PDA

View Full Version : Heller Round II


SDJim
07-28-2008, 12:59 PM
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,392705,00.html

Gun Ban Plaintiff Dick Heller Files New Lawsuit Against Washington, D.C.
Monday, July 28, 2008

E-Mail Print Share:

WASHINGTON The plaintiff in the Supreme Court case that overturned Washington's 32-year-old handgun ban has filed a new federal lawsuit against the city.

In a complaint filed Monday in U.S. District Court, Dick Heller and two other plaintiffs allege that the city's new gun regulations still violate rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

The lawsuit cites the District of Columbia's unusual ban on firearms that carry more than 12 rounds of ammunition, which includes most semiautomatic handguns.

The suit also claims that the city's regulations make it all but impossible for residents to keep a gun ready for immediate self defense in the home.

The Supreme Court struck down Washington's handgun ban June 26. The D.C. Council passed emergency legislation July 15 in an effort to comply with the court's ruling.

Case files here, courtesy of NoVaGator http://netgate4.newnanutilities.org/~ewhitley1/misc/Complaint_Heller-DC.pdf

Here is the plaintiff's new attorney http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/index.html

tiki
07-28-2008, 1:02 PM
I love the list of articles and books he has written regarding the Second Amendment. This should be good. :)

Ironchef
07-28-2008, 1:12 PM
So if Heller wins the high-cap suit, being a federal lawsuit, how do things work in case-law land? For example, would a win in DC for high cap mags apply elsewhere like here? I'm not completely familiar with how laws and decisions migrate.

As for the case making HD guns readily available, I'm sure that one is definitely a win for Heller.

tombinghamthegreat
07-28-2008, 1:12 PM
Its no surprise DC is being sued again for violating the 2nd amendment. I am wondering could the DC government be facing criminal charges for the 2nd time they are violating the law?

Afmo
07-28-2008, 1:14 PM
LOL

do they need to get smacked down a second time?!?!

Saigon1965
07-28-2008, 1:15 PM
I love it.

ghettoshecky
07-28-2008, 1:34 PM
Does anyone speculate that there will be a general ruling that strikes down any restriction on magazine capacity? If there was such a ruling, that would be pretty dang awesome. Heck I wouldn't even mind a bullet button on my AR still if I can put a beta C mag on it :83:

CCWFacts
07-28-2008, 1:40 PM
I know that the FBI investigates voting rights problems and civil rights problems (http://columbia.fbi.gov/invest.htm):

The Columbia Division investigates civil rights violations in the state of South Carolina. The FBI as a whole investigates allegations of federal civil rights violations which include racial and religious discrimination, color of law/use of excessive force or misconduct by law enforcement officials and others, involuntary servitude and slavery, violence against reproductive health facilities, and violations of the Voting Rights of 1965, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act.

If they find local officials who are denying people their constitutionally-protected voting rights, for example, those local officials are investigated and prosecuted.

I know that the FBI is really busy (warrantless wiretapping is a lot of work!) but maybe they could find some time to go after local officials like Mayor Fenty and Mayor Daley who are depriving their citizens of their constitutionally-protected rights?

Bizcuits
07-28-2008, 1:43 PM
While it is nice to hear he is taking the fight right back to DC again, something is mildly upsetting about this... can't put my finger on it... :(

Afmo
07-28-2008, 1:56 PM
While it is nice to hear he is taking the fight right back to DC again, something is mildly upsetting about this... can't put my finger on it... :(

could it be that he shouldn't have to sue them a second time for his rights?

Californio
07-28-2008, 2:09 PM
Will he be able to fast-track the case or is this another multi-year merry-go-round?

Sutcliffe
07-28-2008, 2:12 PM
could it be that he shouldn't have to sue them a second time for his rights?

STOP violating my civil rights or I will have to scold you.
Seriously, why these douchebags aren't prosecuted under federal law amazes me.

bulgron
07-28-2008, 2:14 PM
STOP violating my civil rights or I will have to scold you.
Seriously, why these douchebags aren't prosecuted under federal law amazes me.

Under which federal law?

nobody_special
07-28-2008, 2:15 PM
Nice... they're going after the registration fees too...

mrjones98
07-28-2008, 2:27 PM
The large cap mag issue would be interesting since the D.C. issue is not with the magazine itself, but with the weapon. From a legal standpoint, it sounds like any weapon capable of accepting more than 12, regardless of whether or not it uses a magazine is illegal. I don't know if magazines are also regulated, but I assume they are.

I'm curious to see if/how this can be applied towards magazines, in general. While I have some large-caps for my rifles, it'd be nice to get some for my handguns also.

RomanDad
07-28-2008, 2:28 PM
Under which federal law?

18 USC $242

CCWFacts
07-28-2008, 2:40 PM
I have an idea. The BATF is not an agency that gun owners have such a positive view of. And yet the BATF itself is full of extremely eager agents who love to make busts. Why don't we lobby to re-focus the BATF on going after gun civil rights violators? If they would bust thugs like Mayor Fenty with as much gusto as they bust someone who has a barrel that's 0.1" too short, I think they would suddenly have many more friends among gun owners and would never have to buy their own beer again.

Hopi
07-28-2008, 2:43 PM
How many lawsuits, or specifically, what type of lawsuit, is necessary to determine the scrutiny of application for the 2nd?

AJAX22
07-28-2008, 2:47 PM
The D.C. 12 round ban is VERY interesting because of how it is worded and under what authority it bans them.

Any handgun Capable of holding 12 or more rounds of ammo is considered to be a Machinegun.

So thats why they think they can get away with banning them.

The supreme court did rule that some types of guns can be restricted, (machine guns were mentioned specifically)

however, because the local municipalities can define for themselves what is or is not a machine gun, this presents problems.

It may just force the supreme court to rule that federal law trumps state or municipality law with regard to 2A regulations....

Such as Machine guns.... Destructive devices... sbs, sbr..... etc.

This may not sound like much... BUT

As far as the Feds are concerned, there is no such thing as an assult weapon or a high cap mag...

Also Silencers, MG's etc all totaly legal (with proper tax stamp)

we could wind up with some neat follow up cases as a direct result of this.

RomanDad
07-28-2008, 2:56 PM
How many lawsuits, or specifically, what type of lawsuit, is necessary to determine the scrutiny of application for the 2nd?

The total scope and scrutiny to apply in various situations will take a LONG time and a lot of cases, most of them a LOT LOWER PROFILE than Heller or these first few follow-ups...

Heller defined the big picture and gave a good road map as to what they want lower courts to do.

hoffmang
07-28-2008, 3:08 PM
Note that the actual capacity ban is not an issue in this case - just the semiautomatic nature. They're keeping it simple.

This will not be directly binding on California, but the right decision in DC on this will be very valuable to us.

-Gene

SevenFifty
07-28-2008, 3:20 PM
So if Heller wins the high-cap suit, being a federal lawsuit, how do things work in case-law land? For example, would a win in DC for high cap mags apply elsewhere like here? I'm not completely familiar with how laws and decisions migrate.

As for the case making HD guns readily available, I'm sure that one is definitely a win for Heller.

Most magazines that people refer to as high capacity are actually standard. Just because a magazine can hold over 10 rounds (13, 15, 7, 19, ect...) does not make it high capacity.

tiki
07-28-2008, 4:17 PM
The supreme court did rule that some types of guns can be restricted, (machine guns were mentioned specifically)

however, because the local municipalities can define for themselves what is or is not a machine gun, this presents problems.


They can define anything they want as whatever they want. The Supreme Court said that they can regulate certain firearms, such as machine guns and silencers, but they did not say that those can be banned.

D.C. could define any firearm that can fire more than one round without reloading is a machine gun, it doesn't mean squat; it would still be a ban on what is a constitutionally protected item. They could have lumped revolvers in with semis and done the same thing. Also, there is an accepted definition of what a machine gun is, and, it's not the count of rounds in the magazine that defines it.

D.C. will lose again. They are hoping that their ban will hold up under reasonable restrictions, but, we are talking about the most commonly used and available handgun in this country. At most, they will get reasonable restriction, which is what they are doing by requiring registration on revolvers.

I know it won't happen, but I would love for the court to look at the machine gun ban in D.C. and strike it down because it is too general and encompasses too many protected items, leaving the window open where there is no machine gun ban in D.C. What would also be nice is some wording to come out of the D.C. case that can later be used to attack the NFA.

Realistically, I think the court will rule that semi-auto pistols don't meet the test of dangerous and unusual, giving us some sort of wording on what the test for dangerous and unusual is, and, I think that the court will hold to the generally accepted definition of a machine gun and strike the semi-auto ban as too general and over encompassing.

jerryg1776
07-28-2008, 10:58 PM
I hope its costs DC alot of $$$$$ to get their butts kicked in court.

shellyzsweet
07-28-2008, 11:18 PM
its nice to see pro gun people going on the offensive.....seemed like for a long time we were bogged down with defense that now we can actually go on the offensive, that makes me very happy!
:hurray::hurray:

cbn620
07-28-2008, 11:34 PM
This is BS. Such BS. That anyone should have to go through this nonsense to have Constitutional law actually enforced when it was ruled on once already is just incomprehensible. The 2nd Amendment makes a statement protecting an unalienable right, D.C. violates that right, they are sued and told, "Hey, stop that," and now they have to be sued yet again to say, "Hey, we REALLY meant it when we said 'stop that'."

SOneThreeCoupe
07-29-2008, 6:17 AM
This is BS. Such BS. That anyone should have to go through this nonsense to have Constitutional law actually enforced when it was ruled on once already is just incomprehensible. The 2nd Amendment makes a statement protecting an unalienable right, D.C. violates that right, they are sued and told, "Hey, stop that," and now they have to be sued yet again to say, "Hey, we REALLY meant it when we said 'stop that'."

You're actually surprised by this?

The Heller decision begrudgingly gave us the individual right to own some form of arms, still heavily regulated... of course. We the American people are far too stupid and barbaric to be trusted with an actual right from the Constitution and are only entitled to what the Supreme Court decides.

The SCOTUS exists to enforce the Constitution, not interpret it.

This whole thing is patently ridiculous. We, the gun owners of America, are supposed to be happy about the Heller decision? Please.

AEC1
07-29-2008, 6:19 AM
I agree, I am sure there will be a civil case to follow, a big one. Perhaps if the mayor and counsel get hit with million dollar pluss lawsuits that might discourage other lawmakers from so readily trampling on our rights.

Bruce
07-29-2008, 6:50 AM
Whatever happened to "Contempt of Court"? Or doesn't that apply to SCOTUS? If I were ordered by a court to pay restitution or alimony et al. I'd have deputy sheriffs/marshals on my doorstep if I were to refuse or start playing games the way DC is doing.

SOneThreeCoupe
07-29-2008, 7:50 AM
The government is free to break its own laws and disregard court rulings at will. All of this would be fine if they did it for the right reasons.

Ever heard of Waco? Ruby Ridge?

We have an extremely dysfunctional government. This is much bigger than just a court case.

Gator Monroe
07-29-2008, 8:12 AM
The government is free to break its own laws and disregard court rulings at will. All of this would be fine if they did it for the right reasons.

Ever heard of Waco? Ruby Ridge?

We have an extremely dysfunctional government. This is much bigger than just a court case.

These events seem to be a pattern in Democrat administrations ?

SOneThreeCoupe
07-29-2008, 8:29 AM
Republocrat or Demican, makes no difference to me.

Republican executive and a "conservative" SCOTUS still manage to keep things firmly in bollocksed territory.

Gator Monroe
07-29-2008, 9:26 AM
Republocrat or Demican, makes no difference to me.

Republican executive and a "conservative" SCOTUS still manage to keep things firmly in bollocksed territory.

Who will make the difference in your vote in November (McCain or Obama ?):)

aileron
07-29-2008, 9:32 AM
Pay attention to Nickles comments. He's one of the fellows that should have charges brought against them.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hCTDCtVBhc2ugiMV6sP_bPJKdG2QD9272UPO0


WASHINGTON (AP) — The plaintiff in the Supreme Court case that struck down Washington's 32-year-old handgun ban filed a new federal lawsuit Monday, alleging the city's new gun regulations still violate an individual's right to own a gun for self-defense.

Dick Heller and two other plaintiffs argue that the city's regulations are "highly unusual and unreasonable" in the complaint filed in U.S. District Court.

The lawsuit claims the District of Columbia continues to violate the intent of the Supreme Court's June 26 decision by prohibiting the ownership of most semiautomatic weapons, requiring an "arbitrary" fee to register a firearm and establishing rules that make it all but impossible for residents to keep a gun in the home for immediate self-defense.

The D.C. Council was immediately criticized by gun rights advocates when it unanimously passed emergency gun legislation July 15. The law will remain in effect for 90 days, and the council expects to begin work in September on permanent legislation.

The regulations maintain the city's ban of machine guns, defined in the law as weapons that shoot more than 12 rounds without reloading. That definition applies to most semiautomatic firearms.

Handguns, as well as other legal firearms such as rifles and shotguns, also must be kept unloaded and disassembled, or equipped with trigger locks in the home unless there is a "reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm."

"A robber basically has to make an appointment" for a resident to be able to prepare the weapon for use, Heller's attorney, Stephen Halbrook, said Monday. Halbrook also called the city's definition of machine guns "bizarre."

"The District's ban on semiautomatic handguns amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of arms that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for the lawful purpose of self defense in the home," the lawsuit alleges.

D.C. interim Attorney General Peter Nickles said the suit came as no surprise and that he expects a long legal fight as the issue makes it way through the courts.

"I think there's a fundamental disagreement with the intent of the Supreme Court's decision," said Nickles, noting that the Supreme Court's ruling did not give officials much guidance with respect to regulating firearms.

"I feel comfortable with what the city has done," Nickles said.

After the Supreme Court narrowly struck down Washington's handgun ban last month in a narrow 5-4 decision, the D.C. Council quickly moved to comply with the ruling, and residents were allowed to begin applying for handguns July 17 for the first time since 1976.

Monday's lawsuit alleges that Heller initially tried to register a semiautomatic Colt pistol, but was denied because D.C. police considered the weapon to be a machine gun.

Besides Heller, the other plaintiffs are Absalom Jordan, whose application to register a .22-caliber pistol was denied, and Amy McVey, who must return to D.C. police headquarters two more times to register her weapon after being photographed and fingerprinted and undergoing a background check, according to the lawsuit.

Washington's gun ban essentially outlawed private ownership of handguns in a city struggling with violence. But what impact the ban has had on crime has long been debated, particularly after homicides more than doubled during a crack epidemic in the late 1980s and early '90s.

The city's gun regulations remain among the strictest in the country under the new regulations, according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Californio
07-29-2008, 11:58 AM
It only depends "what is is" in Wonderland:D

Did US law once hold on the "Reasonable Man" theory, what happened to it?

I sure hate to see another 5 years pissed away by this gibberish. :confused:

Reminds me of a saying,

"It is hard to fly like an Eagle when you are surrounded by Turkeys"

hitman13
07-29-2008, 2:47 PM
I'm not completely familiar with how laws and decisions migrate.



its ok, i dont even know what incorporation is,,,,

hoffmang
07-29-2008, 4:59 PM
its ok, i dont even know what incorporation is,,,,

This link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)) on Wikipedia gives a decent overview of 14th Amendment incorporation.

-Gene

N6ATF
07-31-2008, 11:52 PM
Unfortunate that the Constitution does not provide for the ability of SCOTUS to terminate any elected official's citizenship (and everything that followed) who violates the Constitution as defined by SCOTUS's rulings.

Ultimate contempt of the U.S. of A.!

Rumpled
08-01-2008, 12:06 AM
Any ideas on why he has different counsel?