US District Court upholds several DC gun laws

US District Court upholds several DC gun laws

This is a discussion on US District Court upholds several DC gun laws within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; 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 ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 22
  1. #1
    Distinguished Member Array MinistrMalic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    1,414

    US District Court upholds several DC gun laws

    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.
    "...whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one." (Luke 22:36)
    Christianity and Self Defense from a Biblical Perspective


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array joker1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    3,087
    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.
    NRA Life Member


    With great power comes great responsibility.-Stan Lee

  3. #3
    Member Array ming's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    190
    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.

  4. #4
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,798
    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 .

  5. #5
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,340
    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
    "I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan

  6. #6
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,055
    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
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  7. #7
    Distinguished Member Array GWRedDragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    1,413
    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
    "Trust in God with hand on sword" -Inscription on my family's coat of arms from medieval England
    ---Carry options: G26/MTAC, PF9/MiniTuck, PPK/Pocket, USP40/OWB---
    ---NOTE: I am not an expert. If I ever start acting like a know-it-all, please call me on it immediately. ---

  8. #8
    Senior Member Array Gun Bunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    IN
    Posts
    759
    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.
    Kahr CW9
    Sig P239/9mm
    Ruger LC9 (when the girlfriend lets me carry her gun)


    "First Duty is To Remember"

  9. #9
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,055
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Bunny View Post
    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.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  10. #10
    Distinguished Member Array kapnketel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Northern Kentucky
    Posts
    1,709
    Hopefully the SCOTUS ruling on McDonald this year will render this decison moot.

  11. #11
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    16,508
    "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.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  12. #12
    Senior Member Array Gun Bunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    IN
    Posts
    759
    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.
    Kahr CW9
    Sig P239/9mm
    Ruger LC9 (when the girlfriend lets me carry her gun)


    "First Duty is To Remember"

  13. #13
    VIP Member
    Array oneshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    +42.893612,-082.710236 , Mi.
    Posts
    8,187
    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
    If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.

    Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them!

    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- Ernest Benn

  14. #14
    Distinguished Member Array GunGeezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,249
    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.

  15. #15
    Member Array Bandolero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    267
    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?????

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Good-Ohio Supreme Court upholds ban on local gun control ordinances
    By kapnketel in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: December 30th, 2010, 11:20 AM
  2. Stolen Valor Act Found Unconstitutional by Colorado District Court Judge
    By msgt/ret in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: August 9th, 2010, 12:37 PM
  3. MA court upholds a state law requiring trigger locks
    By gmark340 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: March 11th, 2010, 10:18 PM
  4. NRA-ILA ALERT District of Columbia Gun Laws Changing????????
    By concealed in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 27th, 2009, 10:20 PM
  5. Patrick J. McGrath for State Supreme Court, 3rd Judicial District
    By mrreynolds in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 10th, 2008, 02:06 PM

Search tags for this page

court upheld tyranical guns

Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors