Ammo For Sale

« « Chicks and guns | Home | Here comes the assault weapons ban » »

Parker/Heller update

Seems DC is a bit spooked and is asking the SCOTUS for only a limited ruling:

The District of Columbia government on Tuesday urged the Supreme Court to address only a single issue, if it agrees to hear the city’s appeal seeking to reinstate its flat ban on private possession of handguns.  In a reply brief, found here, city officials contended that the only issue the Court need decide is the meaning of the Second Amendment as it applies directly to the city’s specific ban on pistols.  This would involve an inquiry aimed at what the Amendment’s words mean, “construed in light of their history, purpose, and place in this Nation’s tradition.”

Seems they’re a bit scared because their other gun laws being challenged (i.e., a shotgun/rifle must be disassembled thereby rendering it useless if you need it) would easily be defeated.

Meanwhile, The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership bleats about how everyone is wrong but them. Recall, The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership tried to talk DC out of pressing the appeal likely because they knew they’d lose.

8 Responses to “Parker/Heller update”

  1. _Jon Says:

    Hmmm, there’s one prediction coming true…

  2. Carl Donath Says:

    Thing is, the way DC has phrased the appeal really does look like they’ve given up on retaining the “functional firearm ban” – yet keep talking like it’s in effect. They haven’t asked SCOTUS, directly or indirectly, to retain that ban. …but since the lower court overturned that law, it’s not in place unless SCOTUS specifically reverses that decision.

    DC’s lawyers are not fools. My only guess is they are playing vague at this point so they can pull a fast one during oral arguments. What that plan specifically is I cannot guess.

  3. Standard Mischief Says:

    From the pdf (emphasis mine):

    …Second, the District does not in fact ban all “functional” firearms. As the petition explains, District residents may use lawfully registered rifles and shotguns in self-defense. Pet. 7 n.2, 28. Heller misreads D.C. Code § 7-2507.02, which prescribes how a gun registrant “shall keep any firearm in his possession” under normal circumstances, but says nothing about use during an emergency..The section merely requires firearms kept at home to be kept safely—for instance, with a trigger lock, a mechanism that, like a password on a computer, allows the owner access in time of need. As reflected by the fact that the District’s Council enacted this requirement secure in the knowledge that “locked guns can be ready for use in under a minute”

    Man, I am so fucking sick of this robe sniffing.

    Well, when seconds count. your self-defense firearm, thanks to the DC guvmint, is less than a minute away.

    Here’s the actual law:

    § 7-2507.02. Firearms required to be unloaded and disassembled or locked [Formerly § 6-2372].

    Except for law enforcement personnel described in § 7-2502.01(b)(1), each registrant shall keep any firearm in his possession unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless such firearm is kept at his place of business, or while being used for lawful recreational purposes within the District of Columbia.

    I don’t see any exceptions for use during an emergency, but hey, next time Mayor Adrian Fenty or D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier declare a “crime emergency”, those poor oppressed souls will know that they can reassemble and load their firearms.

    What I want to know is what are the “lawful recreational purposes within the District of Columbia”? When does deer season open in Rock Creek? Pigeon hunting in Lafayette Park?

  4. Joe Mama Says:

    “…but hey, next time Mayor Adrian Fenty or D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier declare a “crime emergency”, those poor oppressed souls will know that they can reassemble and load their firearms.”

    I think they’ll just confiscate them ala Katrina.

  5. PN NJ Says:

    Go see what Robb Allen dug up about DC gun laws:

    Also, check out the comments and amicus briefs at this site:

  6. Hemlock Says:

    Thanks for the links PN NJ. The bottom one helped me to
    understand a few things I was foggy on.

  7. Gildas Says:

    You should check out the comments on those SCOTUS Blog threads about this case. Its nice to see the number of commenters – helps get those establishment lawyer types to understand why this case is going to be the most high profile case of the term, which I don’t think they quite realize.

    However, people should remember that we are dealing with big city establishment lawyers there – some of the comments are way into ‘scaring whitey’ territory, which win or lose does not help the cause.

  8. Draven Says:

    I know why they are asking the SCOTUS for a ‘focused’ decision- because they are getting phone calls from the Mayors of New York, Chicago, and all over CA begging them to do so- they realize that if the decision goes against them, and the decision is not focused and specific, that will open the door for gun laws all over the country to get struck down. That, and I’ve heard from little birdies that the attorneys involved are already cruising for clients in Daleyland….

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges