• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

D.C.'s Brief to the Supreme Court

echo6tango

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
230
Location
, Maryland, USA
imported post

Only if you have either a strong stomach or a good sense of humor...
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/petitioners-brief-in-dc-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...
 

sccrref

Regular Member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
741
Location
Virginia Beach, VA, , USA
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.
 

echo6tango

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
230
Location
, Maryland, USA
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
 

XD Owner

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2006
Messages
377
Location
Arlington, VA
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.
 

Freeflight

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
306
Location
Yorktown VA, ,
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....
 

TechnoWeenie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
2,084
Location
, ,
imported post

LOL.





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

Comp-tech

State Researcher
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
934
Location
, Alabama, USA
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.
 

TEX1N

Regular Member
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
842
Location
Northern VA, Virginia, USA
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...
 

echo6tango

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
230
Location
, Maryland, USA
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 :D
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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.
 

TEX1N

Regular Member
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
842
Location
Northern VA, Virginia, USA
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!
 
Top