The permits require every gun owner to pass a written test and vision exam, submit the weapons for ballistic testing and offer proof of residency.
Ballistic testing :barf: can these people be any more ignorant thinking this will do somthing
The permits require every gun owner to pass a written test and vision exam, submit the weapons for ballistic testing and offer proof of residency.
Reading in the context of the decision, it seems clear that the ruling says that handguns (as a class) are commonly used weapons and are therefore protected.Since semi-autos are the most common handguns around, I think Scalia covered that base.
Isn't that splitting hairs? Redefine categories so that instead of "handguns", "rifles", etc. you have "revolvers", "semi-auto handguns", "bolt rifles", "semi-auto rifles", etc. Then re-apply the logic. In terms of documented use in self defense, I suspect the results will be: #1: semi-auto handguns, #2: revolvers.Nowhere does the ruling so much as hint that commonly used classes OF handguns enjoy their own protection just as the entire class does.
By allowing citizens to own at least one type of handgun commonly in current use for self-defense (revolvers certainly fit the bill) it seems to me that DC is following the letter of the law.
(10) "Machine gun" means any firearm which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to shoot:
(A) Automatically, more than 1 shot by a single function of the trigger;
(B) Semiautomatically, more than 12 shots without manual reloading.
(c) "Machine gun," as used in this chapter, means any firearm which shoots automatically or semiautomatically more than 12 shots without reloading.
Isn't that splitting hairs? Redefine categories so that instead of "handguns", "rifles", etc. you have "revolvers", "semi-auto handguns", "bolt rifles", "semi-auto rifles", etc. Then re-apply the logic. In terms of documented use in self defense, I suspect the results will be: #1: semi-auto handguns, #2: revolvers.Nowhere does the ruling so much as hint that commonly used classes OF handguns enjoy their own protection just as the entire class does.
The concept of a strict hierarchy of categories and subcategories of firearms is just silly. Look at the mess caused by federal definitions of short-barreled rifle vs pistol when it comes to, for example, ar-15 receivers.
Notice that the Court did not specify "a handgun" but "his handgun." The 1911 is "his handgun." As is the Buntline.Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
Even though you will have to "read between the lines," the strategy that Gura is using is well thought out.Clearing the Air
July 18th, 2008 by Alan Gura
There’s been some confusion about how the Supreme Court’s decision is to be implemented, and what it means for DC’s registration system, going forward. We’d like to clear the air.
The handgun that Mr. Heller tried to register in 2002, the registration of which was ordered by the courts, is a nine-shot revolver. It is fully registrable under D.C. law as it stands today, and Mr. Heller will have it registered to him. We are not expecting the city to resist the registration of this firearm. Once the gun is registered to Mr. Heller, he can use it to defend his home.
There are significant, practical limits on the number of arguments that can be put together in one lawsuit. In our case, we chose to focus on the handgun and functional firearms bans – and that was plenty work for the courts to consider. Litigants do not have unlimited space in the briefing, or unlimited time in argument, and there is a significant strategic advantage – as we have demonstrated – in keeping constitutional litigation focused and narrow.
That does not mean that the rest of the D.C. Code with respect to firearms is constitutional. Much of it is not. But the entire code was not directly at issue in our case. It is our hope that Mayor Fenty and the City Council, or Congress, if the Mayor and City Council are unwilling to do so, sit down with their code books and the Supreme Court’s opinion, and make a serious effort to conform the former to the latter. If the political branches do not make the city’s firearm laws constitutional, then as we've seen, the courts will do it for them.
However, the judgment in this case relates only to the provisions that were struck down, and the city appears to be complying with the literal command of the judgment. Again, we do not believe that everything the city is doing is constitutional. Some of the city’s registration practices are clearly unconstitutional, as is the semi-auto ban. But these are not issues that can be resolved in the context of the current case.
The Supreme Court’s decision is a smashing victory for liberty, and it has made immediate practical impact on the Second Amendment rights of Washington, D.C. residents. Mr. Heller will have his handgun, lawfully, at home, and he can use it for self-defense should the need arise. That was the object of the case, and it has succeeded. We will continue to monitor the city’s behavior for compliance with the decision. And we are sure that in due time, all of the city’s unconstitutional practices will be altered, one way or another.
Indeed. However if a legislative lays the proper predicate, has hearings and finds that semi-auto pistols are used disproportionately in violent crime, are generally more dangerous, and not well suited to self defense, would it then be arbitrary or capricious to ban them? I believe that would be the issue under Heller.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So if you have a law that prohibits the possession of books, it's all right if you allow the possession of newspapers?
MR. DELLINGER: No, it's not, and the difference is quite clear. If -- if you -- there is no limit to the public discourse. If there is an individual right to guns for personal use, it's to carry out a purpose, like protecting the home. You could not, for example, say that no one may have more than 50 books. But a law that said no one may possess more than 50 guns would -- would in fact be I think quite reasonable.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: The regulation - the regulation at issue here is not one that goes to the number of guns. It goes to the specific type. And I understood your argument to be in your brief that because rifles and shotguns are not banned to the staple extent as handguns, it's all right to ban handguns.
Indeed. However if a legislative lays the proper predicate, has hearings and finds that semi-auto pistols are used disproportionately in violent crime, are generally more dangerous, and not well suited to self defense, would it then be arbitrary or capricious to ban them? I believe that would be the issue under Heller.
Well, if we're using arbitrary and capricious as a benchmark then we're back to rational basis standard of review. Scalia suggested that the standard is something other than rational basis, without specifying. I would hope that arbitrary and capricious, which puts the burden on the party arguing against the law, is not the standard we're left with.
A standard of JUDICIAL REVIEW for a challenged policy in which the court presumes the policy to be invalid unless the government can demonstrate a compelling interest to justify the policy.
The strict scrutiny standard of judicial review is based on the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE of the Fourteenth Amendment. Federal courts use strict scrutiny to determine whether certain types of government policies are constitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court has applied this standard to laws or policies that impinge on a right explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution, such as the right to vote. The Court has also identified certain rights that it deems to be fundamental rights, even though they are not enumerated in the Constitution.
The strict scrutiny standard is one of three employed by the courts in reviewing laws and government policies. The rational basis test is the lowest form of judicial scrutiny. It is used in cases where a plaintiff alleges that the legislature has made an ARBITRARY or irrational decision. When employed, the RATIONAL BASIS TEST usually results in a court upholding the constitutionality of the law, because the test gives great deference to the legislative branch. The heightened scrutiny test is used in cases involving matters of discrimination based on sex. As articulated in Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 97 S. Ct. 451, 50 L. Ed. 2d 397 (1976), "classifications by gender must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to the achievement of those objectives."
presumes the policy to be invalid unless the government can demonstrate a compelling interest to justify the policy.
That's kind of a dicey interpretation, IMO.Notice that the Court did not specify "a handgun" but "his handgun." The 1911 is "his handgun." As is the Buntline.
The courts have said that it's okay for the government to regulate certain kinds of literature, media and printed material to some limited extent. For example, the Supreme Court ruled that the McCain Feingold restrictions on certain types of advertising during certain times is legal. In addition we all know that certain kinds of media and publications can be restricted due to content.So by that definition, it would be okay for the government to ban books and newspapers as long as they permitted magazines to be published?
That's exactly my point. To get where everyone else seems to be, one has to redefine categories instead of just reading the ruling for what it actually says.Redefine categories so that instead of "handguns", "rifles", etc. you have "revolvers", "semi-auto handguns", "bolt rifles", "semi-auto rifles", etc. Then re-apply the logic.