintiff in the landmark Supreme Court case, had challenged the new regulations, claiming the registration procedures, a ban on most semiautomatic weapons and other limitations violated the intent of the high court's decision.

U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina sided with the city, saying the Supreme Court decision did not ban reasonable limits on gun ownership designed to promote public safety.

"While the (Supreme) Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects a natural right of an individual to keep and bear arms in the home in defense of self, family and property, it cautioned that that right is not unlimited," he wrote.

The decision by Urbina, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton, moves the case along what is likely to be a lengthy path through the legal system.

"We fully expect to go the Court of Appeals," said Heller's lawyer Richard E. Gardiner.

Urbina's opinion "misinterprets Heller altogether," Gardiner said, referring to the Supreme Court decision. In particular, he took issue with the judge's observation that the Supreme Court did not explicitly declare the Second Amendment right to be "fundamental."

"It's clearly a fundamental right because it's in the Bill of Rights," Gardiner said.

The Supreme Court struck down a 32-year-old ban on handguns in Washington and a requirement that all firearms, including rifles and shotguns, be kept disassembled or bound by a trigger lock. In the wake of the ruling, the D.C. Council moved quickly to pass new regulations.

The plaintiffs claimed the new process for registering guns — which includes fingerprinting, vision tests, background checks and other requirements, and which limits people to registering one pistol per month — was too burdensome.

But Urbina found the process served "the well-established goal of promoting public safety."

The plaintiffs also challenged the city's ban on assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices. Urbina said the Supreme Court made clear the Second Amendment doesn't protect ownership of "dangerous or unusual" weapons.

Heller, a security guard, brought the suit that ended up in the Supreme Court after the city rejected his application to keep a handgun at his Capitol Hill home. Under the current regulations, he was denied registration of certain firearms because they are categorized as assault weapons. Three other D.C. residents joined him in the suit.

Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Related articles

* Gun-ban lobby losing its shot
Daily Caller - 17 hours ago
* Shooting down gun control laws
Daily O'Collegian - 18 hours ago
* Letter: Gun ban not the way to go
Herald Times Reporter - 1 day ago
* More coverage (98) »

Add News to your iGoogle Homepage Add News to your Google Homepage
The Associated Press

 

[leadcounsel]

Just absolute nonsense...

 

[2aHawaii]

Read the opinion. IMHO, it's horrible rubbish
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2008cv1289-32

 

[rm23]

"Dangerous and unusual", lol.

 

[bigfatdave]

The plaintiffs claimed the new process for registering guns — which includes fingerprinting, vision tests, background checks and other requirements, and which limits people to registering one pistol per month — was too burdensome.

Sounds like an infringement to me.
Who has the tar? I have plenty of feathers.

 

[Buck Snort]

We're gonna have bite, kick, and scratch for every little victory. They're not going to just lay down for us and make it easy.

 

[WoofersInc]

The plaintiffs also challenged the city's ban on assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices. Urbina said the Supreme Court made clear the Second Amendment doesn't protect ownership of "dangerous or unusual" weapons.

The unusual part may actually work in our favor. Since the election run on black rifles and such, the arguement can be made that they are not unusual, but in fact in common usage. The same for the standard 30 round magazines.

 

[wildbilll]

I agree that common use is the key here. I wonder how many 30 rd mags are in circulation?

 

[Coronach]

I agree, they're going to have a tough row to hoe if they are relying upon finding 30 round magazines and 100 year old pistol designs with eleventy-billion in circulation to be "unusual". As to "dangerous" ... I'm at a loss for words. It's a weapon. It is dangerous. That's kinda the point, people.

Mike

 

[Noxx]

If it's not dangerous, it isn't much of a weapon, now is it.

 

[PigButtons]

If you are trying to apply logic to the decisions made by Progressive Liberal Judges, you will never convince them or their ideologue brethren. They believe what they do because they FEEL it is right, not because it is rule of law or logical.

We cannot change the way they FEEL, so we must defeat them with the ballot, which we failed at in 2008 because we are too busy making the world work while they are trying to force the real workers to "Share the Wealth".

 

[wishin]

He seems to be contradicting himself by stating that SCOTUS ruled RKBA as a natural right, but they did not declare it "fundamental". How much more fundamental can you get?

 

[TCB in TN]

I think that this particular judge will be made to look a fool, fairly shortly. Easy case to make just from the majority opinion in the original Heller decision. The fact that most hi-cap semi autos are in such wide spread use makes this decision a complete no brainer to overturn upon appeal.

 

[svaz]

Sooo, a District Court judge tells SCOTUS to blow their opinion our their collective ears ... and he can get away with this?

 

[bushmaster1313]

What makes a DC gun an "Assault Weapon"?

I do not expect a ban on high capacity magazines to be overturned on appeal.

If 10 or 15 round magazines are allowed, as in New Jersey, banning 30 round magazines could be considered part of the political process

Banning a gun because it has a bayonet lug or a flash suppressor could be unconstitutional because its purpose is to make otherwise permitted guns contraband

One gun a month is a hassle, but it and fingerprinting and other regulations that have a rational basis are probably not unconstitutional

The vision test may be illegal because blind people also have a right to self defense and it may violate an anti discrimination statute as well

 

[dec41971]

Northern VA is right across the river and guns are everywhere. Public safety? Do you feel safer walking around at night in Northern VA or DC? I dare DC to compare itself with VA. Talk about polar opposites!

 

[Bubbles]

Sooo, a District Court judge tells SCOTUS to blow their opinion our their collective ears ... and he can get away with this?

No, he can't. This decision was expected and will be appealed. After DC loses, the only question is whether they will risk appealing it to the USSC and have the decision apply nationwide (since incorporation is all but assured), or not.

 

[nitetrane98]

Sooo, a District Court judge tells SCOTUS to blow their opinion our their collective ears ... and he can get away with this?

That's the first thing I thought of when I read of it. He takes the dissent portion of Heller to make his ruling. He'll get schooled by the SCOTUS, but it really won't matter. I imagine his appeals court over rule ratio is pretty high but he sees himself as better than the SCOTUS. I've often wondered whether this whole "life term" thing was such a good idea.

 

[RDak]

Judge Urbina was appointed by Bill Clinton. What more do any of us need to know.

 

[Girodin]

One gun a month is a hassle, but it and fingerprinting and other regulations that have a rational basis are probably not unconstitutional

Doesn't that depend on what level of scrutiny one applies? Is it appropriate to apply rational basis scrutiny to a fundamental constitutional right? (there is a reason this judge wanted to say it was some other kind).

This is headed to the DC circuit and there's a good chance it will go to the SCOTUS after that. It has the potential to establish some pretty key principals in terms of what will be found to be reasonable restrictions.

 

[LRS_Ranger]

The fact that evil military-pattern guns are in so many hands now is a good thing. Really, the Obama scare did us a favor. (Im not saying that he is a good thing, but so far, things are going our way, IMHO) It can easily be argued that military-style rifles are a common thing now, and therefore not "unusual". Plus, we have the example of all the states where a good percentage of the population has a "fun gun" and yet nobody is being killed with them.

 

[Cyborg]

DC Judge Cited MINORITY Opinion

When Urbina dismissed Heller II he adopted the argument of dissenting Justices in that case, that the Court's upholding of a law prohibiting possession of firearms by felons implied that the Court did not consider that laws infringing the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms should be subject to a strict scrutiny standard of review.

I was not aware that dissenting opinions in a SCOTUS (or any other multi-person appellate court) ruling could be used as precedent. I know there are a couple of Legal Scholars who come here. I would love to hear their take on the propriety and utility of Urbina's action.

 

[52grain]

I understand the difference between natural and legal rights, but I don't understand the difference between a "natural" right and a "fundamental" right.

 

[gc70]

The judge is not very bright in handing down this type of sweeping decision - but that is good.

Had the judge ruled narrowly in Heller's favor, he could have preserved some aspects of the DC laws and given DC a roadmap to narrower restrictions that would be harder to overcome in future cases. Tactically, this decision is the equivalent of the judge stomping his foot and shouting "no" rather than cleverly trying to stand in the way of gun rights.

Also, had the judge ruled narrowly in Heller's favor, it would have prevented Heller from appealing. Now, Heller can appeal the decision, which is very valuable. District court decisions do not create binding precedent; appellate court decisions do create binding precedent. Binding precedent is very important in this case because it can begin to define the parameters of the individual right decided by the Supreme Court.

 

[GLOOB]

"Dangerous and unusual!?!?"

If dangerous means effective, then what's the point of having the right to bear ineffective arms?

If dangerous means unsafe, I think the manufacturers would like to know about their products' deficiencies.

What's unusual about the kind of firearm that is the primary weapon of millions of soldiers of every nation around the world?

"Dangerous and usual" is a pack of rabid squirrels, trained to scurry up pant legs and crack nuts on command.