Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    7,396
    Thanks (Given)
    11
    Thanks (Received)
    1501
    Likes (Given)
    5
    Likes (Received)
    47
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2067947

    Default Here we go again: Heller sues DC over their new gun laws

    Plaintiff Dick Heller had sued Washington, DC a few years back, over their 32-year-old gun ban, saying it violated his 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court agreed last month, and said tha DC had to provide laws that would allow Heller to keep his handgun in his home.

    DC passed a new law... and when Heller applied for the permit the law said he needed, DC rejected it, saying that Heller's handgun (which fired one shot at a time as most pistols do) was "a machine gun". Somehow the DC City Council concluded that this did not violate the Supreme Court's ruling.

    So, Heller has now sued again.

    The new DC gun ban will expire in 90 days. So by the time Heller's second lawsuit gets anywhere, it will probably be dismissed as moot, since the law Heller is complaining about, is gone. By then, DC will have yet another gun law of some kind.

    This tactic is common among corrupt legislators: Keep changing the laws, run plaintiffs around from court to court filing lawsuits, keep fighting delaying actions and getting the suits tossed out, while the plaintiff spends his life savings on lawyers and his pro-bono counsel gets tired of it and quits.

    In fact, such actions were listed in the Declaration of Independence, as one of the reasons disqualifying England from ruling the Colonies any longer.

    We knew this would be a long, drawn-out battle. The outcome of this particular suit is predictable: It will be thrown out as moot by whatever Federal court it lands in, once the temporary DC law expires in September. Heller (or somebody) will have to re-sue under whatever law the DC City Council puts up next, unless that body surprisingly decides to obey the Supreme Court and the Constitution for a change - an unlikely event.

    Round 2, coming up.

    ----------------------------------------

    http://newsmax.com/us/washington_gun...28/117034.html

    Lawsuit Filed Against New DC Gun Regulations

    Monday, July 28, 2008 5:00 PM

    WASHINGTON -- 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.
    "The social contract exists so that everyone doesn’t have to squat in the dust holding a spear to protect his woman and his meat all day every day. It does not exist so that the government can take your spear, your meat, and your woman because it knows better what to do with them." - Instapundit.com

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    10,639
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Is anyone in jail yet? The article doesn't say.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    7,396
    Thanks (Given)
    11
    Thanks (Received)
    1501
    Likes (Given)
    5
    Likes (Received)
    47
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2067947

    Default

    I really wish this new case would get to the Supreme Court, though it's unlikely - the law will be expired before it gets thru all the other courts.

    But it would be very entertaining to hear the Justices' reaction to the DC City Council's deliberate and flagrant disobedience of the Court's order.
    "The social contract exists so that everyone doesn’t have to squat in the dust holding a spear to protect his woman and his meat all day every day. It does not exist so that the government can take your spear, your meat, and your woman because it knows better what to do with them." - Instapundit.com

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    10,639
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    If I am to understand the article, LA, the DC Council and police department are very satisfied that they are operating within the law as modified by the recent SCOTUS decision. Maybe the modification is confusing enough to allow the municipality to continue to enforce the law as it was designed. It's certainly a legal issue for which they will show good faith in the adoption of the changes.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    7,396
    Thanks (Given)
    11
    Thanks (Received)
    1501
    Likes (Given)
    5
    Likes (Received)
    47
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2067947

    Default

    What a hoot.

    Let me see if I've got this right.

    The Supreme Court ruled: "...the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."

    After the ruling was handed down, when Heller applied, DC refused him that registration, refused to issue him the license, and banned him from owning or carrying a gun at home.

    Yup, sounds like they are "operating within the law" to me. How could I have thought otherwise?

    My abject apologies.

    As I said, I'd love for this case to come before the Supreme Court. I think the Justices might take a dim view of the DC City Council disobeying their ruling so quickly and completely. I even wonder what old Stevens the Dissenter would say. Would he call the DC Council right, or wrong, for refusing Heller's registration? How much respect does Stevens himself have, for Supreme Court rulings?

    For any normal, law-abiding judge, the answer would inevitably be "100%". For Stevens, who knows?

    (and little psycho-boo wonders why people don't listen to him?)
    Last edited by Little-Acorn; 07-28-2008 at 06:33 PM.
    "The social contract exists so that everyone doesn’t have to squat in the dust holding a spear to protect his woman and his meat all day every day. It does not exist so that the government can take your spear, your meat, and your woman because it knows better what to do with them." - Instapundit.com

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    10,639
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    I'll second that!!!!!!!!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
    What a hoot.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Newnan, GA
    Posts
    6,236
    Thanks (Given)
    21
    Thanks (Received)
    83
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    31138

    Default

    What should happen is that the District Court should find that the DC government is not following the SCOTUS ruling and issue an order mandating that they do so.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    10,639
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Even then, as the article indicates, by the time the court hears the case the city will be in total compliance. I think right now they are just fuckin' with the guy for suing them, don't you?


    Quote Originally Posted by 5stringJeff View Post
    What should happen is that the District Court should find that the DC government is not following the SCOTUS ruling and issue an order mandating that they do so.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    san antonio
    Posts
    3,310
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 5stringJeff View Post
    What should happen is that the District Court should find that the DC government is not following the SCOTUS ruling and issue an order mandating that they do so.
    They should find those scumbag DC law makers and city officials in contempt of court.
    PRAIRIE FIRE by William Ayers: Obama's guide to destory America
    "Maybe I missed that part of the Constitution"--Joe Steel
    You can't spell Liberals without Lies.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Albany, NY
    Posts
    5,457
    Thanks (Given)
    14
    Thanks (Received)
    714
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1515011

    Default

    Well, actually, what he should suing for is an abuse of power, and attempt to defraud both the citizens of DC, as well as the SCOTUS. If the DC legislature is dropping laws like this one, then they are obviously attempting to circumvent justice, which, for the past 232 years or so, has been illegal pretty much everywhere.

    Everyone seems content though, to fight the single symptom, and not the disease.
    "Government screws up everything. If government says black, you can bet it's white. If government says sit still for your safety, you'd better run for your life!"
    --Wayne Allyn Root
    www.rootforamerica.com
    www.FairTax.org

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums