PDA

View Full Version : The suit contends that defining a semiautomatic pistol as a machine gun.



megimoo
07-29-2008, 05:45 PM
D.C. Is Sued Again Over Handgun Rules

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.

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...snip

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 weapons commonly carried by police officers -- are the most popular handguns on the market.
Register a semiautomatic .45-caliber Colt handgun
The D.C. law on machine guns was not a focus of the Supreme Court case. The suit contends that defining a semiautomatic pistol as a machine gun "is contrary to the ordinary usage of those terms in the English language and in the laws of the United States."

Heller registered a revolver with the District on July 18. He also sought to register a semiautomatic .45-caliber Colt handgun, but that application was denied because police considered it a machine gun, the suit alleges. The suit says Heller could have been arrested had he taken his semiautomatic, which he stores in Virginia, to be registered at D.C. police headquarter.

The plaintiffs, including District residents Absalom F. Jordan Jr. and Amy McVey, allege that the new regulations are a burden. McVey must visit D.C. police headquarters at least two more times to register a pistol, the suit says. Jordan's application to register a .22-caliber semiautomatic pistol was denied, the suit says.

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.

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.

"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/28/AR2008072801357_pf.html

Aklover
07-29-2008, 06:00 PM
Great another ruling coming down that will not be enforced!

Molon Labe
07-29-2008, 06:43 PM
Heard today on NPR that the city of Chicago will be fighting the D.C. ruling as only applying to a Federal district, which is what DC is.
They are going to contend that the 2nd amendment is to applied locally, thus Chicago's law stands.

I'll have to do some research, but I would imagine the founders intended the 2ndAm. to apply to all jurisdictions the same way all the other amend. are. This would be a stretch for a city to overturn it locally.

Hope the NRA is prepared for this one.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93041365

biccat
07-29-2008, 07:00 PM
I'll have to do some research, but I would imagine the founders intended the 2ndAm. to apply to all jurisdictions the same way all the other amend. are. This would be a stretch for a city to overturn it locally.

The founders never intended any of the amendments to apply to the states. Look at early Supreme Court decisions, for example Barron v. Mayor of Baltimore, 1833 and United States v. Cruikshank, 1875.

NonConformist
07-29-2008, 09:22 PM
The founders never intended any of the amendments to apply to the states. Look at early Supreme Court decisions, for example Barron v. Mayor of Baltimore, 1833 and United States v. Cruikshank, 1875.


Not entirely true, the BoR lays out certain rights that are inalienable, wether by a state or the feds, the BoR even specifically say if its not enumerated in the Constitution and BoR its reserved to the people, or the state

the 2A is specifically mentioned in the BoR so even states cant violate it, thats why IMO ccw 'permits' are a violation of the 2A

The one exception i can think of is the 1A reference religion, its says congress shall make no law however states still can per the 1A IMO




Heard today on NPR that the city of Chicago will be fighting the D.C. ruling as only applying to a Federal district, which is what DC is.
They are going to contend that the 2nd amendment is to applied locally, thus Chicago's law stands.

I'll have to do some research, but I would imagine the founders intended the 2ndAm. to apply to all jurisdictions the same way all the other amend. are. This would be a stretch for a city to overturn it locally.

Hope the NRA is prepared for this one.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93041365


I have little faith in the NRA, especially since they didnt even want heller heard by SCOTUS, the 800 pound gorilla is actually very timid despite all its posturing and blind support of its members.

Id like to see them run w/ Heller and they have but we must remember they were against heller before they were for it