US District Court upholds several DC gun laws

[MinistrMalic]

SCOTUSblog New D.C. gun laws upheld

Alas, it appears that Heller is going to need more clarification on a national level. We shall see what McDonald vs. Chicago does to this ruling, and how it winds its way to SCOTUS.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[joker1]

Jeez, not much better off than they were. They still gotta pay for their right to basic self defense in the home and register their guns.

This judge sounds like a typical liberal whiner, if it has a capacity of more than 10 rounds its dangerous. I say it depends on the person firing those first 9 rounds. Of course we all know it always depends on the person how dangerous and inatimate object (gun) is.

[ming]

After being somewhat disheartened by this ruling I needed something to improve my spirits so I decided to go back and read the Heller v D.C.
ruling by SCOTUS. The link is:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content.../06/07-290.pdf

Definitely removes the bad taste of Heller v D.C. 2.

If you haven't read the SCOTUS Heller v D.C. ruling I recommend that you take a look at it. It is a long read but worthwhile, especially, for example, the section dealing with the meaning of the phrase "bear arms". There are some gems in the document for those who believe in the constitution.

[Eagleks]

Well, hopefully it will go to SCROTUS again, and they'll continue to set DC right. Congress tried to pass some laws to 'guide' them, but that was knocked down by Obama / Dem's .

[tangoseal]

Its not SCOTUS OR SCROTUS

Its now officially "TPSCOTSDUS"

"The Peoples Supreme Court of the Socialist Disunited States"

Now on the other hand if they Rule against the HR3962 as being unconstitutional then they will be : Scotus again! haha

[ccw9mm]

Here is a write-up on the NRA ILA web site.

Amazing how hard the anti-gunners are keeping their teeth and nails dug into the coffin of dehumanizing the citizens of the various States, isn't it?

Judges, too. None are immune from the disease.

Court Dismisses "Heller II" Case: D.C. Gun Registration, "Assault Weapon" Ban, and "Large" Magazine Ban Upheld


Friday, March 26, 2010


Today, District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, dismissed Heller v. District of Columbia, NRA's case challenging D.C.'s prohibitive firearm registration requirements, and its bans on "assault weapons" and "large capacity ammunition feeding devices." Mr. Heller was, of course, lead plaintiff in District of Columbia v. Heller, decided by the Supreme Court in 2008.

Judge Urbina rejected Heller's assertion that D.C.'s registration and gun and magazine bans should be subject to a "strict scrutiny" standard of review, under which they could survive only if they are justified by a compelling government interest, are narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, and are the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.

In support of that rejection, Urbina opined that in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the Supreme Court "did not explicitly hold that the Second Amendment right is a fundamental right," and he adopted the argument of dissenting Justices in that case, that the Court's upholding of a law prohibiting possession of firearms by felons implied that the Court did not consider that laws infringing the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms should be subject to a strict scrutiny standard of review.

Judge Urbina also rejected D.C.'s contention that its laws should be required to pass only a "reasonableness test," which would "require the court to uphold a law regulating firearms so long as the legislature had 'articulated proper reasons for acting, with meaningful supporting evidence,' and the measure did 'not interfere with the "core right" the Second Amendment protects by depriving the people of reasonable means to defend themselves in their homes.'"

Instead, Urbina purported to subject D.C.'s registration, gun ban, and magazine ban to an "intermediate scrutiny" level of review, in which he first considered whether those laws "implicate the core Second Amendment right" and, if they do, whether they are "substantially related to an important governmental interest."

Urbina agreed that D.C.'s firearm registration scheme implicates the "core Second Amendment right," which, based upon the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), he described as the right to have a firearm at home for protection. But, he noted that the Court "suggested in Heller that such requirements [as registration] are not unconstitutional as a general matter," and he concluded that D.C. had adequately articulated a compelling governmental interest in promulgating its registration scheme.

Based upon the Supreme Court's statement in Heller, that machine guns might not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment because they are not commonly owned, and relying heavily on error-ridden testimony provided by D.C. and the Brady Campaign about the use of semi-automatic firearms in crime, Urbina concluded that D.C.'s "assault weapon" and "large" magazine bans do not infringe the right to have a firearm at home for protection.

Regrettably, Urbina uncritically accepted all of the "factual" claims in the committee report of the D.C. City Council and ignored hard evidence that "assault weapons" and "large" magazines are in "common use," the standard Heller adopted. As we have detailed in other Alerts, of course, such firearms and their standard magazines holding over 10 rounds are owned by millions of Americans and their numbers are rising rapidly with every week that passes.

Stay tuned. Word about whether Judge Urbina's decision will be appealed, or whether a legislative remedy will be sought in Congress, or both, will certainly be forthcoming.



Copyright 2010, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 800-392-8683
Contact Us | Privacy & Security Policy

[GWRedDragon]

In support of that rejection, Urbina opined that in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the Supreme Court "did not explicitly hold that the Second Amendment right is a fundamental right," and he adopted the argument of dissenting Justices in that case, that the Court's upholding of a law prohibiting possession of firearms by felons implied that the Court did not consider that laws infringing the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms should be subject to a strict scrutiny standard of review.

Wait, what? The ink isn't even dry on that and the judge takes the completely opposite view? I wonder how that qualifies as 'unbiased'

Convenient use of dicta, there, while ignoring the primary substance of the ruling

[Gun Bunny]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


I don't know, is it me? Am I miss reading it? But is this not part of the second Amendment?

Seems like infringement to me.

[ccw9mm]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


I don't know, is it me? Am I miss reading it? But is this not part of the second Amendment?

Seems like infringement to me.

What a difference nearly 250yrs makes. We start out as an entire people strongly behind the concept of armed citizens. We know it's required to help keep us fed and safe. Only an idiot would have traveled any distance from home unarmed, back then. It was agreed that the People of the several states would be an armed people, and that government was not to infringe upon this.

And yet, slowly but surely, the several states and the feds themselves got down to the business of disarming the people. The aristocracy, all over again, living in fear of a well-armed rabble that could keep them from power by bringing Hades down around their ears if they screw over the people. The ultimate "bleed" valve, so to speak.

And so, disarmament it was. Libs and conservatives alike, 'cause a tyrannical aristocracy can't expect bullet holes to be any less effective when one has a large bank account and great land holdings, as opposed to smaller amounts of each. A million armed citizens are tough to control, without a standing army and while they're armed. 300 million, even less so.

The solution? Create a standing force (not an army), and disarm the people by means other than infringement (aka, "sensible restrictions").

They fiddle with the right, while "Rome" burns.

The only sensible restriction is my absolute restriction of the ability of an attacking criminal to keep his fingers about my throat.

[kapnketel]

Hopefully the SCOTUS ruling on McDonald this year will render this decison moot.

[OldVet]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A Militia, being charged with the security of a free state, would probably need the best military-style firearms and high capacity to fulfill that constitutional obligation, don't you think?

But good old Nancy and her gang, who think they know what is best for all of us, will change that too if allowed.

[Gun Bunny]

Glen Beck the other day was talking about how these rulings are made by past "rulings", and not by what our Founding Fathers intended!

I believe he has a valid point.

[oneshot]

And so, disarmament it was. Libs and conservatives alike, 'cause a tyrannical aristocracy can't expect bullet holes to be any less effective when one has a large bank account and great land holdings, as opposed to smaller amounts of each. A million armed citizens are tough to control, without a standing army and while they're armed. 300 million, even less so.

The solution? Create a standing force (not an army), and disarm the people by means other than infringement (aka, "sensible restrictions").

They fiddle with the right, while "Rome" burns.
Quote ccw9mm^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


This Judge is most likely getting something from daddy socialist up the way;
Bloomberg
This will be tossed out in due time
There will come a point in time when these buffoons will no longer be able to hide behind the big curtain of lies that is Gun control/People control
The time is coming ,and they will be outted, and booted out of authority


"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."
Justice Alex Kozinski, US 9th Circuit Court, 2003

[GunGeezer]

Sorry Gun Bunny, but in lawyer speak anything can mean anything. It just depends upon what their agenda is at the time. Oh, and did I mention that many, if not most, politicians were lawyers.

[Bandolero]

Got this from another source:


"The city requires that legally registered revolvers be kept unloaded and either disassembled or secured with trigger locks, unless the owner reasonably fears immediate harm by an intruder in the home. Each resident can register one pistol a month, and registrations expire after three years."

===========

This further demonstrates how liberals are such utter imbeciles. A freakin' booger eating monkey would know that by the time you do all this, you would probably already be dead from the attack.

And that would be with a semi-auto, much less a "disassembled revolver."

A disassembled revolver?????