NRA files suit against D.C. semi-auto handgun ban

[ericire12]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/29/heller-others-challenge-semi-automatic-ban/

Three D.C. residents backed by one of the country's most influential pro-gun organizations Monday filed a challenge to the District's ban on semi-automatic handguns. The plaintiffs said city officials are flouting a recent Supreme Court decision that struck down the city's 32-year-old gun ban.

Lead attorney Stephen P. Halbrook and the National Rifle Association, which is financing the case, say the District's definition of a machine gun is too vague and unfairly prohibits residents from using the guns for home defense.

"D.C. has stuck to its position that semi-automatic guns are machine guns," Mr. Halbrook said. "It's a crazy definition of machine gun."

The plaintiffs in the case, filed in U.S. District Court, include Dick Anthony Heller, the respondent in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller that addressed the city's ban.

The others are Amy McVey, the first D.C. resident to register a handgun after the ban was struck down, and Absalom F. Jordan Jordan Jr., a plaintiff in Seegars v. Ashcroft. The case challenged the Justice Department on the gun ban at about the time Mr. Heller was involved with the lower court Parker v. District case in 2003.

Gun rights advocates pounced immediately on the District's law against semi-automatic handguns after the June 26 ruling by the Supreme Court.

The city's law defines a machine gun as "any firearm which shoots automatically or semiautomatically more than 12 shots without reloading."

The definition prohibits the majority of semi-automatic handguns regardless of how many rounds they are designed to hold because they can theoretically hold modified higher-capacity magazines.

Gun advocates say the District should revise the definition to use wording closer to the federal definition of a machine gun, which requires a gun to be capable of firing more than one shot with a single trigger pull.

D.C. interim Attorney General Peter J. Nickles said he expected the lawsuit but thinks the District's definition of a machine gun is acceptable and intends to fight the challenge.

"I don't think you can satisfy the Heller folks unless you have a law or regulation that says you can keep a loaded handgun in your home at all times," he said.

NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanadam said restrictions on handguns leave residents at a disadvantage and will not prevent crime.

"The biggest losers are the law-abiding residents of the District of Columbia," he said. "The laws are not going to stop the criminals."

D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson, at-large Democrat, introduced bare-bones emergency legislation July 1 to outline the District's new rules on registering handguns. The council passed a heftier, updated version July 15, and gun registration began two days later. That bill is in effect for 90 days while the council works on permanent legislation.

Mendelson spokesman Jason Shedlock said Mr. Mendelson reviewed the complaint and intends to address concerns about the District's gun laws when the council returns from recess in September. However, he still has the option to convene a special session of the council's public-safety committee.

"It raises a number of important points that he wants to address quickly over the next few months," Mr. Shedlock said. "The emergency legislation was not meant to be comprehensive. It was meant as a stopgap."

The plaintiffs are also challenging the rule that allows the chief of police to set the cost of registration, which Mr. Halbrook says improperly gives the chief power over who is allowed to exercise their Second Amendment right.

The complaint also challenges the District's safe-storage provisions that require handguns to be disassembled or trigger locked and unloaded until they are being used against a "threat of immediate harm." Gun advocacy groups say the provision leaves residents susceptible to attack while they are trying to prepare their weapons.

[wisconsin]

And so it continues

[Rob10ring]

The NRA is ferocious right now. This could have even more impact for the rest of us, if the courts have to start looking at just what Heller means. YEAH!

[Rastus]

On a different thread I stated that laws and court decisions mean nothing to liberals if they do not like them.  We know this is true.  If the people in power can pick and choose what laws and decisions they follow then what good are those laws and decisions?....does someone else have to answer that for you or will you use your head? 

Why do some people start bragging that the war is won when, in fact, it is not over.

It is a childish fantasy to believe some law or decision now has you covered.  The fight is on...

If you believe you are now somehow protected because of a law or decision you are not using your head.  The people in power will still do what they want if their bluff is not called.  Just because a battle was won the war is not over...get up before you die.

We are dealing with lying liberal fascist leaders that need to be stopped.  And you need to help.  Support the NRA or some other 2nd Ammendment organization today.  Shooting ranges and local bubba gun clubs don't really count...dig deep and get the fishhooks out of your pockets.  We need to meet the challenge straight-on, heads up, and right now!

[tombogan03884]

NH has article 10 in its State constitution. The right of the people to use armed force to remove corrupt or oppressive government.In other words we can LEGALLY drag them out of office at gun point 

[Sponsor]

[Solus]

NH has article 10 in its State constitution. The right of the people to use armed force to remove corrupt or oppressive government.In other words we can LEGALLY drag them out of office at gun point 

Does it include a definition of corrupt and what process in followed to declare them corrupt?

I love the sound of that provision but wonder if it can be used effectively?

Looking up the article now.

[Solus]

NH Constitution Article 10

Article 10. Right of Revolution

New Hampshire is the only state besides Kentucky which provides for a "Right of Revolution" in its state constitution. The Right of Revolution is a right dating back to the Revolutionary War, and is held in high regard in New Hampshire by members of the libertarian Free State Project. Part I., Article 10 reads:

“    Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."



A lot os "zen" in there.... I'd imagine any action would require the cooperation of the State Police and National  Guard...but if it was as bad as it would have to be for the article to apply, they probably would assist...at least the rand and file would.

[tombogan03884]

NH Constitution Article 10

Article 10. Right of Revolution

New Hampshire is the only state besides Kentucky which provides for a "Right of Revolution" in its state constitution. The Right of Revolution is a right dating back to the Revolutionary War, and is held in high regard in New Hampshire by members of the libertarian Free State Project. Part I., Article 10 reads:

“    Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."



A lot os "zen" in there.... I'd imagine any action would require the cooperation of the State Police and National  Guard...but if it was as bad as it would have to be for the article to apply, they probably would assist...at least the rand and file would.

I imagine you would need to be able to point to specific articles and clauses of State and federal Constitutions that had been violated, not just that we are being taken over by a bunch of stinking liberals to defend that action.

[SwoopSJ]

New Hampshire is the only state besides Kentucky which provides for a "Right of Revolution" in its state constitution.

Ahhh... sometimes its good to be a "hillbilly". 

Swoop

[tt11758]

Scuse me, but I seem to remember a "machinegun" being a fully automatic weapon that fires RIFLE rounds.  At worst, a weapon that fires handgun cartridges would be a "SUB-machinegun", and then must be FULLY automatic, at that!

What a bunch of flippin' idiots in that town!!