Comments for Heller v. DC: Only the First Salvo

Heller v. DC: Only the First Salvo

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:19:26 -0600

As the Armorer predicted, the affirmative decision in Heller was only the first salvo in the struggle to define the Second Amendment. And, as predicted, DC is trying everything to get around it by claiming now that semi-automatic pistols are still banned. It is also revising its registration laws which the Supreme Court ruled was still legal to have, though I imagine that it will be made as strict and difficult as possible. Like their attempted parsing of the laws that equates semi-automatics with machine guns, there is likely to be all types of little restrictions, expansion of "no-gun" zones and various other restrictions that will each have to be individually challenged.

Comment from Heartless Libertarian on 2008-07-08

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:21:17 -0600

Of course, since Congress does have ultimate authority over the District, they could tell the DC city government to get bent in a couple of ways:

1-prohibit them from spending any money to defend any law prohibiting firearms ownership or imposing restrictions beyond those contained in federal law

2-limiting the DC police to using only those weapons that can be legally owned by the citizens of DC

Comment from Pat on 2008-07-08

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 13:52:47 -0600

Perhaps I'm being unduly optimistic, but for once, I think the pro gun rights side has the camel's nose under the tent. Several suits have been filed in Illinois already, that are arguing that the 2nd should be incorporated under the 14th amendment. IIRC, Morton Grove Illinois has suspended its handgun ban just on the possibility that the 2nd will be incorporated. The Volokh Conspiracy site is following this quite closely, they are a bunch of lawyers, afterall.

Comment from fdcol63 on 2008-07-08

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 12:46:56 -0600

I guess DC believes that The Founders only intended that flintlocks would be covered under the 2nd Amendment. LOL

Comment from kat-missouri on 2008-07-08

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 09:23:50 -0600

I meant to say "that is bizarrely accurate" beause too many of these people in the DC government ARE criminals.

Comment from kat-missouri on 2008-07-08

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 09:15:55 -0600

And, in all honesty, while I was interested in this case, I was also very afraid of it because, as I once noted in a long piece about laws and good society, laws do not give freedoms, they restrict them. Everytime a new law is in place, even one that is meant to affirm something, it creates an a huge list of loopholes and caveats that get exploited to reduce freedoms and rights anyway.

Everyone is always pushing for their power or their cause.

There used to be days when we had a whole lot less laws and a much more civil society. That all came down to some sense of morality and being a good neighbor. Now people think they can legislate into being what comes from civil society in the first place and was never a matter of law.

When it comes down to Heller, a law abiding, civil society that owned guns, existed long before the second amendment was ever thought of and existed for many years before any of the post gangster 1930's decisions until today. By the necessity of Heller, we will also have the restrictions because some people think they doing the right thing to stop crime when the real problem is not how many guns, but the criminals themselves. DC continues to paint all of its citizens as criminals or potential criminals with these sorts of caveats in the name of good order.

That is bizarrely accurate.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2008-07-08

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 08:08:05 -0600

Kat - you've just lined out the silver lining the Brady Campaign saw in the Heller decision.

And you've just lined out the approach they're going to take.

They're basically going to go to the courts and say "Okay, people can own a revolver and 6 bullets. A shotgun and 5 shells. And that's it."

Which will, as I read it (not a lawyer, mind you) the Heller decision would support.

Comment from BillT on 2008-07-08

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 06:01:44 -0600

Which is how pencil-pushers came to be...

Comment from Fishmugger on 2008-07-08

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 05:31:25 -0600

Kat,

The excessive use of logic for such an emotional issue will be lost on this debate. Until the voters turn out the council nothing will prevent them from following the previous set course. They were elected for many other reasons and those reasons must be reduced to offset their continued lack reality.

You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead.

Comment from ledger on 2008-07-08

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 04:27:16 -0600

I agree with most of what you have said. But, I suspect the “parsing of the laws” equates to shearing the tax payer sheep for legal fees.

High quality legal parsing doesn’t come cheap in DC.

Comment from Pat on 2008-07-08

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 01:28:47 -0600

If the choice is a revolver or no handgun, while waiting for the next round of lawsuits against D.C., I 'd take the revolver , even if it was a Chief's Special that only holds 5 rds. Despite that, Smith & Wesson does make the M686+, which is a 7 shot .357 Magnum and several variations of the M627 that can hold 8 rounds of .357 Mag. They even make several models that have a mounting rail for a flashlight. It would only make sense to have the shotgun as well, but if all you can afford is a revolver, I wouldn't feel hard done by.

Of course, up here in Canada, all of my handguns have to have some sort of trigger lock and be locked up in a safe or cabinet as well. The long guns just require one or the other, and stored loaded is a big nono.

Pat