“The suggestion that a gun trafficker would bring fewer guns into the District (of Columbia) because he could not register more than one per month there lacks the support of experience and of common sense.” – Judge Douglas Ginsburg in Washington DC’s ‘One Gun a Month’ Rule Struck Down (via nationalreview.com)
[h/t Clay Aalders]
That one statement shows more intelligence than is exhibited by the entire gun control movement.
He is one of the few judges/justices on the Eastern Seaboard who have required that the government produce actual evidence, not simply mouth the magic words “it is in the public interest” and get a pass. Very much unlike the Maryland Circuit case where the Maryland Legislature did not even mouth the magic words and produced no evidence at all of any actual harm but still got a pass–which was “rational basis” scrutiny wrapped up in “intermediate scrutiny” language–the same standard the dissenting justice in the current case would have applied by giving “great deference” to legislative enactments.
Unfortunately, logic like this from the former (July 16, 2001 – February 11, 2008) Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Douglas H. Ginsburg seems to have little sway elsewhere in the federal judiciary.
Using common sense to repeal “common sense” gun laws. I like it.
What is the standing of the May Issue Vs Shall Issue lawsuit??
Still pending in the trial court.
Only problem is Judge Ginsburg hits age 70 next year so he will go on senior status
Is there a mandatory retirement at a certain age?
sorry. “Senior Status” happens at age 70. Article III judges (federal judges, not magistrates) do not have to retire at age 70. It just means they can stay on, but they don’t count in the court’s numbers (i.e., each court has a set number of judges). Once Ginsburg hits 70 next yr, they will get to appoint a new judge. Probably won’t happen in time for Barry Soetoro. There are plenty of judges in their 80’s and 90s still hearing cases, it just you run the risk of the dying or retiring and they have reduced schedules. Since Ginsburg gets it, I hate to see him not on the active rotation for cases.
Which means the next POTUS appoints his replacement, that is if McConnell can manage to hold off approving judicial appointments. That of course requires he manifest at least a small pair, so far not in evidence. Pun intended….
Oh, my. So, good for the judge. But, use this every time, too.
“Yeah, it’s not about lawful gun owners. Lord knows if that judge had only let the one-a-month registration stand in DC all those felony gun-runners would just stops at one.”
Call it out every time. When they want to do something stupid and counter-productive again, point to the previous times they insisted on stuff that was stupid and counter-productive. (For example, reading the Schumer amendment to the most recent attempt at federal gun legislation it did … exactly none of what it was advertised as doing. Rather the opposite, really.)
This ruling gives me hope that maybe someday the residents of DC will be able to wall tall as a free people, knowing that they too may bear arms in defense of themselves where they may.
Holy crap. A Ginsburg worth keeping.
Whoodathunkit?
The tragedy of Justice Ginsburg is that he was nominated for the US Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan. He was known to favor limiting the power of Congress to use the commerce clause to expand the reach of the federal government and would probably have been the most gun friendly justice on the Court. The liberals knew this and dug up some info that he had once used marijuana as a young man and forced him to withdraw his nomination. Reagan wound up appointing Anthony Kennedy in his place (who insisted that the opinion in Heller contain the “reasonable restrictions on guns” language in order to get the 5th vote).
Here is more on Heller3 from Dave Kopel who btw was in on Heller 1.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/18/d-c-gun-registration-law-ruled-unconstitutional/
h/t Instapundit, AKA conlaw prof Glenn Reynolds:
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/214777/
“The court only applied “intermediate scrutiny,” which I believe is an error as gun ownership is a fundamental right that deserves strict scrutiny. Still it’s amazing how little gun control regulation can survive even intermediate scrutiny.”
Comments are closed.