Heller vs. DC - no end in sight.
 

Lawsuit Claims Gun Rules Violate Supreme Court Ruling

By Del Quentin Wilber
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 28, 2008; 12:37 PM


The man who successfully challenged the D.C. handgun ban before the Supreme Court filed a new federal lawsuit this morning, alleging that the District's new gun regulations are unlawful and burdensome.

Dick A. Heller and two other plaintiffs alleged in the lawsuit that the D.C. government violated the letter and the spirit of the recent Supreme Court decision that struck down the District's decades-old handgun ban.

Saying that the new regulations illegally prohibit ownership of semi-automatic pistols and require an arbitrary fee, the lawsuit also claimed that the law established requirements that would make it impossible for people to defend themselves in their homes.

The new regulations require handgun owners to keep the weapons unloaded and either disassembled or secured by a trigger lock at home -- rules that flout the recent Supreme Court decision, said Heller's attorney, Stephen P. Halbrook.

"Under the D.C. [law], a robber has to make an appointment with you so you can get your gun ready for him," Halbrook said in an interview.

No court date has been set. Heller registered a revolver with the District on July 18. He wanted to register a semi-automatic Colt, but he was denied a license because D.C. police said they considered the weapon to be a machine gun, the suit alleged.

Under the D.C. law, semi-automatic pistols capable of shooting more than 12 shots without reloading are considered machine guns. The suit said such a definition "is contrary to the ordinary usage of those terms in the English language and in the laws of the United States."

D.C. officials were not immediately available for comment.

Wow, I didn't know that I even had the option of a semi-auto, much less one that can shoot up to 12 shots. :)

Seriously, Mayor Fenty should stop acting like a petulant school girl and put in place rules that satisty the letter and spirit of the Supremes' decision on Heller.

And if the SCOTUS overturns this ban/interpretation too (in another few years) DC will simply ignore THAT ruling and try a different tack. They'll do this ad nauseum until the SCOTUS simply says "no restrictions", or spells out exactly what constitutes "reasonable restrictions" in black-and-white (they won't).

So the long story short is that government is no longer accountable to the law OR to the will of the people. Very nice.

I think they teach you on the first day of law school that there's no such thing as accepting defeat. Especially accepting it gracefully.

Ironic that Washington D.C. is in violation of law defined by the U.S. Supreme Court. ****** children, just amazing.

Don't forget Chicago.

Daley has said many times over the past few weeks that he has no intention of complying with the Heller ruling.

Does the SCOTUS have the power to find DC in contempt? How can they get away with this? Why is there no enforcement mechanism? The mayor should sit in jail with no bond or bail until he complies cheerfully with the letter and spirit of the ruling he LOST.

I'm not the least bit surprised.

There will (I suspect) be no change in the People's Republic of Commie-fornia either. The draconian and stupid restrictions will remain in place forever.

they don't seem to be able to stop ' safe haven cities' from doing what they want, so this will be no different.
You can't make me..na, na, na,

Rika

Funny, these are mostly the same cities...

Has anyone filed suit in chicago yet?

Yes, the NRA and ISRA are both suing the City of Chicago. I expect that to take at least 10 years.

Meanwhile, most of Chicago's suburbs with gun bans have repealed them. Last night, Morton Grove voted 5-1 to repeal its handgun ban.

I was listening to WBBM last night when one of their reporters was interviewing one of Morton Grove's village council members. Below is my paraphrased recollection.

Reporter: "Why did you think repealing the ban was a good idea?"

Council Member: "I don't own guns and will never own guns, but I don't see how we can tell other people they can't own guns...."

Reporter: "But you will consider replacing the ban, right?"

Council Member: "It's possible, but we don't have anything drafted yet."

Seems to me the reporter was trying to steer the conversation in the direction of "the NRA forced our hand but we will enact as much regulation as possible".

This is the LAW. Typically those who don't comply with the LAW get their asses thrown in jail. Why are mayors exempt?

That's a damn good question.

Because they're part of the political good-ole-boy club.

You should know this by now - one set of rules for those in the club, another set of rules for everyone else.

They go after mayors for drug use and corruption/racketeering charges. Why not flagrant violations of this sort as well? I don't understand it.

If that were the case, Gavin Newsom would have been in jail long ago.

No kidding. Especially in DC. New Orleans and DC govt seem to be fighting for the most corrupt and out of touch.

This thread displays considerable unfamiliarity with the legal process.

Well thank god we have you here to point that out.

If I was a lawyer I'd have to off myself.