(OK, so the title isn't all that original - sue me!)
FoxNews has the story.
The Washinton Post reports the most:
Reason Magazine has a small blurb about it on one of their blogs, but includes this bit of information:
For those that don't know, the original lawsuit was named Parker v. D.C. and was won at the D.C. Circuit level in early 2007. D.C. appealed to the SCOTUS, where the name of the case became D.C. v. Heller (because Dick Heller was the sole survivor of standing at the Circuit level). The new lawsuit is named Heller, et al v. D.C., or simply Heller v. D.C.
Um, this is version 2.0 folks. While Alan Gura is heading his attack on Chicago, the NRA is at the forefront here.
The filing is here. I suspect that the court will hear the initial case within 90 days (+/- a few days), a week to decide and 30 or so days to implement... If the case goes for Heller.
FoxNews has the story.
The Washinton Post reports the most:
From the Washington Times, we learn that Mr. Halbrook is working for the NRA, who is bankrolling this new case.The man who successfully challenged the D.C. handgun ban before the Supreme Court filed a new federal lawsuit this morning, alleging that the District's new gun-registration system is unreasonably burdensome and improperly outlaws most semiautomatic pistols.
...
The new lawsuit said 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."
"As a result of the District's extraordinary definition," the complaint says, "ordinary handguns and other firearms which are semiautomatic are considered to be 'machine guns' and may not be registered. The overwhelming majority of handguns possessed in the United States are semiautomatic handguns, and the Supreme Court . . . held that handguns as a class are constitutionally protected."
...
The city also requires that legally registered revolvers be kept unloaded and either disassembled or fitted with trigger locks, unless the owner reasonably fears he is in danger of being harmed by an intruder in his home.
That rule flouts the Supreme Court decision, making it virtually impossible for a gun owner to legally use a weapon in self-defense if surprised by an assailant, said Heller's attorney, Stephen P. Halbrook.
"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.
Reason Magazine has a small blurb about it on one of their blogs, but includes this bit of information:
Writ of Mandamus? Geez, I haven't heard of that one since I researched Marbury v. Madison several years ago. I know that it is not often used today, but it is still a powerful tool for the Courts.Dick Heller, et al., filed a complaint (For Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief, and Writ of Mandamus) against the city today to force them to comply with the US Supreme Court ruling in the District of Columbia v. Heller and to protect our individual rights such as the right to defend ourselves in our own homes.
For those that don't know, the original lawsuit was named Parker v. D.C. and was won at the D.C. Circuit level in early 2007. D.C. appealed to the SCOTUS, where the name of the case became D.C. v. Heller (because Dick Heller was the sole survivor of standing at the Circuit level). The new lawsuit is named Heller, et al v. D.C., or simply Heller v. D.C.
Um, this is version 2.0 folks. While Alan Gura is heading his attack on Chicago, the NRA is at the forefront here.
The filing is here. I suspect that the court will hear the initial case within 90 days (+/- a few days), a week to decide and 30 or so days to implement... If the case goes for Heller.