This isn't in the news yet but it's going to be. The news is flying around the legal community here in DC.

 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the DC's gun control statutes violate the Second Amendment rights of District residents.

 

It's also a civil case, not criminal case.

What does the "Gun control statute" say? Why was it deemed unconstitutional?

I have the PDF copy of the case. It's 75 pages and I might not get a chance to read it until I get off work. Basically there are a number of different laws that affect the possesion of guns. One bans the registration of handguns with an exception for retired and current police officers, one bans the carrying of a pistol without a license, and a third requires all lawfully owned guns to be unloaded and not assembled.

 

The court ruled it a violation of the citizen's second amendment rights. The case should be hitting the news if the news media deems it worthy. But Ill try and post what I can when I can.

 

Too bad accord is in Iraq. He would be sh*tting his pants.

I have the PDF copy of the case. It's 75 pages and I might not get a chance to read it until I get off work. Basically there are a number of different laws that affect the possesion of guns. One bans the registration of handguns with an exception for retired and current police officers, one bans the carrying of a pistol without a license, and a third requires all lawfully owned guns to be unloaded and not assembled.

 

The court ruled it a violation of the citizen's second amendment rights. The case should be hitting the news if the news media deems it worthy. But Ill try and post what I can when I can.

 

Too bad accord is in Iraq. He would be sh*tting his pants.

 

I bet he's sh*tting his pants in Iraq, but not because of this decision.

I was wrong, the link I was sent was a PDF but it was online.

 

Here it is

 

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

 

 

Also, I was wrong when I characterized it as a civil case. It is moreso a case asking for declaratory judgement.

Not to get off-topic, but real quickly, is Accord in Iraq? I was under the impression he was still in boot camp.

Pretty sure he's in boot camp.

 

And I don't think anyone really thought these laws were going to stick.

The DC gun control laws are patently unconstitutional, in that it makes it basically impossible to own a gun:

 

First, you can?t own an unregistered gun.

 

Second, you can?t register a handgun that you didn?t register prior to September 24, 1976, which is a nice Catch-22.

 

Maybe you?ve somehow managed to leap these two hurdles. Maybe you thought ahead and registered a handgun back when disco was king. If so, you?ve got a gun you can keep in your home. But it must be quote ?unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock? endquote, thus rendering it utterly useless if someone breaks into your home. What you?ve got there is an expensive paperweight.

 

And as hard as it is to believe, even if you own a lawfully registered pre-1976 handgun, you cannot legally carry it from room to room within your own home without a license. The penalty for carrying a pistol in your own home without a license is imprisonment for up to one year, and a fine of up to $1,000. And you can?t get a license.

link

Cato is a conservative think tank. Find something more objective.

 

And no, there has never been a basis for striking down any gun-control law until now. Why do you think there are so many gun control laws on the books for a long time, including via federal government? This is a novel case. DC has had its laws on the books for a long time.

 

And this is not good for the city. I work in it's criminal justice system. The people who get arrested for these crimes are not the type of people you want carrying guns. This is only going to make things much worse for the city.

Cato is a conservative think tank. Find something more objective.

 

And no, there has never been a basis for striking down any gun-control law until now. Why do you think there are so many gun control laws on the books for a long time, including via federal government? This is a novel case. DC has had its laws on the books for a long time.

 

And this is not good for the city. I work in it's criminal justice system. The people who get arrested for these crimes are not the type of people you want carrying guns. This is only going to make things much worse for the city.

 

Numerous gun control laws have been struck down, and the SC ban was about as blantant a violation as possible.

 

You have to register a gun to own it. The District would not allow you to register a gun. You are not allowed to possess a gun in the form of an arm.

Cato is a conservative think tank. Find something more objective.

 

And no, there has never been a basis for striking down any gun-control law until now. Why do you think there are so many gun control laws on the books for a long time, including via federal government? This is a novel case. DC has had its laws on the books for a long time.

 

And this is not good for the city. I work in it's criminal justice system. The people who get arrested for these crimes are not the type of people you want carrying guns. This is only going to make things much worse for the city.

 

Numerous gun control laws have been struck down, and the SC ban was about as blantant a violation as possible.

 

You have to register a gun to own it. The District would not allow you to register a gun. You are not allowed to possess a gun in the form of an arm.

 

Let me be more clear. What laws have been struck down under the 2nd amendment to the Constitution? And what have been struck down by SCOTUS?

I am against any breaking down of the bill of rights any of the parts of it. Specially local, state or federal laws. I applaud this being over-turned.

Glad I live in Florida.

Cato is a conservative think tank. Find something more objective.

I have a feeling they'd take issue with that characterization, considering they're libertarian.

And in what way do you dispute their reading of the law here? Just because the people who passed the law didn't mean to do harm (jury's out on whether they did or not), doesn't mean that said law can't be unconstitutional.

Cato is a pretty well regarded think tank.

 

In the interest of honesty, I do listen to their podcast. As well as the Economist and a bunch of stuff from NPR.

Cato is a conservative think tank. Find something more objective.

 

And no, there has never been a basis for striking down any gun-control law until now. Why do you think there are so many gun control laws on the books for a long time, including via federal government? This is a novel case. DC has had its laws on the books for a long time.

 

And this is not good for the city. I work in it's criminal justice system. The people who get arrested for these crimes are not the type of people you want carrying guns. This is only going to make things much worse for the city.

 

Numerous gun control laws have been struck down, and the SC ban was about as blantant a violation as possible.

 

You have to register a gun to own it. The District would not allow you to register a gun. You are not allowed to possess a gun in the form of an arm.

 

Let me be more clear. What laws have been struck down under the 2nd amendment to the Constitution? And what have been struck down by SCOTUS?

 

SCOTUS has taken down gun laws based upon the 2nd, 5th, and 9th amendments.

 

Presser v. Illinois: "It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government"

 

Haynes v. US 390 US 85: "This was an appeal from someone convicted of violating the old NFA, failing to register a weapon in their possession. Prior to the changes to the NFA in 1968, as part of the Gun Control Act (forced in part by this case, the case was decided in Jan., the law changed in Nov.) a person was required by law to register an NFA weapon in their possession. But it was illegal to possess an unregistered weapon, the law punished you if you failed to report a gun, and punished you (or potentially did) if you did report a gun. The Supreme Court decided this arrangement violated the 5th amendment, and decided that anyone charged with violating the NFA could assert, as an absolute "

Weird ruling.