Heller II suit is filed:
On Monday, Dick Heller and two other plaintiffs filed suits against the District of Columbia's revised gun laws. The complaint challenges the following provisions of D.C. law:
The ban on all self-loading handguns (about 3/4 of handguns sold in the U.S.) by defining them as "machine guns."There are some other problems with the new D.C. law. Handgun possession is allowed only for a person who wants the handgun for home defense; it is illegal in D.C. to acquire a handgun for recreational target shooting, to practice marksmanship before enrolling in the military or joining a police department, or for lawful hunting Maryland or Virginia. The only time that a gun can be unlocked is when it being used for self-defense against an immediate attack; accordingly, it is illegal to remove the lock from an unloaded gun in order to clean the gun. The problem would be resolved by the requested relief of enjoining all enforcement of the gun lock law against defensive firearms.
Allowing registration only upon the payment of an unspecified fee for ballistic testing of the handgun.
The self-defense provision in the D.C. law which allows a gun in the home to be loaded, unlocked, and rendered functional only "while it is being used to protect against a reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm to a person within the registrant’s home." The exception is too narrow, and burdens the right of self-defense.
The complaint further alleges that the aforesaid provisions are not only violations of the Second Amendment, they exceed the non-infinite home rule powers which Congress delegated to the District's city council.
Attorneys in the case are Stephen Halbrook and Richard Gardiner, of Fairfax, Virginia. They both been involved in firearms law and policy for three decades, and they are excellent lawyers. Halbrook has a 4-0 record as lead counsel in Supreme Court cases.
There are many state laws that prohibit purchase and possession of the firearms appropriate for various shooting disciplines. Start with the state level "assault weapons" bans, which survive the expiration of the federal ban in several states. Among the firearms usually banned is the AR15, which is the most common centerbore used at Camp Perry. Yes, there are variants with non-folding stocks made for the folks trapped in those states, but new models are not being developed and introduced.
Additionally, Massachusetts effectively banned high end target pistols (such as those used by Olympic shooters) until Governor Romney signed a repeal among his last acts in office. Essentially MA requires that the manufacturer of any firearm offered for sale in the state submit three samples for "safety testing," which is destructive. For a very expensive firearm that has an extremely small market, it is not worth the expense for the manufacturer to do this. Massachusetts still bans, I believe, the single action revolvers used in "Cowboy Action" shooting events. Maryland bans any handgun without an integral locking mechanism -- thus outlawing many competitive models in a lot of disciplines.
And New Jersey's "smart guns" law will outlaw virtually all appropriate competitive pistols when it goes into effect. (It had an exception written into it, but it was removed at the last minute after the press exposed some of the backroom stuff going on at the legislature. We now know -- but did not know then -- that some people were flexing their muscles to show then Governor McGreevey that they could get anything they wanted to into the newspapers -- and Gov. McGreevey was still trying to keep a big secret -- so he caved.)
But, digression aside, a recognized right to own a firearm for recreational purposes would threaten a lot of these laws. I also think that these are the laws that frustrate and annoy legitimate gunowners the most -- not the Brady check or any permitting or registration requirement.
One simple approach would be to repeal the federal law requiring the purchase of firearms in your home state and allow anyone to purchase elsewhere, provided he demonstrated that he had access to safe storage in a legal location. It would even work to notify the authorities in the purchaser's home state, and that would probably prompt a letter reminding him that it was illegal to bring his AR15, or whatever, into the State. But, it's also none of a state's business what its residents do when they're out of state. So fas as I know the Gun Control Act of 1968 is the only federal law that limits the actions of a resident of a particular state when he is not physically located in that state.
Does the First amendment protect the right to discuss the weather? I think the proper approach here, and it seems the one Scalia was taking, is that it's a right to keep and bear arms for ANY legitimate purpose, where self defense was merely a quintessentially legitimate purpose.
Any restriction upon such a right needs to be tied to some compelling government interest and so narrowly directed as to be the least burdensome means of pursing that interest.
The vast majority of these gun-owner-harassment laws are not directed at any compelling government interest at all. Rather, they are directed towards discouraging ownership of firearms as the end itself. I would hope that enumerating a right as protected from government interference precludes the government from using hostility to that right as the justification for placing burdens upon it.
A logical argument can be made that firearms practice is an integral and important part of responsible firearm ownership for self-defense purposes.
But then, I guess we always knew this debate had nothing to do with safety, logic, or "reasonable restrictions". It was always about power and prohibition.
Say, at what point does DC become so obstructionist that the DC pols and police could actually face personal liability, because their actions are so deliberate and knowingly illegal that they lose immunity? Even "absolute immunity" isn't totally absolute, right? Are we going to have to send the National Guard into DC to enforce the law? (Shades of Little Rock!)
Heller was denied a license for his service automatic under the "machine gun" restriction, but not for a .22 revolver.
Perhaps a federal judge should enjoin Washington DC from enacting any restrictions on gun ownership without his prior approval. It appears that all of the judicial powers used to integrate schools may need to be applied.
possession in the home violates the Second Amendment,
as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm
in the home operable for the purpose of immediate
self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified
from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District
must permit him to register his handgun and must
issue him a license to carry it in the home.
Doesn't "his handgun" refer to his service automatic?
How is that anything other than a direct court order?
As an NRA member and enthusiastic shooter I support this. More rounds down range equates to great safety and proficiency.
Yes, it is. Unfortunately, hypocrisy in the service of leftist agendas is a virtue these days, indeed a cornerstone of progressivism. Many progressives are actually proud of their ability to condemn anyone (else) they want, for mutually exclusive reasons. They can even bash people for being either homosexual or heteronormative (meaning "not homosexual"), even both in the same sentence with neither irony nor sarcasm intended.
Welcome to 1984, where doublethink is every citizen's duty.
I have one gun - although it is locked away at my inlaws' house (waiting for the DC laws to be cleared up).
The government does not get to control or register who gets to own or drive a car on their private property, only on public roads. This has been gone over so many times I can hardly believe people are still bringing it up.
And people with felony convictions and mental disorders can be regulated as even Scalia said in his Heller opinion if I remember correctly. The burden needs to be on the government to show why a person should not be allowed to own a gun. Anything more than requiring a person to pass a reasonably fast background check switches the burden to the citizens when it should be on the government as should all burdens that comes from restrictions on our rights.
@ postroad
"the guys who don;'t read this stuff are like the guy that killed yesterday in the church in Tennessee. regulate not just a milita but also those who get access to guns. If you can control who gets to register and drive a car, mostly, then why not guns? ps: I don't own or like guns but have fired many in a few stints in the military."
Because there's no Constitutional Right to a **car**.
How about this. Since you're ok with DC restricting a widely recognized Constitutional Right let's apply it to you.
Report to your local municipal government for a permit to speak. Those topics and issues, along with specific words, that are forbidden will be listed on your permit.
After all. People have to register for a damn car, why not speech?
No. Most practice with the firearm they depend on for protection. Those who don't practice with their defense firearm are probably those who don't practice much at all with any firearm.
There's an interesting standing issue here. If Dick Heller did not actually attempt to register his semi-auto M1911, it's not clear to me that he has standing to challenge the law. You will recall the original Parker v. D.C. case lost all but one plaintiff because nobody had actually attempted to register anything.
The new complaint avers that Heller did attempt to register the M1911 on July 17, but press coverage suggests he did not follow the specified procedure for doing so and therefore was sent away on purely procedural grounds. Heller reportedly showed up on day 1 without any gun to register, but wanted to start the paperwork for his M1911. He was told he needed to present the actual firearm for testing, and was sent away. He said he would come back another day. He was either told orally by the MPD Lieutenant in charge of firearms registration, or the Lieutanant told the Washington Post (it wasn't clear from press reports), that if he showed up with the M1911 it would be confiscated and MPD would consider opening a criminal investigation of Heller for possession of a "machinegun." However, when Heller eventually returned a few days later to follow the specified procedure to hand in the actual firearm, he came with his .22 revolver instead.
So I would expect D.C. to file a motion to dismiss based on Heller never actually attempting to register a "machinegun." I don't know if the other plaintiff who allegedly attempted to register a semi-auto presented the actual gun or not, but if he also failed to follow the specified procedure, he might also have a problem, unless the court finds that the procedure itself is illegal, or if D.C.'s announced intention to seize semi-automatic pistols is enough to confer the actual injury necessary for standing?
Stay tuned...
Considering the TSA holster fiasco, I think your last sentence is quite possible.
I can't speak to 'most', but it is certainly common to use a .22 for much of one's practice - the ammunition is a fraction of the cost, and the reduced recoil is helpful, especially for beginners, and the skills are the same.
Slip Op. pp 64
Why didn't the USSC simply issue a Writ of Mandamus forcing this?
Slip Op. pp 64
Why didn't the USSC simply issue a Writ of Mandamus forcing this?
But keep in mind this impacts only one count of the suit -- the other counts challenging the disassembled/unloaded rule and the no non-defensive use prohibition apply to Heller's .22 and any other citizen with a registered handgun.
Having said that, however, you DO need to practice with the exact gun you would use for self-defense, and with the same ammunition load you will use for defense. If you don't know how your gun handles, the recoil, the point of aim, etc., you're asking for trouble when you have to use it in a big hurry in a stressful situation. Unfortunately the cost of ammunition has gone up so much recently that if you're got a .45, it's going to cost you at least $20 to go to the practice range for an hour and put 50 rounds downrange. And it might be up to twice that cost if you're using a high-quality defensive load. Add range fees and travel cost/time (since there aren't any public ranges in D.C. to my knowlege), and an afternoon of practice can get pretty pricey. But it's necessary.
Mandamus might have been appropriate if D.C. had failed to act at all, or figuratively "blocked the schoolhouse door" to forbid compliance. But because D.C. nominally attempted to "comply" with the Supreme Court's ruling, there are questions of fact as to whether its actions were, in fact, adequate to do so.
I practice on both of my DC registered guns, as well as with the semis DC won't let me register which I keep out of the city.
Gun control folks should be very careful or this kind of nonsense will lead to a ruling on guns they like even less. And SCOTUS doesn't like getting the finger flipped in its face...
Roll it all together, and a workload-minimizing jurist with summer vacation plans might want to just let this one run at a non-expedited pace for a while to see if the grounds for suit go away or are narrowed by the permanent legislation or Congressional action.
Good point about that potential, well, venal consideration. But a competing one might be indignation at a litigant who recently lost in your court, fought all the way to the Supreme Court only to lose there too, and who is now back in your court thumbing his nose at you by doing his best to pretend that he never lost in the first place. ;)
This action has been filed in the District Court, where the original winner was DC, and Heller and his co-litigants were originally the losers. So, the litigant who is back after having lost in this court is Heller. Heller and his co-litigants won at the Appeals Court level, and, of course at the Supreme Court.
Massachusetts effectively banned high end target pistols (such as those used by Olympic shooters) until Governor Romney signed a repeal among his last acts in office. Essentially MA requires that the manufacturer of any firearm offered for sale in the state submit three samples for "safety testing," which is destructive. For a very expensive firearm that has an extremely small market, it is not worth the expense for the manufacturer to do this.
Yes, that law was passed, putting in place a roster of target firearms. Unfortunately, the Attorney General's office managed to subvert the process such that, a year later, there are only 2 guns on the list - .45 autos used in combat-style target shooting. All the good Olympic-class target pistols (mostly .22LR) are still unavailable in MA....
District Judge Ricardo Urbana was initially assigned to the new Heller case (although having filed my share of cases in D.D.C., I know initial assignments off the wheel in that District can change, occasionally for no apparent reason). Judge Emmet Sullivan had the original Parker v. D.C. case, and it's interesting the new case wasn't (yet) designated as related, either by a party or sua sponte by the Clerk's office. Thus, at least it may not end up back before the original District Judge who was so roundly repudiated. But Judge Urbina, a Clinton appointee who cut his teeth at the public defender's office, isn't exactly a raging conservative (to put it mildly). In fact, I can think of only a couple of judges in D.D.C. who might be WORSE than Urbina to draw this case -- one might reasonably assume his default sympathies will lie with the D.C. local government's position. If Heller's case was, say, on the other side of the Potomac in E.D.Va.'s Alexandria Federal courthouse, I'd say he had a slam-dunk winner. But in D.D.C. before Urbina? Don't bet the ranch, as they say. Maybe the Supreme Court's rather clear teachings will overcome his natural instincts. Or not. We'll see...
Drugs are considered to be contraband, and there is a wealth of precedent that contraband is not protected by any right to privacy. (However, the right to privacy might, in some cases, prohibit the authorities from discovering that you have contraband.) But there might very well be a right to privacy encompassing the right to keep firearms in the home. Firearms are not (generally) contraband.
I've never seen a judge as ideological as Urbina before. Though, to be fair, I try to keep cases out of DC as much as possible.And as far as legal talents go, well, he was able to get a job teaching at Howard after being a PD, so he had that going for him...
Fifth Circuit FTW!
I believe that vibrators were considered contraband (in certain jurisdicitons) before right to privacy ruling by the supreme court.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.