Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Appeals Court upholds DC registration requirements and gun bans

  1. #1
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Appeals Court upholds DC registration requirements and gun bans

    Google News search hits here.

    If anyone finds a link to the opinion, please post it.

    TFred

  2. #2
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  3. #3
    Regular Member oldbanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    beckofbeyond - Idaho
    Posts
    476
    DICK ANTHONY HELLER, ET AL.,
    APPELLANTS
    v.
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL.,
    APPELLEES

    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Columbia
    (No. 1:08-cv-01289)

  4. #4
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164
    I have a question regarding the use of "longstanding" in para 2, page 14 ... where Ginsburg is discussing the limitations on the 2A that were based on:

    This is a reasonable presumption because a regulation that is "longstanding," which necessarily means it has long been accepted by the public, is not likely to burden a constitutional right; concomitantly the activities covered by a longstanding regulation are presumptively not protected from regulation by the Second Amendment.
    Does the court recognize any/all challenges to the regulation in determining whether it is "accepted by the public" when determining bearing on current subject?
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by okboomer View Post
    I have a question regarding the use of "longstanding" in para 2, page 14 ... where Ginsburg is discussing the limitations on the 2A that were based on:



    Does the court recognize any/all challenges to the regulation in determining whether it is "accepted by the public" when determining bearing on current subject?
    I have not completed my review of this one yet, but I notice a glaring difference between this and Heller.

    Heller "does not cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions......"

    In this case, and several cited cases, that seems to have shifted to "longstanding" regulations.

    I intend to review specifically the cases cited by this court wrt that specific wordplay. If they were referring to Heller to use as background, why do they not cite the wording of Heller properly for that specific?
    Last edited by wrightme; 10-04-2011 at 06:18 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  6. #6
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164
    Do you feel that the whole tone of this ruling is diametrical to the tone of Heller also?

    Is this a demonstration of "strict scrutiny" as opposed to "intermediate scrutiny" (page 20)?
    Last edited by okboomer; 10-04-2011 at 03:29 PM.
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  7. #7
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164
    4. Assault Weapons and Large-Capacity Magazines

    b. Intermediate scrutiny is appropriate
    ...
    Here, too, the prohibition of semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines does not effectively disarm individuals or substantially affect their ability to defend themselves.


    Did they just open the door on state or local regulation of semi-auto rifles such as AR-15?

    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    This reminds me of "the scientific method" versus "the creationist method" comic. Except instead of a copy of Genesis, the guy on the right has a copy of the Brady Campaign handbook, and it's titled "The gun control method".

    In other words, the majority opinion appears to have started from their desired outcome and worked backwards, then did a bit of handwaving in the middle where things didn't exactly mesh (e.g. "yeah, so they're 100% common use weapons... uh, still banning them is okay!").

    Hopefully the SC will take this one up and we can get a meaningful next step.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Sometimes I think judges make things far more complicated than necessary simply to provide employment for their lawyer offspring.

    How difficult would it have been for the Supreme court to say, "X infringes on the right to keep and bear arms and is therefore un-Constitutional."
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    I am only part-way through my first reading of the opinion, but am pausing to note that the Court makes consistent and repeated reference to "self defense" and "hunting" when citing the uses for firearms, and only tangentially has made an extremely limited reference to "sporting" use - and then completely ignores such sporting use as the recreational event commonly known as "three-gun" shooting, or the recreational event of "high power" marksmanship using long guns (or anologs of those long guns) previously or currently in use by the military. It is as if the Court is consciously attempting to narrow the field to "self defense" and "hunting" so that, among all other things, it can say that since there is no hunting that takes place in DC the rule against "assault weapons" is facially valid.

    Have others noticed this? Do others reach the same conclusion?

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    skid, I have noticed the same thing. The portions I have read so far, read as if the court reached a decision, THEN went out and picked the information they felt supported the decision, and ignored the exculpatory information. (if that is the correct term and usage).

    THe parts that do not support the decision are either ignored, minimized, or word-gamed to make it look supporting. Similar to the "'longstanding' regulation" vs the true "longstanding prohibition."

    The proper cite is "longstanding prohibition," yet the court cut/pastes "longstanding" and "regulation" out of context to support their viewpoint.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  12. #12
    Regular Member paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,448
    Am I correct that a paraphrasing of this is:

    "Since the government and the courts have a LONGSTANDING tradition of infringing the Second Amendment, then such infringement is considered Constitutional and proper."

    Man I hate complicated legalese!
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Yep.

    SCOTUS, in Heller, stated that the Heller decision did not "cast doubt" upon some existing regulations. The courts seem to liberally reinterpret that to be analogous to "the Heller decision supports existing regulations."

    Quite the stretch if you ask me.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  14. #14
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    Yep.

    SCOTUS, in Heller, stated that the Heller decision did not "cast doubt" upon some existing regulations. The courts seem to liberally reinterpret that to be analogous to "the Heller decision supports existing regulations."

    Quite the stretch if you ask me.
    Forgive me, any time I see someone talk about this part of the Heller decision, I always try to fill in the extremely important blanks.

    Here is the full quote:

    "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26"

    Note the all-important footnote, 26, which states:

    "26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive."

    What this means is that not only did Heller not state that these prohibitions pass constitutional muster, but they explicitly stated (by using the word "presumptively") that they did not even consider the matter. At all!

    As is almost always the case in complex court cases, only the issues at the very core of the matter are considered. This nearly universally misunderstood part of Heller is the fictitious "gas" that the anti-gun crowd is running on, but unfortunately, what many of the lower anti-gun courts are also basing their flawed opinions on as well.

    I want to know how long before these horribly incorrect opinions make their way back up to the SCOTUS for some serious slap-downs.

    TFred

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    Forgive me
    TFred
    No forgiveness necessary, thank you for the clarity.

    I posted the little bit from memory, and did not take the time to present the full quote or analysis.


    But, yes. They didn't review existing regulations, but only mentioned that the Heller decision did not break all existing regulations in one swell foop. Darn it.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  16. #16
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002 View Post
    Am I correct that a paraphrasing of this is:

    "Since the government and the courts have a LONGSTANDING tradition of infringing the Second Amendment, then such infringement is considered Constitutional and proper."

    Man I hate complicated legalese!
    What it means is that the goverment and courts are slowly taking away your rights as to not let you notice they are being taken away. Eventually it will get to the point the goverment declares martial law and becomes a dictatership. Might not be in my life time but will be in the next 100 years or so. The 2A was written so that the average citizen could not only protect themselves and their family from harm but to protect it from the goverment it self. If the goverment can over power it's citizens then it can become a dictatership. Eventually the average american will be facing a goverment armed with the latest AUTOMATIC weapons (paid for by the taxpayer) and force the citizens to bow to them. It will be like the goverment having a tank and the citizen a single shot musket.

  17. #17
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164
    Skid,

    Now, I have seen you chastise folks for seeing conspiracies behind every tree and rock

    But, yes, the deliberate exclusion of any valid use of mil-spec civilian rifles is still sticking in my craw.

    And, I was quite annoyed at the response to the dissent where Ginsburg basically dismissed the citation of the Heller decision in support of striking down parts of the DC registration.
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  18. #18
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    As is almost always the case in complex court cases, only the issues at the very core of the matter are considered. This nearly universally misunderstood part of Heller is the fictitious "gas" that the anti-gun crowd is running on, but unfortunately, what many of the lower anti-gun courts are also basing their flawed opinions on as well.

    I want to know how long before these horribly incorrect opinions make their way back up to the SCOTUS for some serious slap-downs.

    TFred
    As always, with these cases, the devil is in the details.

    Excellent summary.

    Thx!

Posting Permissions

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