Washington DC Council to Enact Sweeping New Gun Laws Tomorrow

And I'll say again, as Unregistered notes, the Heller decision affirmed the 2A as an individual right subject to restrictions. DC is following the letter of the law. Chicago will, too. Other communities and even states will also.

Heller is potentially a Pandora's Box of restrictions we ain't gonna enjoy. Especially if Obama wins and is backed by a Democrat House and Senate.

I hope I am wrong and Socrates right but I suspect, in the thoroughly corrupt and eltist world of modern US politics, I am not.
 
"An exception is made for a firearm while it is being used against reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm to a person within a registered gun owner’s home."

Darn generous of them ... so I'm asleep, somebody breaks in and in my befuddled state I have to find a key, undo a lock, load the gun ... I wonder how many people in Washington actually obey these moronic laws ...

thankful I still live in a part of the country where common sense still prevails ...
 
"An exception is made for a firearm while it is being used against reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm to a person within a registered gun owner’s home."


Here's how I take this. If for some reason, somehow, the cops find you with a loaded gun in your home, or you have an unloaded gun that is not locked or in a safe, they can charge you with a violation of their laws. However, if you stop an intruder with a gun, they aren't going to ask any questions other than trying to determine if the threat was indeed immediate and there was a reasonable perception that it was threat. But you best not take a gun out to your garage or any other building on your property if you see an intruder in there. Your only option is to call the cops and hope they arrive before he leaves, which could be a half an hour or so.

That's when you pull this one:

911 caller: There's some guy in my garage.

911 Dispatcher: We'll send some over right away.

(5 minutes later) 911 caller: Where are the police, I called about the guy in my garage 5 minutes ago.

911 dispatcher: They are on their way. Hang on.

(1 minute later): 911 caller: Never mind, I shot the guy myself.

Cops immediately show up and catch the guy. They confront the home owner, "we thought you told the dispatcher that you shot this guy".

Homeowner: "I thought the dispatcher said you'd be here right away".
 
I wonder what the DC authorities would do with this hypothetical case.

A DC resident has jumped through the hoops, jumped over the hurdles, fetched Mayor Fenty's newspaper and slippers, and registered his new revolver with the city of D.C. So far so good. The resident keeps his gun unloaded and locked in a safe. One night, as his wife pulls into their garage, she is attacked by a rapist who snuck in there and waited for her to come home. The husband hears her scream. He gets his gun out of the safe, loads it, and heads to the garage. He confronts the rapist who lunges at him with a crow bar. He shoots him dead.

So, the gun was brought out of the house. The man defended himself and his wife on his own property. Would it make a difference if the garage was attached or detached from the house? Would they charge him with murder? Would they charge him with violating the gun regulations? Inquiring minds want to know.
 
Before we get all our knickers in a twist, it would be beneficial to examine the actual holding, and not all the dicta that is being referred to here (remembering that dicta is not binding).

From the holding (not the dicta):
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition — in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute — would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. 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.
Click to expand...

That's a big paragraph above, but it contains many important facets to what D.C. is attempting to do.

The Court said, "The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment."

Now an argument can be readily made that banning all semi-auto handguns violates the holding. Why? Since handguns fall into two separate classes, revolvers and semi-autos, one can apply what the Court said about such bans: "The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense." What overwhelming choice do American use for self defense? Semi-autos. Data from the arms manufacturers themselves will support this. Added to this, the law in D.C. that makes semi-autos, machine guns, violates this as the law itself is capricious.

Next we have the unloaded/storage scheme. The Court ruled, "Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock [and/or locked in a safe] makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional." Since they only want to register revolvers, loading becomes much more problematic than if it was a semi-auto. Do you honestly expect the average citizen to have practiced using speed-loaders/moon clips?

Then there is the whole registration scheme. Again, from the holding, "Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement." The entire licensing and registration scheme meets all the definitions of being capricious. Until the regulations have been in effect for some time, there is no way to determine if it would be arbitrary in enforcement... Except for one tiny procedure. The ballistic testing procedure will be used on all handguns, new or used. The problem with this is that the Mayor and his underlings have already said that this "test" will be used to determine if the handgun has been used in a prior crime. This is completely arbitrary, as a new handgun cannot have been used in any crime. Yes, the actual law says nothing about the reasons why, but that has been covered widely in the official press releases. Therefore the purpose of the law is not what it is publicly proclaimed to be.

So while this might be the only real point of litigation, it very well can be proven to be both arbitrary and capricious, which once again, runs afoul of the holding.

All of this can be filed for a writ of injunctive relief the moment it is signed into law. Since Heller prevailed, he would be the most logical candidate to ask for further injunctive relief. Should the Federal District Court deny the injunction, it can be immediately appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court. At any point during this, the SCOTUS could intervene and assume the case.
 
Remember how the courts work and how the case got to the S.C.

First, thank you, Al, for parsing part of the SC decision. I have made that same argument elsewhere to try to point out how the decision works in regard to "in common use," etc., and that those will have to be followed.

The point I'd like to make is that it is highly unlikely any DC suits will go back to the SC. The decision in Heller did not overturn a lower court's ruling against D.C. It affirmed it. Remember Parker, et al, v DC? The DC Circuit's Appellate court had already ruled that the 2nd amendment guaranteed a right to both keep and bear arms. This court, in any future litigation, will be the last stop. They have already ruled on their opinion of the 2nd Amendment, and here are some of the things they said (from the Wikipedia summary):

"The court then held that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms", saying that the right was "premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)." They also noted that though the right to bear arms also helped preserve the citizen militia, "the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia." The court determined that handguns are "Arms" and concluded that thus they may not be banned by the District of Columbia; however, they said that Second Amendment rights are subject to reasonable restrictions.

The court also struck down the portion of the law that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." The District argued that there is an implicit self-defense exception to these provisions, but the D.C. Circuit rejected this view, saying that the requirement amounted to a complete ban on functional firearms and prohibition on use for self-defense..."


This court is going to follow both this precedent, as well as the Heller decision, in interpreting the constitutionality of any new laws. Sure, the mayor can appeal past them again to the SC, but the SC is highly unlikely to agree to hear another, similar case and be toyed with.

With this appelate decision hanging over them already, there won't be a curb to their regulations until they allow carry - the "bear arms" that the DC Circuit Appellate has already said is a 2nd Amendment right.
 
The holding Al posted pretty plainly indicates the semi-auto ban and disassembly/trigger lock requirement are in violation of the decision.

Those requirements in the new statute will be overturned and why DC is implementing those requirements into the statute when the holding states otherwise is confusing me.

Stalling for time is one thing but implementing two requirements that are in direct violation of the holding seems somewhat stupid to me.

We all know the holding in the decision is what you look at to see what must be done, etc. DC read the holding, yet came up with those two requirements?!:confused:

Maybe Musketeer is correct? Maybe we shouldn't "look a gift horse in the mouth". :D
 
Above, someone asked why Gura chose the DC law to challenge. He did so in order to avoid the question of whether the 2d Am. is subject to incorporation.

This court is going to follow both this precedent, as well as the Heller decision, in interpreting the constitutionality of any new laws. Sure, the mayor can appeal past them again to the SC, but the SC is highly unlikely to agree to hear another, similar case and be toyed with.
Click to expand...

Unless the composition of the court changes, and they want to revisit the question in order to give a different answer.
 
Antipitas said:
Except for one tiny procedure. The ballistic testing procedure will be used on all handguns, new or used.
[...]
So while this might be the only real point of litigation, it very well can be proven to be both arbitrary and capricious, which once again, runs afoul of the holding.

All of this can be filed for a writ of injunctive relief the moment it is signed into law.
Click to expand...

What about the registration fees and the written firearms test? Aren't there court cases saying that such things are inherently an infringement of rights? Or are these two things not as easy to challenge as the ballistics testing?
 
The problem with such laws is someone actually has to have standing to challenge the law.Has ANYONE been prosecuted for violating the past statutes in D.C.? You would have to have probable cause to come in, and find the assembled gun. The owner would then say,
"I heard the guy entering, so I assembled the gun, and took the trigger lock off."

I wonder for the reasons put into the Dicta of the opinion. Without a majority, and, the basic 2A right for the individual, challenging gun laws is like trying to shoot mesquitos in a swamp, with a shotgun. Without the basic right, and, a level of scrutiny, such as strict scrutiny, it's very difficult. I think the majority intended to give us this right, but, they had to make the decision establishing the right not seem as radical as it is. When you think about it, 2A law is one of the most absurd situations ever. You have two big bodies of law, federal and state, that are all now on the chopping block for being overturned. You have a Federal Agency, the BATF, that is now going to be essentially out of a job. Instead of faking shotgun barrels being cut under the legal limit, harassing FFL holders to reduce Kali's gunshops from 6000 to 1500, they are going to have to go back to harassing bars, and try some garbage like they did with third party liability.

State governments that could write laws, and figure they would be on the books for a long time, prior to being challenged, now have to consider that such stuff will fast lane to federal court, since they are screwing with a fundemental right, that I think, hope, pray, will be evaluated under strict scrutiny.

To give you some idea: I'm looking for a law firm to work for, in Kali, that defends the second amendment. Currently, one of our members works to support the write to vote, and, knows only ONE law firm that is in the 2A business in Kali. Everyone else is a single lawyer, working alone.

The ABA wrote a amicus brief supporting D.C. based on the fact that establishing the 2A as an individual law would
overturn massive amounts of established law.:rolleyes:

So, my hope is that the way it's written is to make the decision seem less radical then it is, and, to let everyone get used to the idea. Once that's done, fools will write laws that challenge it, SC, or even the appellate SC wannabes in D.C. will write that the laws are unconstitutional, and, all the SC has to do is refuse to hear ONE appeal by D.C., and the Appellate court ruling becomes the law of the land...until the judges in the 9th circuit write an opinion that supports the laws, then we have conflict of law, and the SC steps in...
 
Has ANYONE been prosecuted for violating the past statutes in D.C.?
Click to expand...

I would be interested to know whether Carl Rowan was prosecuted.

Carl Rowan retired in the 1980s iirc. He, a DC resident, was a journalist and high profile proponent of gun control/banning. He heard kids swimming in his pool one night and shot at least one of them with his illegally kept and unregistered handgun.
 
I would be interested to know whether Carl Rowan was prosecuted.

Carl Rowan retired in the 1980s iirc. He, a DC resident, was a journalist and high profile proponent of gun control/banning. He heard kids swimming in his pool one night and shot at least one of them with his illegally kept and unregistered handgun.
Click to expand...

Rowan walked.
The elites in DC get a pass.:barf:
 
Has ANYONE been prosecuted for violating the past statutes in D.C.?
Click to expand...
That is a point of legalese I have never fully understood or agreed with what I have understood.

As explained to me, by Wayne LaPierre in person while discussing NO and the Katrina confiscations, in order to challenge something there must be proof that people are being acted against. To challenge a law one must prove it is being enforced.

That is ridiculous. The very principal that an unjust law exists should be grounds enough to challenge it. Why should a law abiding person have to run afoul of the law to challenge it when the law abiding people generally avoid running afoul of the law in the first place?

Any legal explanation would be appreciated.
 
The court, in an ideal world, is a last resort. The belief is that a full litigation in the lower court provides fact finding on issues, and, that the lower court is closer to the evidence, and, the discovery is much better, and more timely. I think this part is correct.

You can file for an injunction, and, this maybe the fastest way to challenge the DC stuff, that the requirements violate the 2A, etc. on many different basis. It's likely that if the first Federal judge doesn't see it that way, the appellate court will.

Thanks to Bush, and Reagan, the Appellate division in D.C. is packed with conservative appointed judges, hoping to move to the S.C. NOT a good place for antis to be trying their Unconstitutional laws.

We could also all ask our congress people to act, and step in and stop the D.C. laws. Congress has direct jurisdiction over this area, as well.
 
That is ridiculous. The very principal that an unjust law exists should be grounds enough to challenge it. Why should a law abiding person have to run afoul of the law to challenge it when the law abiding people generally avoid running afoul of the law in the first place?
Click to expand...

A very touchy legal issue.
To bring suite you must have standing.
One way is by being charged under the statute.
Other ways are much more difficult but do exist.
Heller got standing since he tried to register his gun and was declined.

We do not allow anyone to decide they can challenge a law whenever they want.
 
We do not allow anyone to decide they can challenge a law whenever they want.
Click to expand...

and that is the problem. Laws by their nature are oppressive. Any citizen who obeys the law is oppressed but in obeying the law looses standing to challenge it.

It is like two people playing chicken. The only problem is Joe Citizen is on a Vespa Scooter and the U.S. Gov't is driving an M1 Tank. The citizen needs to HOPE that the Gov't chooses NOT to enforce the unjust law when there is little reason for them not to.
 
A written exam? I didn't know the 2nd amendment required a gun owner to be able to read. Hell, the 2nd amendment doesn't require them to be overly intelligent either. We enjoy this right because we are Americans, not because we are literate or smart, but because we are born here.

Will the written exam be in Spanish?
 
We enjoy this right because we are Americans, not because we are literate or smart, but because we are born here.
Click to expand...

Close, but not quite right.

We enjoy this right because We The People are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. We enumerated and acknowledged those rights with our system of government that we created under our authority as We The People.

All men enjoy this right. They just have to take up arms against those who would curtail this right in order to re-affirm it.
 
So, anybody heard what sort of gun Heller plans on trying to register? Given that the Supreme court directly ordered D.C. to register it?

I'm thinking that, since D.C. has made it so hard to buy firearms in the District, and anybody trying to use that amnesty to challenge the semi-auto ban is going to be at least somewhat compromised by the fact that they have to admit to having broken the law to make use of it, that what is really needed is for somebody to move to the District already owning a semi-automatic pistol.
 
Every single politician or council member that signs off on such a thing should be removed from office for neglect of duty. They should at the very least be held financially accountable/liable for the massive tax payer cost of defending the multiple lawsuits to which this type of game playing leads. All the money which will be wasted on losing court battle could have gone to maintain parks, fund schools, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top