Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: D.C.'s Brief to the Supreme Court

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , Maryland, USA
    Posts
    230

    Post imported post

    Only if you have either a strong stomach or a good sense of humor...
    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont...c-v-heller.pdf

    A few of the "finer" points from the brief:
    "The Second Amendment protects only militia-related firearms rights"
    "The Second Amendment does not apply to laws limited to the District of Columbia"
    "The District's reasonable gun-control laws do not infringe the right to keep and bear arms"

    This is the brief that the folks in the D.C. government are so proud of?! I'm absolutely not a lawyer, but based out what I've read out of these 79 pages of brief, D.C. is gonna get their butts handed to them...

  2. #2
    Regular Member sccrref's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA, , USA
    Posts
    741

    Post imported post

    I see a solution to the whole hand gun problem in DC. Manufacture a pistol designed to fired with 2 hands. Now it does not meet their legal definition of a pistol/handgun and is therefore legal to own in DC.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , Maryland, USA
    Posts
    230

    Post imported post

    sccrref wrote:
    I see a solution to the whole hand gun problem in DC. Manufacture a pistol designed to fired with 2 hands. Now it does not meet their legal definition of a pistol/handgun and is therefore legal to own in DC.
    Put a fore grip on a pistol? Then it may be perceived as an "assault pistol" and that would be even more scary than a regular pistol.

    I'm still reading this brief...but one of the best lines so far:
    "The Council had a manifestly reasonable basis to conclude that handguns are uniquely dangerous, and that the dangers to others, both in the home and outside of it, justify the handgun ban."

    If it's that simple, cars are uniquely dangerous, both in the home and outside...so that should justify banning those silly things too

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    377

    Post imported post

    Rather than a foregrip, have the trigger mechanism separate from the pistol grip.



    Of course it is a dumb idea from a practical point of view, but sccrref theorized thata pistol that took both hands to operate would be legal in DC.

    So instead of having a trigger in the trigger guard, which makes it easy for one-handed operation, lengthen the grip so it is now two-handholds long and install the trigger downwhere the second hand would rest.

    I probably need to make a drawing to explain.It would look stupid of course and require re-engineering a gun, but it would meet the DC definition of not a handgun, yes?



    Call it the DC Legal Personal Protective Two-Handhold Firearm.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran Freeflight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Yorktown VA, ,
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    I have the Answer to the DC issue.. Since DC believes that GUNS are the whole problem. Whenever someone commits a Crime with a gun just take the Gun away and punish IT by Grinding it up and let the poor human go that was under its control. Also let every everyone out of prison that was so induced to violence by the evil guns and let them return to society to help us all continue to evolve into a Utopian society.



    morons....



    And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

    Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939

    Free Flight

  6. #6
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    LOL.





    I was wondering when DC was gonna pull the 'we're exempt from the constitution' crap.... heh....




    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Alabama, USA
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    sccrref wrote:
    I see a solution to the whole hand gun problem in DC. Manufacture a pistol designed to fired with 2 hands. Now it does not meet their legal definition of a pistol/handgun and is therefore legal to own in DC.
    I could be wrong but, I believe the suggested weapon would then fall under "AOW" in the ATF definitions and would require registration....although it could possibly solve the prblem for DC residents.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    842

    Post imported post

    Here is my favorite part of their brief. This comes from pages 55-56 of the brief, and I have omitted some of the citations for space and readability.

    2. The Trigger-Lock Requirement Is A Reasonable Safety Regulation.

    Like the handgun ban, the trigger-lock requirement in D.C. Code § 7-2507.02 is a reasonable regulation designed to prevent accidental and unnecessary shootings, while preserving citizens’ ability to possess safely stored firearms....

    ...According to respondent, even if he lawfully possessed a handgun, the District would prohibit him from unlocking it to defend himself against a sudden in-truder in his home. If respondent were correct, the District agrees that the law would be unreasonable.

    Respondent is wrong. Such an exception is fairly implied in the trigger lock requirement, just as it is in many of the District’s other laws. See, e.g., United States v. Bailey (noting existence of duress and necessity defenses in common law); Griffin v. United States (recognizing the necessity defense in criminal cases). As Councilmember Wilson noted, “it would have to be a very irresponsible and unintelligent judge” who would punish a person for unlocking and using a gun to defend herself against a rapist.
    Ok, I'm no lawyer and this high aptitude of jurisprudential thinking is almost above my IQ, but I'll give it a shot anyway. According to the logic presented in DC's arguments (as if that's not an oxymoron), their trigger lock requirement on rifles and shotguns – with no exceptions for self-defense – is not a complete prohibition on functional firearms and thus constitutional because; an exception, while not enumerated, is implied in the law; you can always use the duress and necessity defenses; and a smart judge would not punish you for breaking the aforementioned implied exception!

    So basically, their law is constitutional because if you get a responsible and intelligent judge he will not punish you for breaking the unconstitutional part of their law! (Although you would be arrested, indicted, tried, convicted, but NOT "punished!")

    Under that line of thinking ANY unconstitutional law is constitutional if not enforced! Did their lawyer sleep through law school? After this brief I think I would've also fired him!

    Hopefully the supremes will see through DC's lame attempt at an intelligent smokescreen and give DC what they deserve...


  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , Maryland, USA
    Posts
    230

    Post imported post

    TEX1N wrote:
    Here is my favorite part of their brief. This comes from pages 55-56 of the brief, and I have omitted some of the citations for space and readability.

    2. The Trigger-Lock Requirement Is A Reasonable Safety Regulation.

    Like the handgun ban, the trigger-lock requirement in D.C. Code § 7-2507.02 is a reasonable regulation designed to prevent accidental and unnecessary shootings, while preserving citizens’ ability to possess safely stored firearms....

    ...According to respondent, even if he lawfully possessed a handgun, the District would prohibit him from unlocking it to defend himself against a sudden in-truder in his home. If respondent were correct, the District agrees that the law would be unreasonable.

    Respondent is wrong. Such an exception is fairly implied in the trigger lock requirement, just as it is in many of the District’s other laws. See, e.g., United States v. Bailey (noting existence of duress and necessity defenses in common law); Griffin v. United States (recognizing the necessity defense in criminal cases). As Councilmember Wilson noted, “it would have to be a very irresponsible and unintelligent judge” who would punish a person for unlocking and using a gun to defend herself against a rapist.
    Ok, I'm no lawyer and this high aptitude of jurisprudential thinking is almost above my IQ, but I'll give it a shot anyway. According to the logic presented in DC's arguments (as if that's not an oxymoron), their trigger lock requirement on rifles and shotguns – with no exceptions for self-defense – is not a complete prohibition on functional firearms and thus constitutional because; an exception, while not enumerated, is implied in the law; you can always use the duress and necessity defenses; and a smart judge would not punish you for breaking the aforementioned implied exception!

    So basically, their law is constitutional because if you get a responsible and intelligent judge he will not punish you for breaking the unconstitutional part of their law! (Although you would be arrested, indicted, tried, convicted, but NOT "punished!")

    Under that line of thinking ANY unconstitutional law is constitutional if not enforced! Did their lawyer sleep through law school? After this brief I think I would've also fired him!

    Hopefully the supremes will see through DC's lame attempt at an intelligent smokescreen and give DC what they deserve...
    If I were him, I would have demanded to be fired...and burned the brief on the way out the door. I would give almost anything to have a camera watching the facial expressions of the justices when they read this thing.

    There are too many "favorite" quotes for mein this brief that I could type for hours and still not address them all. Heck, since the D.C. OCDO page is so quiet most of the time, I just might do it to keep things alive on this side

  10. #10
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    TechnoWeenie wrote:
    LOL.





    I was wondering when DC was gonna pull the 'we're exempt from the constitution' crap.... heh....



    Poor D.C. Her arguments are without a logical foundation.

    If D.C. can be exempt from the 2A maybe they could be exempt from the first....OnlyPagans here, it is our law. The constitution only says congress shall not establish, and the 14th only incorporates the states, so basically none of your stinking constitutional rights exist here in our Utopian district.

    I think the only prudent course of action is for congress to revoke home rule. A political subdivision that claims to be exempt from the constitution needs adult supervision.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitableand let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come . PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  11. #11
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202

    Post imported post

    They have -- read the brief!

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    842

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    I think the only prudent course of action is for congress to revoke home rule. A political subdivision that claims to be exempt from the constitution needs adult supervision.
    That's the problem with DC, all they have is "adult supervision!" The adult "kids" in DC don't have any say over what they can and can't do. The "kids" in DC really need to wake up and tell their "parents" to go jump in the Potomac!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •