Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Subdeacon Joe

Heller v. DC, round two.

Recommended Posts

Joe, could ya give a brief synopsis for those of us at work who only have moments to peek at the wire...? :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like a translation, I don't understand legalese talk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Appeals Court for the District of Columbia held that, yes, in spite of Heller and McDonald, Washington City can require registration of semi-auto hand guns and rifles. Also ban design capacity magazines. Decision split 2-1.

 

Kavanaugh, in his dissenting opinion, said that the DC registration and other requirements are unconstitutional because they go against the words, history, and traditions of our founding documents and our Republic.

 

Kind of hard for me to abstract it. Too much meat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
III. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the district court with respect, first, to the requirement of mere registration as applied to handguns and expressed in D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.01(a) and 7-2502.03(B), and second, to the ban on “assault weapons” and large-capacity magazines, as they are defined in §§ 7-2502.02(a)(6), 7-2501.01(3A)(A)(i)(I), (IV), and 7-2506.01(B). With respect to the registration requirements in §§ 7-2502.03(a)(10), 7-2502.03(a)(11), 7-2502.03(a)(13)(A), 7-2502.03(d), 7-2502.03(e), 7-2502.04, and 7-2502.07a, and all the registration requirements (including §§ 7-2502.01(a) and 7-2502.03(B)) as applied to long guns, see Part II.B.3.c, the judgment is vacated and this matter is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

So ordered.

 

Basically the Appellate court has ruled in favor of the District Court, upholding the registration of handguns and the ban on assault rifles and hi cap magazines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like another case to get moved up the street so The Supremes can re-affirm what they did last year.

 

These danged people just don't get it. 2A means what it says.

 

Yep. We keep being told to meet the antis half way, be reasonable. So we give in a bit, compromise our base position of "shall not be infringed." Maybe we don't meet them half way, but give them 25% of what they claim they want. For now. So, the field is now 75 yards rather than 100 yards. More anti-civil rights laws are proposed. We fight them. Get whined at about "reasonable gun laws to keep children safe and aren't we in favor of that? Meet us half way!" So again we compromise and give them 25% of what they want. Field is now just a touch over 56 yards long now, with the missing 44 yards ceded to the antis. And again, "reasonable gun laws" are proposed. And again, we give them 25% of what they demand. Field is down to about 42 yards, and the antis have almost 2/3 of everything they wanted from the start. So, in a historically short time, without giving them everything they want at any one time, we have quietly ceded to them almost all of their original demands.

 

That is why some of us, especially in states like CA, fight like the devil against ANY encroachment. Think of all the bad-mouthing that CA gets from gun owners in other states about how bad things are and how they are slowly getting worse, why don't we move. Well, we see it, the incrementalism happening here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We keep being told to meet the antis half way, be reasonable. So we give in a bit, compromise our base position of "shall not be infringed."

 

Their idea of compromise is to do it their way.

 

You cannot compromise with evil.

 

To try invites disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your points about "being reasonable" and "compromise" is well taken. I think part of the reason no Republician candidate for Prez has really taken the lead is they don't understand conservatives are tired of losing our rights and being taxed to death by being reasonable and compromising with the libs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like another case to get moved up the street so The Supremes can re-affirm what they did last year.

 

These danged people just don't get it. 2A means what it says.

 

I have a gut feeling that SCOTUS would not rule on this case.

I hope I'm wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a gut feeling that SCOTUS would not rule on this case.

I hope I'm wrong.

 

 

Actually, UB - it might be a blessing if they did not accept it. The alternative is that they will take it...and possibly decide that registration, an "assault weapons" ban, maximum 10 round magazines and 1 gun per 30 days are reasonable restrictions that do not substantially infringe on the 2nd.

 

The Appeals Court started out quoting the same Heller language that I referred to in another thread earlier this week - that the RKBA is not an unlimited right, and that certain long-standing historical restrictions demonstrate those limitations - but are not the totality of permissible limitations.

 

Hold on, boys; it's going to be a rough ride.

 

LL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, UB - it might be a blessing if they did not accept it. The alternative is that they will take it...and possibly decide that registration, an "assault weapons" ban, maximum 10 round magazines and 1 gun per 30 days are reasonable restrictions that do not substantially infringe on the 2nd.

 

The Appeals Court started out quoting the same Heller language that I referred to in another thread earlier this week - that the RKBA is not an unlimited right, and that certain long-standing historical restrictions demonstrate those limitations - but are not the totality of permissible limitations.

 

Hold on, boys; it's going to be a rough ride.

 

LL

 

Yeah. You need to be careful what you wish for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, UB - it might be a blessing if they did not accept it. The alternative is that they will take it...and possibly decide that registration, an "assault weapons" ban, maximum 10 round magazines and 1 gun per 30 days are reasonable restrictions that do not substantially infringe on the 2nd.

 

The Appeals Court started out quoting the same Heller language that I referred to in another thread earlier this week - that the RKBA is not an unlimited right, and that certain long-standing historical restrictions demonstrate those limitations - but are not the totality of permissible limitations.

 

Hold on, boys; it's going to be a rough ride.

 

LL

 

That is way, even with Heller and McDonald affirming an individual RKBA, there have not been blanket suits in CA to wipe the "reasonable" gun laws off the books. Need to find the right cases and present them in the right order so as to lay a solid foundation. You don't start building a brick wall at the top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. You need to be careful what you wish for.

 

That's the truth. With the court currently made up of 4 conservatives and 4 liberal judges, it would all depend upon Justice Kennedy who often finds himself the "swingman." I (and this is just my personal opinion) find Justice Kennedy relishes his role as the deciding vote and often writes some concurring opinion (making the decision often worthless since it provides no clear majority) with some great "test" without explanation or instructions of how to apply "his test." This leads to more litigation and more muddy waters.

 

This I know from current experience as I'm handling a Clean Water Act case in which Justice Kennedy did just that. So, we continue to fight over the same things and Circuit courts continue to give out conflicting opinions because they (the Supremes) didn't do the job right the first time.

 

Just my view from the saddle on this one.

 

Chick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fear that battle will continue for some time to come.

 

It's one that will never end - always will have anti-gun schmucks fightin' against our right :angry:

 

So....WE keep up the fight and never waiver pards!!!!

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your points about "being reasonable" and "compromise" is well taken. I think part of the reason no Republician candidate for Prez has really taken the lead is they don't understand conservatives are tired of losing our rights and being taxed to death by being reasonable and compromising with the libs.

===================================================

I have no use for "reasonable", AKA moderate Republicans, who are nothing but Lite Democrats. They are like the "country club Republicans" and "Rockefeller Republicans" of the '60's and '70's, who kept compromising in the name of being "reasonable" until they had nothing left and the Democrats had everything they wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

===================================================

I have no use for "reasonable", AKA moderate Republicans, who are nothing but Lite Democrats. They are like the "country club Republicans" and "Rockefeller Republicans" of the '60's and '70's, who kept compromising in the name of being "reasonable" until they had nothing left and the Democrats had everything they wanted.

 

 

Yup - them ole 'RINO's'

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.