The United States District Court for the District of Columbia has upheld gun ownership restrictions created after the Supreme Court struck down D.C.’s handgun ban back in ’08. “A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals held Tuesday that the District’s ban on assault weapons and magazines containing more than 10 rounds of ammunition are constitutional,” the AP reports. “The court also upheld some, but not all, of the district’s handgun registration requirements, which include fingerprinting, vision tests and background checks.” The Appeals Court sent “novel” requirements (e.g., one-gun-per-month restrictions and a mandatory safety course) back for evidentiary hearings. [Click here for the ruling.] As you might imagine, the Appeals Court seized on the Supreme Court’s ruling that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” Not in D.C. it ain’t. Not even close. Again. Still.
Heller II was a bit of ‘everything in the basket thrown in’ case. Outcome was expected. Read through the ruling as there are some gems.
“The District has carried its burden of showing a substantial relationship between the prohibition of both semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds and the objectives of protecting police officers and controlling crime”.
I must have missed the sub clause of the US Constitution, along with that being the framers intent in the Federalist Papers. Not sure on the timeline, but this will eventually end up at SCOTUS. Provided the make-up of the court doesn’t change between now and then, we have a good chance of prevailing in the end. And remember a win here in Federal court applies to every state immediately.
Well this could go two ways I think. The first would be the SCOTUS picking up the case and getting more specific about how the 2A can be limited in our favor, or they could get more specific in a way that is not in our favor. Only time will tell…
“ban on assault weapons and magazines containing more than 10 rounds of ammunition are constitutional”
An “assault weapon” (whatever those are or are they every weapon?) doesn’t determine ammo capacity. Magazines do that. Why didn’t the Court just ban magazines beyond 10 rounds? (sarcastically) Are they saying owning a gun and a high-capacity magazine is ok if owners don’t use them together? Are they saying it is ok to ban any gun that a high-capacity magazine can be attached to?
I recall reading that an “assault weapon” is a semi-auto that looks like an “assault rifle.” Does this mean a full-auto capable tax-stamped gun with “high” capacity mag may be legal?
“the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”
What the courts seem not to understand is that the power granted under Article 3 of the Constitution is also not unlimited. Geez, all you guys who are railing against Congress and POTUS have lost sight of the worst enemy of freedom in America, namely the judges who have lifetime tenure. We can get rid of the Obamas, Reids and Pelosis of the world through the ballot box, but how do we lance this particular boil?
My concerns too. Obama has placed two judges onto the SC (lifetime!) known for being anti-gun. What happens when or if the SC ends up with a solid liberal majority, and they decide to re-visit the gun rulings? Today’s definition of being a liberal is not what it was fifty years ago.
how you ask? we go on an all out blitz to educate americans about jury nullification.
This was a non-jury case, as are most. There’s no “jury nullification” in a non-jury trial or an appeal.
The 2A doesn’t give you the right to own a howitzer for target shooting but an arbitrary limit of 10 bullets can be reduced to 1 given enough time. I’d really like to see their data on how +10 rounds is a line that cannot be crossed.
thankfully the district is only 4 square miles and other areas around Dc are free. maryland isn’t one of them, a check on the website reveals draconian pistol regulations along with unheard of rules for transporting guns.
Except that the second amendment does give you the right to own a howitzer, regardless of how you (lawfully) intend to use it.
“The 2A doesn’t give you the right to own a howitzer for target shooting…”
You’re absolutely right; The second amendment GAURANTEES the right to own a Howitzer for use in defeating all enemies of the Constitution, both foreign and domestic. Target shooting and sporting uses have absolutely nothing to do with this.
I’m really starting to get tired of the Judges in this country.
They write up some stupid ass judgement, and none of it includes anything from our founders, all of it is, is a bunch of world jumble with Supreme Court cases saying its legal for the government to limit our freedom.
When people ask who is the worst President to me, I always say FDR, because it is his court packing that brought us these cases that these damn judges cite that say limiting freedom is okay.
Shall not be infringed seems to bleeped automatically in the leftists mind.
I’m getting to the point of the nannies within the movement bringing up the statist laws against touching their little minions.
Interestingly, the 3 judges who heard this case were appointed by Reagan, GHW Bush and GW Bush.
His assertion is that they based their ruling upon rulings made by judges appointed by FDR. Furthermore, he asserts that had FDR not appointed as he did, that we wouldn’t have the judicial mess we have today.
I just think this is an example of why supporters of gun rights have to start the long, slow process of winning seats on city councils, state legislatures, mayors, etc. who can actually write new pro-gun laws, and not rely on courts.
I’m sure that the criminals in the DISTRICIT OF COMMIES are going to obey this silly law.
I’m concerned that the Supreme Court wont grant certiorari on this case. They handed down two politically controversial pro-gun rulings in a very short time frame, and I think they maybe reluctant to take on a third.
While the conservative wing of the court has strong convictions about the importance of the second amendment they are still human and as a result susceptible to concerns about their image and how they will be treated by future pundits and jurists. This court probably wont want to go down in history as the one that rolled back all gun regulation.
Instead they may be content with the contribution they have made and they’ll let future courts determine the details that they intentionally omitted. In addition, while it shouldn’t make a difference for stare decisis purposes, it is conceivable that if the members of this court were the sole force behind overturning massive amounts of gun regulation, that their future peers (at the behest of many liberal law professors) may cast a more critical eye on their legacy when similar cases are brought before them.
i don’t care what anti-gun laws get passed as i don’t obey any of them.when i was a tennager a cop tried to steal(take) a shot gun away from me ,i still have the gun.
i don’t obey this commie gun control bull shit any way and unlike the citizens of new orleans i will never give up my guns to enemy police with out a fight.when iws 16 a corrupt cop tried to steal my remington 1100 when i was hunting,i told him he was interfering with a legal hunt which is a felony this cop said hand over the gun while he put his hand on his gun.i made a half turn which put the muzzle of my 12 gage on his fat stomach i clicked off the safety and asked him if he thought he could draw his pistol before i squeezed the trigger on my 1100.he left with out my shot gun.
Comments are closed.