Judge upholds limits on DC gun ownership
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Judge upholds limits on DC gun ownership

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-26-2010, 09:11 PM   #1
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default 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.

__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today - It's Free!

Are you a firearms enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more.

Firearms Talk is owned and operated by fellow firearms enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information.

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today! - Click Here


Old 03-26-2010, 10:15 PM   #2
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Car54's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sun, Sand, and Palm Trees,Fla.
Posts: 2,114
Liked 109 Times on 46 Posts
Likes Given: 6

Default

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.

__________________

"As an American, I was not so shocked that Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that America gave him the White House based on the same credentials"...Newt Gingrich


The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.

Car54 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2010, 10:53 PM   #3
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
stalkingbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Lebanon,Ky
Posts: 3,621
Liked 11 Times on 10 Posts
Likes Given: 3

Default

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.

__________________

Sometimes you earthlings REALLY amaze me!

stalkingbear is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2010, 11:06 PM   #4
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Las Vegas,Nevada
Posts: 1,657
Liked 29 Times on 23 Posts
Likes Given: 1

Default

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.
__________________
AcidFlashGordon is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2010, 02:39 AM   #5
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Yunus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: |,Maryland
Posts: 4,808
Liked 1109 Times on 657 Posts
Likes Given: 348

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AcidFlashGordon View Post
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.
__________________

"Good people drink good beer."
Hunter S. Thompson

Yunus is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2010, 03:14 AM   #6
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
dunerunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florence, Oregon
Posts: 8,481
Liked 31 Times on 22 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Car54 View Post
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!!
__________________

People get the government they deserve.

dunerunner is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2010, 07:22 PM   #7
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: everywhere
Posts: 9,639
Liked 9 Times on 9 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yunus View Post
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.
__________________
Benning Boy is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2010, 08:10 PM   #8
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
dunerunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florence, Oregon
Posts: 8,481
Liked 31 Times on 22 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yunus View Post
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.
__________________

People get the government they deserve.

dunerunner is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2010, 09:21 PM   #9
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
mpd8488's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 245
Liked 1 Times on 1 Posts

Default

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.

__________________
mpd8488 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2010, 09:42 PM   #10
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Dzscubie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: El Paso,Texas
Posts: 2,521
Liked 39 Times on 19 Posts
Likes Given: 1

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpd8488 View Post
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.
__________________
"I never killed anyone who didn't need killing."
JW Hardin
Dzscubie is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Court upholds police pointing gun at lawful carrier jeffxc Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection 35 01-09-2010 08:41 PM
Limits on what caliber/ammo type a gun can fire? generic Ammunition & Reloading 23 01-03-2010 02:27 PM
Great reason for term limits funnyrunner Politics, Religion and Controversy 6 11-07-2009 06:57 AM
HR 45 - Criminalizing Gun Ownership HunterMarksman338 Politics, Religion and Controversy 6 06-27-2009 06:46 PM