Judge upholds limits on DC gun ownership

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by bkt, Mar 26, 2010.

  1. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    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.
     
  2. Car54

    Car54 New Member

    2,103
    0
    0
    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.
     

  3. stalkingbear

    stalkingbear Active Member

    4,078
    4
    38
    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.
     
  4. AcidFlashGordon

    AcidFlashGordon New Member

    1,657
    0
    0
    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.

    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.
     
  5. Yunus

    Yunus New Member

    5,250
    0
    0

    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.
     
  6. dunerunner

    dunerunner New Member

    8,411
    3
    0
    Proof positive that local, state and federal governments have too much time and care little for our money they expend!!:mad:
     
  7. Benning Boy

    Benning Boy New Member

    9,624
    1
    0
    I don't see any flaws with this. I don't see a ridiculous statement.
     
  8. dunerunner

    dunerunner New Member

    8,411
    3
    0
    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
     
  9. mpd8488

    mpd8488 New Member

    245
    0
    0
    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.
     
  10. Dzscubie

    Dzscubie New Member

    2,508
    0
    0

    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.
     
  11. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    How about paying a fee to process those background checks and scan those fingerprints? How much of a fee is too much? Who gets to decide?

    How about paying a tax to acquire arms? Our Class III tax exists for no other reason than as a deterrent.

    Doesn't this set the precedent that we must pay money to the government in order to exercise our natural rights? Do you agree with that?

    As with most problematic laws, the issue pertains to subjective ruling. What is "dangerous" or "unusual"? By whose standards? Who gets to decide? Who gets to challenge the definitions?

    For anyone worried about a violent felon getting out of prison and immediately procuring several full-auto's for his next gig, consider that the problem is not a ban on arms but a fatal flaw in our judicial system. Violent felons should be put to death.
     
  12. mpd8488

    mpd8488 New Member

    245
    0
    0

    I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Personally, I believe that there should be no requirements for buying small arms of any kind, it is fundamental right after all.

    However from a legal standpoint, district court judges don't determine constitutionality. For all we know the judge agrees with Heller, but he was not in a position to set such precedents because he was bound by D.C. law. That law is unconstitutional as far as I and anyone else with any sense is concerned, but it is binding until an appeals court or the Supreme Court throws it out.

    I'm talking about the process of our legal system, not what's right and wrong. You can't simply break the rules to get what you want.
     
  13. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    Sorry about the misunderstanding. If this guys job was only to determine whether or not an action or ruling was sound only in the context of local laws, fine.

    Agreed.
     
  14. opaww

    opaww New Member

    4,868
    0
    0
    The Second Amendment has no restrictions where small arms stand. It was not until the 20th Century that the restrictions on Felons owning or possessing firearms came into play.

    Nowhere in the history before the 20th century was there a restriction on anyone but slaves and former slaves owning firearms. In some prisons once a person was released they were given a horse with saddle, a $10 gold piece, and a pistol. It was always held that once a person serves their time they were now considered as full rights and privileges.

    With the liberal anti-gunners we have seen hysteria of anyone having guns and the advention of restrictions on rights. It is not nor has been a universal belief of restricted rights until the 20th century and even most of the first half of the 20th century was some what the same as the 18th and 19th century where gun rights were the issue.

    During the 19th century a few towns restricted temporarily the display and carry of guns in town to help stem the lawlessness and bring some form of law back to the wild streets and once things calmed down they removed the restrictions, but at no time was any law or action made or enforced to restrict the ownership of guns.

    Before the emancipation of the slaves they had no rights sense even the courts said they were not citizens of this country and could not enjoy the same rights and all other citizens. Then after the civil War sense the former slaves were full citizens with full rights we saw the very first anti gun restrictions come into play with the Jim Crow laws forbidden former slaves from owning any guns. Anti-gun laws are the embodiment of racism that has and still are mostly racist in nature.

    The saying today of, for our own good, or for the common good of all, or a law we can live with, or what ever one wants to say is just anti gunners saying you have no rights that we don’t want you to have.

    So even the Supreme Court ruled incompetently with the Heller case to begin with, it is not a right of any governing body nor do they have any authority to restrict the Second Amendment. I do not support any restrictions on owning, buying, selling, or the baring of arms by anyone who is law abiding, this includes former felons and I say former, because once they serve their time then all debts are paid, and they should be restored full rights is was intended to start with.

    I do support due process of law where rights are removed temporally while incarcerated as is given by judicial law.


    opaww
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2010