Post "HELLER" in D.C. Not done yet. (C&P)
Here's an update on the 2nd Heller case in D.C. for those following what the courts are doing to your RTKABA.
COB
____________________________________________________
Federal Judge Upholds D.C.'s Post-'Heller' Firearm Restrictions
Tony Mauro
The National Law Journal
March 29, 2010
Judge Ricardo Urbina of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled Friday that the Washington, D.C., firearm ordinances enacted after the Supreme Court's D.C. v. Heller decision in 2008 "permissibly regulate the exercise of the core Second Amendment right to use firearms for the purpose of self-defense in the home." Urbina dismissed a case brought by Dick Heller, the same plaintiff who challenged the previous D.C. ordinance in the Supreme Court.
Heller challenged the District's firearms registration process, its ban on assault weapons and its prohibition of "large capacity ammunition feeding devices," claiming they violated the Second Amendment. In analyzing the Supreme Court's Heller decision, Urbina said the Second Amendment right to bear arms "is not unlimited." He cited Justice Antonin Scalia's admonition that the Court's decision, while declaring an individual right to bear arms, did not "cast doubt" on a range of firearms regulations. Urbina said he was applying "intermediate scrutiny" to D.C.'s new ordinances, and under that standard, he concluded the regulations were permissible because they serve the District's "important governmental interest" in public safety.
Gun control advocates applauded the ruling as proof that the Heller decision did not sweep away all forms of firearm regulation. "Today's court decision is the latest ruling to make it clear that the Second Amendment allows strong common sense gun laws," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. "Once again, the courts have rejected the gun lobby's attempt to transform the core right to guns in the home for self-defense into a mandate for their `any gun, anywhere' agenda. Politicians and legislatures at all levels should stop using the Second Amendment as an excuse for inaction against gun violence. They should follow the District's example and pass the strong, common sense gun laws Americans need and demand to protect their communities."
D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles offered this written statement in reaction to the ruling: "I am gratified that the Court repeatedly recognized the reasonable and conscientious efforts that the Council and the Mayor made to strike the proper balance between addressing the legitimate rights of firearm owners, and taking every reasonable action to assure the safety of the District's residents and visitors."
Heller's lawyer Stephen Halbrook said on Friday that the decision was disappointing, and "I'd be surprised if we don't appeal." Halbrook, a Virginia lawyer and Second Amendment scholar, commented that even though Urbina said he was using an intermediate level of scrutiny in appraising the D.C. law, he was in fact overly deferential toward the city. "He repeated uncritically whatever the [D.C. Council] committee report said." Halbrook also said the ultimate fate of the D.C. ordinance may depend in part on what the Supreme Court says about how fundamental the right to bear arms is in the pending case of McDonald v. City of Chicago.
This article first appeared on The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.
COB
____________________________________________________
Federal Judge Upholds D.C.'s Post-'Heller' Firearm Restrictions
Tony Mauro
The National Law Journal
March 29, 2010
Judge Ricardo Urbina of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled Friday that the Washington, D.C., firearm ordinances enacted after the Supreme Court's D.C. v. Heller decision in 2008 "permissibly regulate the exercise of the core Second Amendment right to use firearms for the purpose of self-defense in the home." Urbina dismissed a case brought by Dick Heller, the same plaintiff who challenged the previous D.C. ordinance in the Supreme Court.
Heller challenged the District's firearms registration process, its ban on assault weapons and its prohibition of "large capacity ammunition feeding devices," claiming they violated the Second Amendment. In analyzing the Supreme Court's Heller decision, Urbina said the Second Amendment right to bear arms "is not unlimited." He cited Justice Antonin Scalia's admonition that the Court's decision, while declaring an individual right to bear arms, did not "cast doubt" on a range of firearms regulations. Urbina said he was applying "intermediate scrutiny" to D.C.'s new ordinances, and under that standard, he concluded the regulations were permissible because they serve the District's "important governmental interest" in public safety.
Gun control advocates applauded the ruling as proof that the Heller decision did not sweep away all forms of firearm regulation. "Today's court decision is the latest ruling to make it clear that the Second Amendment allows strong common sense gun laws," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. "Once again, the courts have rejected the gun lobby's attempt to transform the core right to guns in the home for self-defense into a mandate for their `any gun, anywhere' agenda. Politicians and legislatures at all levels should stop using the Second Amendment as an excuse for inaction against gun violence. They should follow the District's example and pass the strong, common sense gun laws Americans need and demand to protect their communities."
D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles offered this written statement in reaction to the ruling: "I am gratified that the Court repeatedly recognized the reasonable and conscientious efforts that the Council and the Mayor made to strike the proper balance between addressing the legitimate rights of firearm owners, and taking every reasonable action to assure the safety of the District's residents and visitors."
Heller's lawyer Stephen Halbrook said on Friday that the decision was disappointing, and "I'd be surprised if we don't appeal." Halbrook, a Virginia lawyer and Second Amendment scholar, commented that even though Urbina said he was using an intermediate level of scrutiny in appraising the D.C. law, he was in fact overly deferential toward the city. "He repeated uncritically whatever the [D.C. Council] committee report said." Halbrook also said the ultimate fate of the D.C. ordinance may depend in part on what the Supreme Court says about how fundamental the right to bear arms is in the pending case of McDonald v. City of Chicago.
This article first appeared on The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.
0
-
'Heller'...the SCROTUS ruling that codified into law that 'shall not be infringed' now means 'may be infringed upon as desired', in direct violation of Amendment II.
'Heller' was celebrated as a great victory in the eyes of many...
It was and remains a clear perversion and a massive erosion in mine.0 -
Will be used as basis of further erosion of rights in the future. 0 -
So here we go again... 0 -
No surprise here at all. 0 -
The vigilance must be constant.
Rights are only worth what you're willing to pay to KEEP them.
COB0 -
quote:Originally posted by lt496
'Heller'...the SCROTUS ruling that codified into law that 'shall not be infringed' now means 'may be infringed upon as desired', in direct violation of Amendment II.
'Heller' was celebrated as a great victory in the eyes of many...
It was and remains a clear perversion and a massive erosion in mine.
You of course are totally correct, with one exception. Had the decision been a vote of 5 against and 4 in favor of Heller, by now no citizen would legally own any guns. Would you have preferred that decision over what we got?
This "win" means that no matter how badly the anti-gunners want to totally outlaw guns, they can never do it. So that means we gun people are still in the fight. And as long as I am still in a fight, I will fight to win.0 -
quote:You of course are totally correct, with one exception. Had the decision been a vote of 5 against and 4 in favor of Heller, by now no citizen would legally own any guns. Would you have preferred that decision over what we got?
ABSOLUTELY !!!
You didn't ask me...but I feel completely free to answer this question.
At that point...people like you would be FORCED to choose ;
Am I an American ; OR
am I an american.
You no longer would get to hide behind pretty words and pretense...the pretense that we are a free people, freely going about our daily lives.
You...AND the NRA..could no longer trumpet endless gun controls as being a 'good thing' for us all.
In short...you ...AND the NRA...would get to fish or cut bait. Along with millions of other 'fair-weather friends' of the Second Amendment...people willing to take up golf when the going gets tough.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
7 comments