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

[Jumping Frog]

Well, I thought I had posted this yesterday, but the forum was too busy to respond. So here goes again. I am simply going to baldly plagiarize an acquaintance who had an interesting legal observation.

The US District Court for the District of Columbia has upheld the post-Heller promulgated registration rules that require the submission of fingerprints, photographs, and payment for a ballistics test as well as the ban on "assault weapons" and high-capacity magazines.

They noted that D.C. v. Heller expressly held that the ruling should not be construed as "[casting] doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” They also stressed that SCOTUS failed to specify a standard of review (my long-term gripe and one I've written about at length).

As a result, the District Court rejected strict scrutiny in Second Amendment cases and appears to have applied the lowest level of scrutiny, that of rational basis review, in upholding essentially any restriction D.C. might impose so long as there is any "substantial nexus between the registration requirements and the important governmental interest underlying those requirements." Basically, if the government can come up with some "rational" basis for the restriction, then the court will uphold it as Constitutional.

Some might call the standard of review applied in this case "intermediate scrutiny" - and the Court does so expressly in this case - but looking at the result and what can be inferred as "appropriate" regulation by this Court, I don't buy that for a second. It's little more than rational basis review with the intermediate moniker.

If this is the future of review for Second Amendment cases, then D.C. v. Heller, oft called a "watershed" ruling by the Supreme Court, may well find itself insignificant in history. An interesting footnote, but otherwise unpersuasive. Hopefully, SCOTUS will correct this in McDonald as this new "Constitutional" gun ban in D.C. is nothing more than D.C. thumbing its collective nose at SCOTUS.

The full opinion is here:

Heller v. District of Columbia

 

[svaz]

Soooo, the Constitution doesn't mean what it says, and SCOTUS doesn't mean what it says ...

Now I'm totally confused as to the meaning of "rule of law".

 

[Werewolf]

Soooo, the Constitution doesn't mean what it says, and SCOTUS doesn't mean what it says ...

Now I'm totally confused as to the meaning of "rule of law".

The nature of the current beast is that the law says whatever a judge says it says until a higher ranking judge agrees or disagrees.

Wierd huh?

Kind'a why I agree with the notion that 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean represents a good start.

 

[alan]

One court has spoken, speech that hopefully will be rejected. We shall see I guess. The following is the relevant text from an NRA alert.



Heller v. District of Columbia, NRA's case challenging D.C.'s prohibitive firearm registration requirements, and its bans on "assault weapons" and "large capacity ammunition feeding devices." Mr. Heller was, of course, lead plaintiff in District of Columbia v. Heller, decided by the Supreme Court in 2008.

Judge Urbina rejected Heller's assertion that D.C.'s registration and gun and magazine bans should be subject to a "strict scrutiny" standard of review, under which they could survive only if they are justified by a compelling government interest, are narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, and are the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.

In support of that rejection, Urbina opined that in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the Supreme Court "did not explicitly hold that the Second Amendment right is a fundamental right," and 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.

------------------------------

Is one to take it that Judge Urbina and some on the USSC cannot tell the difference, or do not know or care about the difference between felons and the law abiding? One wonders. One also wonders as to the exact text of D.C.'s Assault Weapons Ban, not to mention it's source. As to "large capacity ammunition feeding devices", wither comes the definition herein involved. What of that thing sometimes described as OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer or Maker). The Browning Hi-Power, for instasnce, ORIGINALLY and to this day comes with 13 round magazines, they being MANUFACTURERS STANDARD. The widely distributed CZ-75's standard magazine holds 16 rounds, and is again MANUFACTURERS STANDARD. Re the above, where is or where might there be this "compelling government interest", which I would think would be limited by the clear meaning of stipulations of/in The Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Seems once again, sad that D.C. v Heller was not settled in the clearest possibly terms, alibet without that plethora of "lawyers talk", that it was seemingly entumbed in or with.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina should be impeached for STUPIDITY!

 

[UnTainted]

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.

this is well written. thanks

 

[leadcounsel]

Maybe the SCOTUS should do a better job at clarifying what they mean rather than leaving it open to interpretation for some lower court judges.... they answered one question, but opened to door to many many others... and it's a shame too because this has come at the cost of decades and probably millions of dollars in costs by all interested parties over the course of decades... and yet the SCOTUS had an opportunity to really shed some light on this but instead left enough ambiguity for this crap...

I know, I know... the balance of the court may have caused this ambiguity to earn that critical swing 5-4 vote.. but it's still frustrating that we are where we are. The law seems to be on our side but the anti-gunners continue to disregard it.

 

[Gouranga]

I find it inconceivable that he references the dissenting opinion in this. For anyone who works in law, is this type of practice common? I mean on one side the SCOTUS is THE reference and all the justices are looked at as experts in the field so leaning on one of their decisions (dissenting or not) seems to be at least partially valid on SOME cases. However, when arguing that particular decision, to go to the dissenting viewpoint seems almost like wiping dog poop on the SCOTUS bench, at least on the majority in this decision.

 

[alan]

leadcounsel:

To damned much "lawyers talk", but what might one expect from lawyers, plain English?

 

[DWFan]

You're talking about a judge who had only four years of courtroom experience before being appointed to the bench. I know lawyers who have briefcases with more courtroom time. In fact, I wouldn't doubt that there are criminals with more courtroom time. He was a teacher at Howard University for nearly twice as long as he was a practicing attorney. On top of that, the majority of his judicial experience had been in family court before being appointed during the Clinton Administration..

 

[Werewolf]

On top of that, the majority of his judicial experience had been in family court before being appointed during the Clinton Administration..

Which begs the question: What the heck qualified this guy to be a judge in the 1st place?

 

[DWFan]

I don't know, Werewolf. Over a period of a year, 2008-2009, he's also ordered the release of 32 detainees from Guantanamo.

 

[TAG2501]

there's a reason why Clinton fired 92 federal judges during his term. it wasn't random or whimsy. we're still paying for it today.

 

[Werewolf]

there's a reason why Clinton fired 92 federal judges during his term. it wasn't random or whimsy. we're still paying for it today.

Ummmm...
You got a cite for that.

Federal Judges are appointed for life and can only be removed thru the impeachment process. The Pres can't fire a federal judge.

I believe the 92 number applies to Federal DA's. There was a flap about it at the time but it didn't get near as much press as when Bush did the same thing. Gee! go figure.

 

[natman]

Ummmm...
You got a cite for that.

Federal Judges are appointed for life and can only be removed thru the impeachment process. The Pres can't fire a federal judge.

I believe the 92 number applies to Federal DA's. There was a flap about it at the time but it didn't get near as much press as when Bush did the same thing. Gee! go figure.

You're right. It was Federal prosecutors, not Federal judges. The prosecutors serve "at the pleasure of the president" and when Clinton shuffled them around it was OK, but when Bush did the same thing it was a "scandal".

 

[jon_in_wv]

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

Amen to that Noxx

 

[Bubbles]

Next Challenge to Gun Laws Headed to D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals

David Ingram
The National Law Journal
April 05, 2010

A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., will have the chance to examine the latest version of the District of Columbia's gun restrictions, in a possible test of how to apply the U.S. Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller.

Lawyers for Dick Heller, a name party in the earlier case, filed a notice Thursday that they will continue fighting in this follow-up case. They are appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to reverse a March 26 decision by U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina. That ruling upheld new restrictions the D.C. Council passed in the wake of the 2008 decision. For example, all handguns must be submitted to D.C. police for a ballistics identification process.

Stephen Halbrook, a lawyer for Heller, said a week ago that an appeal of Urbina’s decision was likely because, he said, the judge was overly deferential toward the city. Lawyers for the District say the council worked to strike a balance between Second Amendment rights and public safety concerns.

The original Heller case, then known as Parker v. D.C., also went through the D.C. Circuit. In a March 2007 decision, Senior Judge Laurence Silberman wrote that Heller had standing to challenge the District’s gun laws and that the laws in place at the time were unconstitutional. Heller, of course, won before the Supreme Court in a decision that said the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.

 

[nyrifleman]

I don't know enough about the legal system (definitely not nearly as much as many of the posters in this thread), but if this case goes to the Supreme Court, AWB and "hi-cap" magazines and all, could this mean a repeal of the state AWBs and ban on high-capacity magazines still in place in, for example, NY state? I'm guessing it would depend on the exact wording of any future decision.

 

[Werewolf]

I don't know enough about the legal system (definitely not nearly as much as many of the posters in this thread), but if this case goes to the Supreme Court, AWB and "hi-cap" magazines and all, could this mean a repeal of the state AWBs and ban on high-capacity magazines still in place in, for example, NY state? I'm guessing it would depend on the exact wording of any future decision.

It could but there's just as much a chance that the SCOTUS will uphold the rediculous ruling.

I don't want to even think about what that would mean.

 

[gvaldeg1]

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

This made me think of the story about old Charlie Miller who was one of the most famous Texas Rangers. The story is: "Texas Ranger Charlie Miller was minding his own business when a concerned citizen came up to him, noted the hammer cocked back on the big 1911 dangling from the Ranger's belt, and asked, "Isn't that dangerous?" Charlie replied, "I wouldn't carry the son-of-a-bitch if it wasn't dangerous.""

 

[joeyl]

"'Lawyers for the District say the council worked to strike a balance between Second Amendment rights and public safety concerns"
so basically the D.C. council is saying they understand 2a rights and are willing to defy scotus anyway. sigh