D.C. vs. Heller (Supreme Court and the 2A) - Mega Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
By expressly exempting business use and recreational use of long guns from the requirement to keep the firearm unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device, DC excludes other uses of long guns from the exemption from the disassembly or trigger lock requirement.
Click to expand...

I think you guys are a lot smarter than me, but I'm enjoying this thread immensely. Could you help me with what you're saying here? Are you saying that since business and legal recreation are the only cases where you can have an operational firearm, it means that the law forbids operational firearms for self defense (for example)?

-Jephthai-
 
All the reassurance is nice but in the end 9 robed demigods who are completely unaccountable to we mere mortals will decide our fate as they feel. That scares me.
 
The next section and probably their best point was if the SCOTUS finds an individual right, than a relaxed standard of review is the proper standard and as long as a law is reasonable it should be constitutional.
Click to expand...
They defeat their own argument here.

Since they failed to address how what they admit would be an individual right expressly guaranteed in the text of the Constitution - a "fundamental" constitutional right - can reasonably be held to anything other than a strict scrutiny standard given hundreds of years of judicial precedent regarding other fundamental individual rights, let alone how an individual right which "shall not be infringed" could reasonably be subject to anything other than super-strict scrutiny, their argument is sound and fury signifying nothing.

If they admit an individual right in the Bill of Rights, then strict scrutiny at the bare minimum follows as sure as day follows night unless the court is prepared to apply rational basis to the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments instead of sticking to principle and precedent.
 
Gun issues aside (may the powers that be forgive me for even thinking that way) the real danger to this observer is that an individual right will be recognized and strict scrutiny will be disposed of in the public interest thereby laying the groundwork to gut the entire BOR.

That should have everybody worried. But the anti-gunners can't see past their own motivations. When they come for them there will be nobody left to stand up.......
 
I think you guys are a lot smarter than me, but I'm enjoying this thread immensely. Could you help me with what you're saying here? Are you saying that since business and legal recreation are the only cases where you can have an operational firearm, it means that the law forbids operational firearms for self defense (for example)?
Click to expand...

The basic idea is that when a law says "you may not do X except when A, B, and C" it means that you can do it ONLY when A, and C, and NOT when D, E, F, or other circumstances.

"Except for law enforcement personnel described in § 7-2502.01(b)(1), each registrant shall keep any firearm in his possession unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless such firearm is kept at his place of business, or while being used for lawful recreational purposes within the District of Columbia."
Click to expand...

DC is trying to claim that this wording contains an "implicit" (implied, inherent) exception for self-defense. But as you can see, it's only implicit in the fevered imagination of desperate anti-gun lawyers.

You can keep a firearm assembled and loaded ONLY at your place of business, or while using it for lawful recreational purposes within DC.

Not at your home, not in your car, not in your nightstand, not on your hip, NOWHERE except at your place of business or while in actual use for recreation within DC.

And unless "self-defense" is considered a "recreational purpose," it's obviously not implicit.

It's possible that they're alluding to the doctrine of competing harms, where if breaking a law PREVENTS a greater harm than caused by breaking that law - such as crossing the double-yellow line to avoid hitting a toddler who wandered into the street - then you're not culpable for breaking that law.

But the problem there is that competing harms is only an affirmative defense, not a bar to prosecution. They can still charge you with crossing the double-yellow and force you to go to court to prove that you did so only in order to avoid the toddler.

Likewise, DC could still charge someone with not having a trigger lock on or having assembled their gun in their home even if they used it to shoot a rapist. The burden of proof is on the defendant, not the State, in an affirmative defense, and I tend to doubt that someone charged with having a loaded or assembled gun in their home WITHOUT a dead or wounded rapist nearby would have much luck mounting a competing harms defense.

And since usually the rapist doesn't give you time to assemble and load your gun, it means that for all intents and purposes, use of a gun for self-defense in the home is prohibited.
 
I think you guys are a lot smarter than me, but I'm enjoying this thread immensely. Could you help me with what you're saying here? Are you saying that since business and legal recreation are the only cases where you can have an operational firearm, it means that the law forbids operational firearms for self defense (for example)?
Click to expand...

The DC law requires a long gun to be unloaded and either disassembled or locked with a trigger lock.

DC specifies two exceptions to this requirement:
1. A long gun at a place of business.
2. A long gun being used for lawful recreational purposes in DC.

A fundamental rule of interpreting the meaning of an ambiguous written law says this means DC's law cannot be read to include another - but unspecified - exception, i.e., a long gun being used in self-defense. In other words, the DC law prohibits the use of a long gun for self defense in your home unless it is unloaded and disassembled or unloaded and has a trigger lock on it. You are free to use it as a club against an armed intruder threatening to kill you.

In any event, it is hard to believe DC intends to permit a person to keep a long gun with a loaded magazine, much less a loaded chamber, without a trigger lock in a cabinet, a closet, or under a bed for self-defense. DC's argument may be false advertising - I don't know if it is protected by the 1st Admendment.
 
Last edited:
It's false advertising that's so transparent and flimsy that it'll be delightfully entertaining to listen to it get ripped to shreds by the Supreme Court Justices.
 
It strikes me, from what I've read here, that the position of Washington D.C/ and it's legislation are not only offensive to historical evidence, they are offensive to common sense, and most important, they are e offensive to the clear meaning and wording of The U.S. Constitution.

I suppose however, that respecting bureaucratic convenience, political weasel word mouthers and The Anti Gun Lobby, none of the foregoing much matters. We shall see how it strikes The Court.
 
I suppose however, that respecting bureaucratic convenience, political weasel word mouthers and The Anti Gun Lobby, none of the foregoing much matters. We shall see how it strikes The Court.
Click to expand...

The highlighted text is the scariest portion. Most court cases are decided for this sake. :mad:
 
lefteye said:
By expressly exempting business use and recreational use of long guns from the requirement to keep the firearm unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device, DC excludes other uses of long guns from the exemption from the disassembly or trigger lock requirement, and it would violate this rule of statutory construction to "read" the section as though it exempted a firearm being used for self-defense from the disassembly or trigger lock requirement.
Click to expand...
I'm not a lawyer, but isn't it also well accepted that there can be common law exceptions to statutory law? Maybe that's what they were trying to argue?
 
Please read pages 22-24 of the BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF ORGANIZATIONS
AND SCHOLARS CORRECTING MYTHS AND MISREPRESENTATIONS COMMONLY
DEPLOYED BY OPPONENTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL-RIGHTS-BASED INTERPRETATION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT (also identified as Citizens Committee at http://dcguncase.com/blog/case-filings/).

The relationship of common law and statutory law is a subject far too complex to be explained on a forum. Common law basically consists of court decisions. Those decisions are precedent for later decisions on the same issue and are, therefore, the "law". Statutes are written law enacted by legislative authorities. Statutes may reverse or void common law, and they may copy or endorse common law. Of course, statutes may also address an issue upon which there is no common law. Without research and experience with the subject, it would be difficult to say whether there is a common law exception to any specific statute in a particular jurisdiction. The precedent addressed in the brief reference above indicates there was no self defense exception to the requirements that long guns be possessed in an a non-functional condition. Those requirements didn't prohibit use of a long gun for self-defense; they just prohibited possessing the firearm in a functional condition until the right to self defense was created by the acts of an attacker. In other words, DC might not prosecute a crime victim if the victim didn't remove the trigger lock until the victim was shot, stabbed, or clubbed by the attacker.
 
Last edited:
Is there a bag limit?

DC is trying to have it both ways on the unwritten self defense exception, and I hope they don't get away with it.
 
It strikes me, from what I've read here, that the position of Washington D.C/ and it's legislation are not only offensive to historical evidence, they are offensive to common sense, and most important, they are e offensive to the clear meaning and wording of The U.S. Constitution.
Click to expand...
That's probably why their old attorneys quit the case - they couldn't continue to stomach the task of arguing an indefensible position..
 
Oral arguments will be on March 18th. Expect a decision in late June or ealry July.
Click to expand...

Thankyou for the heads up.

I've read most of this thread. I am impressed by the level of discourse that has obtained throughout.
 
Some more tea leaves below to read. Basically ... the brief's mostly weren't filed by the usual players, and judges tend to respect some groups more than others.

And, of course, judges tend to concentrate on briefs that reinforce their pre-held beliefs.

But this is a really interesting article:

A look at amicus briefs

The 67 amicus briefs in what is simply known as "the D.C. gun case" fail to topple the record number filed in the University of Michigan affirmative action cases in 2003 -- 107 -- but they easily fit within the top 10 filings at the high court.

...

But does the number of amicus briefs matter? Collins' studies conclude it does.

"It's not determinative," he said, explaining, "A number of factors shape the choices justices make, but over time, pretty consistently justices tend to rule on the side with the largest number of briefs."

...

An extraordinarily high-profile constitutional case generally draws an outpouring of amicus efforts by top Supreme Court practitioners. But with the exception of a handful of veterans, such as Robert A. Long of Covington & Burling, Charles Cooper of Cooper & Kirk, Jeffrey Lamken of Baker Botts and Andrew Frey of Mayer Brown, the amicus lawyers are predominantly from smaller firms outside of the Beltway, particularly on the side of the gun ban challengers.

...

On their opponents' side, the 20 amicus briefs are much more institutional and less grassroots in nature; for example: the American Bar Association, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the American Jewish Committee and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The smaller number, according to some high court practitioners, reflects the skill and experience of Dellinger, who knows there is an optimum number of amicus briefs, and that a smaller number from well-known advocates is more likely to get closer attention than a large number from relatively unknown practitioners.

...
Click to expand...
 
Kind of sad that people would feel the need to resort to looking at the quantity of briefs, rather than the quality. The DC briefs are characterized by circular logic, argumentative fallacies, and misrepresentations of historical fact. Twenty briefs that twist logic and reason into a pretzel ought to be less persuasive than the top three briefs for Heller.
 
The smaller number, according to some high court practitioners, reflects the skill and experience of Dellinger, who knows there is an optimum number of amicus briefs, and that a smaller number from well-known advocates is more likely to get closer attention than a large number from relatively unknown practitioners.
Click to expand...

Funny comment I heard last night on Cam and Country ... "Does it also reflect the skill and experience of Dellinger that he only got 1/13th as many congressmen to sign an amicus?"

Something to that effect.

On Tuesday, NRAnews.com is going to try and setup a round table discussion of various pro 2a legal dudes to listen to the Heller arguments and discuss them. Live on nranews.com at 9:00 p.m. EST or in playback for 24 hours after that.

One interesting thing ... though NRA has been accused of trying to scuttle this case and not supporting it (although I'm an NRA supporter, these allegations seems to have some merit, even though the effort might have been for good reasons) ... once it was happening they did put their muscle into the fight. The guy from Cato pointed out that only the NRA could have gotten an AMICUS brief with over 50% of congressmen signed on.

As John McClaine said ... "Welcome to the party pal!"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top