Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Legal and Activism (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/)
-   -   Judge upholds limits on DC gun ownership (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/judge-upholds-limits-dc-gun-ownership-25216/)

bkt 03-26-2010 09:11 PM

Judge upholds limits on DC gun ownership
 
I'm getting so tired of the shovel-full after shovel-full of sh!t every damn day....

The Associated Press: Judge upholds DC's post-Supreme Court gun laws

Judge upholds DC's post-Supreme Court gun laws

By SARAH KARUSH (AP) 59 minutes ago

WASHINGTON A federal judge on Friday upheld limitations on gun ownership that the District of Columbia put in place following a 2008 Supreme Court decision overturning the city's outright ban on handguns.

Dick Heller, the plaintiff in the landmark Supreme Court case, had challenged the new regulations, claiming the registration procedures, a ban on most semiautomatic weapons and other limitations violated the intent of the high court's decision.

U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina sided with the city, saying the Supreme Court decision did not ban reasonable limits on gun ownership designed to promote public safety.

"While the (Supreme) Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects a natural right of an individual to keep and bear arms in the home in defense of self, family and property, it cautioned that that right is not unlimited," he wrote.

The decision by Urbina, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton, moves the case along what is likely to be a lengthy path through the legal system.

"We fully expect to go the Court of Appeals," said Heller's lawyer Richard E. Gardiner.

Urbina's opinion "misinterprets Heller altogether," Gardiner said, referring to the Supreme Court decision. In particular, he took issue with the judge's observation that the Supreme Court did not explicitly declare the Second Amendment right to be "fundamental."

"It's clearly a fundamental right because it's in the Bill of Rights," Gardiner said.

The Supreme Court struck down a 32-year-old ban on handguns in Washington and a requirement that all firearms, including rifles and shotguns, be kept disassembled or bound by a trigger lock. In the wake of the ruling, the D.C. Council moved quickly to pass new regulations.

The plaintiffs claimed the new process for registering guns which includes fingerprinting, vision tests, background checks and other requirements, and which limits people to registering one pistol per month was too burdensome.

But Urbina found the process served "the well-established goal of promoting public safety."

The plaintiffs also challenged the city's ban on assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices. Urbina said the Supreme Court made clear the Second Amendment doesn't protect ownership of "dangerous or unusual" weapons.

Heller, a security guard, brought the suit that ended up in the Supreme Court after the city rejected his application to keep a handgun at his Capitol Hill home. Under the current regulations, he was denied registration of certain firearms because they are categorized as assault weapons. Three other D.C. residents joined him in the suit.

Car54 03-26-2010 10:15 PM

The good of this is that there are people still willing to stand up and fight back, the downside is that after the Supreme Court's ruling, Washington DC had no right to alter the ruling to their benefit. A waste of money, and time.

stalkingbear 03-26-2010 10:53 PM

That just goes to prove that our battle for gun rights is a never ending 1. The antis will never cease to stop attacking our gun rights.

AcidFlashGordon 03-26-2010 11:06 PM

Quote:

"While the (Supreme) Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects a natural right of an individual to keep and bear arms in the home in defense of self, family and property, it cautioned that that right is not unlimited," he wrote.
Where, in the Second Amendment, does it note there are limits? Arms is plural so if anything, that denotes multiples, i.e. unlimited, not limits.

Quote:

The plaintiffs also challenged the city's ban on assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices. Urbina said the Supreme Court made clear the Second Amendment doesn't protect ownership of "dangerous or unusual" weapons.
And who decides this ambiguous "dangerous or unusual" classification? Do they lump katanas or any other kinds of swords in this classification? How about baseball bats or meat cleavers? All "dangerous" or "unusual" in any sense of the word or by definition.

Yunus 03-27-2010 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AcidFlashGordon (Post 258119)
Where, in the Second Amendment, does it note there are limits? Arms is plural so if anything, that denotes multiples, i.e. unlimited, not limits.


I agree with BKT that the judge is not following the SCOTUS ruling. But if you really want to say the 2A has no limits, then straight from jail a person can go and buy a fully auto machine gun and grenades and a tank. Heck, if you really wanna say NO limits then a person in jail who can receive mail would be able to order a gun and ammo.

Of course I am being ridiculous in my statements here. Most of us want restrictions on the 2A, just like you can't yell fire in a crowded theater and claim 1A, it's just a matter of where we draw the line.

dunerunner 03-27-2010 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Car54 (Post 258100)
The good of this is that there are people still willing to stand up and fight back, the downside is that after the Supreme Court's ruling, Washington DC had no right to alter the ruling to their benefit. A waste of money, and time.

Proof positive that local, state and federal governments have too much time and care little for our money they expend!!:mad:

Benning Boy 03-27-2010 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yunus (Post 258329)
I agree with BKT that the judge is not following the SCOTUS ruling. But if you really want to say the 2A has no limits, then straight from jail a person can go and buy a fully auto machine gun and grenades and a tank. Heck, if you really wanna say NO limits then a person in jail who can receive mail would be able to order a gun and ammo.

Of course I am being ridiculous in my statements here. Most of us want restrictions on the 2A, just like you can't yell fire in a crowded theater and claim 1A, it's just a matter of where we draw the line.

I don't see any flaws with this. I don't see a ridiculous statement.

dunerunner 03-27-2010 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yunus (Post 258329)
I agree with BKT that the judge is not following the SCOTUS ruling. But if you really want to say the 2A has no limits, then straight from jail a person can go and buy a fully auto machine gun and grenades and a tank. Heck, if you really wanna say NO limits then a person in jail who can receive mail would be able to order a gun and ammo.

Of course I am being ridiculous in my statements here.

Understood! You have to take into consideration, though; that except for a few exceptions, an individual jailed has surrendered many of their Constitutional rights...Gun ownership under the 2A being one of them, liberty being another.

It could be argued that imates being armed would significantly reduce the prison population within a few days! Then just wait for the ammo to run out. :D

mpd8488 03-27-2010 09:21 PM

I hate to say it but the judge used appropriate judicial restraint here. There is no case law defining what constitutes a "dangerous or unusual" weapon and there is no precedent for determining what kind of requirements (backround checks, fingerprints, etc) cross the line of infringing on the right. D.C. says that any firearm not on their list is dangerous or unusual. The judge is bound by this law as it is not his job to overturn it, merely interpret it. I think Heller knew this going into the courtroom.

These questions are where the appeals courts come into play. They will begin to make case law determining what contstitues a dangerous or unusual weapon and what constitutes an "undue burden" (to cite a term used in other cases) on the exercise of the right.

Dzscubie 03-27-2010 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpd8488 (Post 258706)
I hate to say it but the judge used appropriate judicial restraint here. There is no case law defining what constitutes a "dangerous or unusual" weapon and there is no precedent for determining what kind of requirements (backround checks, fingerprints, etc) cross the line of infringing on the right. D.C. says that any firearm not on their list is dangerous or unusual. The judge is bound by this law as it is not his job to overturn it, merely interpret it. I think Heller knew this going into the courtroom.

These questions are where the appeals courts come into play. They will begin to make case law determining what contstitues a dangerous or unusual weapon and what constitutes an "undue burden" (to cite a term used in other cases) on the exercise of the right.


I'm sorry but this is just stupid legalize... WAKE UP.... ANY weapon is dangerous. This is just lawyer talk to try and control or ban any type of weapon/gun/bang stick/gat/rod/heater/etc.


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:11 AM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.