Heller Part II

[WKC]

Link from Volokh

The Volokh Conspiracy - Heller II suit is filed:

Heller is suing DC... again.

[David Kopel]
Heller II suit is filed: On Monday, **** Heller and two other plaintiffs filed suits against the District of Columbia's revised gun laws. The complaint challenges the following provisions of D.C. law:

The ban on all self-loading handguns (about 3/4 of handguns sold in the U.S.) by defining them as "machine guns."

Allowing registration only upon the payment of an unspecified fee for ballistic testing of the handgun.

The self-defense provision in the D.C. law allows guns in the home to loaded, unlocked, and rendered functional only "while it is being used to protect against a reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm to a person within the registrant’s home." The exception is too narrow, and burdens the right of self-defense.

The aforesaid provisions are not only violations of the Second Amendment, they exceed the non-infinite home rule powers which Congress delegated to the District's city council.

There are some other problems with the new D.C. law. Handgun possession is allowed only for a person who wants the handgun for home defense; it is illegal in D.C. to acquire a handgun for recreational target shooting, to practice marksmanship before enrolling in the military or joining a police department, or for lawful hunting Maryland or Virginia. The only time that a gun can be unlocked is when it being used for self-defense against an immediate attack; accordingly, it is illegal to remove the lock from an unloaded gun in order to clean the gun. The problem would be resolved by the requested relief of enjoining all enforcement of the gun lock law against defensive firearms.

Attorneys in the case are Stephen Halbrook and Richard Gardiner, of Fairfax, Virginia. They both been involved in firearms law and policy for three decades, and they are excellent lawyers. Halbrook has a 4-0 record as lead counsel in Supreme Court cases.

[sealbeach]

I have read several of the lead attorney's books, Stephen Halbrook will beat them like a drum...astounds me how much taxpayer money the politicos in DC want to keep pissing away. They even bleat pitifully, "we have a right to be safe!" as they keep guns from law abiding citizens, total morons.

Hey, isnt that the city where the mayor got convicted of some fairly serious drug charges, and still managed to get re-elected? Marion Barry IIRC????

[gr8fatman]

OK, I've never claimed to be the sharpest tool in the shed. But could this suit eventually have implications on our roster of approved handguns?

[spc]

Originally Posted by gr8fatman

OK, I've never claimed to be the sharpest tool in the shed. But could this suit eventually have implications on our roster of approved handguns?

I like where your thoughts are taking this one.

spc

[RomanDad]

Originally Posted by gr8fatman

OK, I've never claimed to be the sharpest tool in the shed. But could this suit eventually have implications on our roster of approved handguns?

Could.... But wont.

This wont get past the District Court.

[Bombard]

Originally Posted by RomanDad

Could.... But wont.

This wont get past the District Court.

Of course the District court will hold for Mr. Heller, but the circuit court held for him last time, it was the city that appealed. You don't think they'll appeal it again, at least to the circuit? I agree the SC won't grant cert.

[RomanDad]

Originally Posted by Bombard

Of course the District court will hold for Mr. Heller, but the circuit court held for him last time, it was the city that appealed. You don't think they'll appeal it again, at least to the circuit? I agree the SC won't grant cert.

Theres no issue here. The Court has already ruled.... Appeals will simply be denied.

[tango-52]

Originally Posted by RomanDad

Theres no issue here. The Court has already ruled.... Appeals will simply be denied.

It would be nice to see the Mayor held personally responsible for violation of Heller's constitutional rights and fined a million bucks or so.

[cksh8me]

The first case hopefully is going to go a long way towards cleaning up the California gun laws. I think you will see an end to the 10 mag limit, AW ban and the handgun roster.

There are things in the works that could help in the CCW process too.

Time will tell but within the next 90 days some good news might be headed our way.

[OCRancher]

Originally Posted by cksh8me

The first case hopefully is going to go a long way towards cleaning up the California gun laws. I think you will see an end to the 10 mag limit, AW ban and the handgun roster.

There are things in the works that could help in the CCW process too.

Time will tell but within the next 90 days some good news might be headed our way.

Knowing our artful state legislature, they will just modify the bans, causing us to chase them around in court to get them into compliance. And this is AFTER, and IF, we get incorporation, which is still out there 6-18 mos for Calif. I see the handgun roster possibly being modified, but the 10 rd mag, not going away. AW? Maybe.

[RomanDad]

Originally Posted by cksh8me

The first case hopefully is going to go a long way towards cleaning up the California gun laws. I think you will see an end to the 10 mag limit, AW ban and the handgun roster.

There are things in the works that could help in the CCW process too.

Time will tell but within the next 90 days some good news might be headed our way.

I actually dont think the Handgun roster or the mag capacity limit is going away. There is a distinction between the DC Magazine law and ours.... They say you cant own a gun that MIGHT, HYPOTHETICALLY be able to hold more than 12 rounds (calling them "Machine Guns" ). Which means you cant own ANY of the MOST POPULAR GUNS MADE TODAY.... (clearly violative of Heller).

Ours simply say you cant sell a Mag over ten rounds, and that a handgun has to pass a fairly REASONABLE (for now at least) safety test and I don't see the Courts getting involved in that, as there are LOTS and LOTS of guns one can own from dozens of makes representing every type from single action revolvers to modern semi autos... I think both would survive a "Strict Scrutiny" challenge.

I cant say the same for The Assault weapon ban or our CCW law.

[OCRancher]

RD, I may have to disagree on the roster issue. There is an artful argument in the Chicago case over the fees issue. A bit of wrangling may allow an argument that punitive actions such as high fees associated with manufacturers getting their guns tested and approved might be the same burdensome requirement. Then again, look at who we would have to appeal to if this argument had to go very far. Just a thought.

[RomanDad]

Originally Posted by OCRancher

RD, I may have to disagree on the roster issue. There is an artful argument in the Chicago case over the fees issue. A bit of wrangling may allow an argument that punitive actions such as high fees associated with manufacturers getting their guns tested and approved might be the same burdensome requirement. Then again, look at who we would have to appeal to if this argument had to go very far. Just a thought.

But do we have "HIGH FEES" associated with the testing??? Its $200 per model per year... That doesn't exactly "shock the consciousness" when one considers the profit from the sale of those guns in California. And even if the Court were to find THAT provision to be troublesome, I suspect they would simply make it a one time fee (for the actual test) and then remove the fee for future years while retaining the safety standards.

[Bombard]

Plus about $3-6000 to get on the roster to begin with.

While it seems small enough, there are many manufacturers that are not selling their guns in CA because of the hurdle of the testing process. Their guns would pass the "safety test," but the cost is great enough to effectively discourage them from applying.

[THE Gimper]

Originally Posted by Bombard

Plus about $3-6000 to get on the roster to begin with.

While it seems small enough, there are many manufacturers that are not selling their guns in CA because of the hurdle of the testing process. Their guns would pass the "safety test," but the cost is great enough to effectively discourage them from applying.

Also, since CA requires certain features (such as magazine release safety) it requires that manufacturers either a) spend extra money to design in that feature that wouldn't otherwise be necessary, or b) spend extra money to design a California version of the gun specifically to meet the requirement.