You have to hand it to Washington DC Mayor, Adrian Fenty, There are not too many people can be so arrogant as to get themselves sued by the same person, for the same reasons in just over a month.

This is my latest article for Buckeye Firearms, dealing with the fact Dick Heller is now having to sue the city of Washington DC again to get them to obey the United States Supreme Court. The new suit does take on some new issues such as a the limitless licensing fee in DC as well. A link to the lawsuit complaint is within the text of the story, so you can read every detail of it for yourself. Feel free to share the link with family and friends.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/5881

You have to wonder if D.C. is hating the guys last name by now.

"Oh Hell, its Heller again!"

Just a thought, hopefully this will show D.C.

The Heller I started the snowball rolling. Now it's up to other plaintiff (or in this case, the same plaintiff) in more lawsuits, to turn it into an avalanche.

I don't understand it. When the city failed to comply with the injunction, the normal thing to do would be to file a motion for a rule to show cause why the city should not be held in contempt of court within the context of the original case. Why is there a whole new suit? What's the point of suing out an injunction if you're not going to ask the court to enforce it?

These DC officials are UNAMERICAN. They are fighting against the Constitution. MAYBE, they had a foot to stand on before the Heller decision, but not today. They are as bad as slave owners who tried to keep their slaves after emacipation. They should lose their citizenship and be jailed.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
The Heller I started the snowball rolling. Now it's up to other plaintiff (or in this case, the same plaintiff) in more lawsuits, to turn it into an avalanche.

I had basically the same question. Why is D.C. just not being forced to uphold the law? Since when did D.C. become the deciding authority on who can and cannot own handguns? I hope he sues the shit out of them. I also find it extremely ironic that the city that is the capital of our land is allowed to break the law and basically get away with it.

whats the issue with DC now? i'd heard something about them sorta underhandedly ignoring the supreme court ruling, but i don't know what it was specifically that they did. anybody got a link to something that can explain it?

quote:

Originally posted by ripp:
whats the issue with DC now? i'd heard something about them sorta underhandedly ignoring the supreme court ruling, but i don't know what it was specifically that they did. anybody got a link to something that can explain it?

The short answer is that they still refused Heller's request to register his gun. Longer answer is their revised law is still quite clearly in violation of supreme court decision.

Note, I really suggest joining the NRA or GOA or similar local state group. It would seem highly unlikely that you would not have gotten multiple updates on the status of this.

I don't intend this comment to mean that there is really anything wrong with your question, just pointing out that if you enjoy your right to self defense that it would appear that you may not be doing as much as perhaps is wise to defend it.

http://www.gunowners.org/a072808.htm
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=11372

I would think that ultimately someone should find that a fee imposed by a government entity to exercise a constitutional right is itself unconstitutional

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
I would think that ultimately someone should find that a fee imposed by a government entity to exercise a constitutional right is itself unconstitutional

See Murdock v. Pennsylvania

http://www.constitution.org/ussc/319-105a.htm

"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution."

Is the right to free speech a constitutional right? Well, if you want to hold a protest in NYC you need to have a permit. To get a permit you need to pay a fee.

Constitutional rights are not absolute

quote:

"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution."

this is the problem right there

its not the federal constitution, its the citizens constitution imposed on the government

the constitution doesn't grant rights, it gave restrictions on what the feds may do and made clear things that were off limits to federal meddling

again, the fees should be found unconstitutional