http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...AR2008072801157.html

Lawsuit Claims Gun Rules Violate Supreme Court Ruling

By Del Quentin Wilber
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 28, 2008; 12:37 PM

The man who successfully challenged the D.C. handgun ban before the Supreme Court filed a new federal lawsuit this morning, alleging that the District's new gun regulations are unlawful and burdensome.

Dick A. Heller and two other plaintiffs alleged in the lawsuit that the D.C. government violated the letter and the spirit of the recent Supreme Court decision that struck down the District's decades-old handgun ban.

Saying that the new regulations illegally prohibit ownership of semi-automatic pistols and require an arbitrary fee, the lawsuit also claimed that the law established requirements that would make it impossible for people to defend themselves in their homes.

The new regulations require handgun owners to keep the weapons unloaded and either disassembled or secured by a trigger lock at home -- rules that flout the recent Supreme Court decision, said Heller's attorney, Stephen P. Halbrook.

"Under the D.C. [law], a robber has to make an appointment with you so you can get your gun ready for him," Halbrook said in an interview.

No court date has been set. Heller registered a revolver with the District on July 18. He wanted to register a semi-automatic Colt, but he was denied a license because D.C. police said they considered the weapon to be a machine gun, the suit alleged.

Under the D.C. law, semi-automatic pistols capable of shooting more than 12 shots without reloading are considered machine guns. The suit said such a definition "is contrary to the ordinary usage of those terms in the English language and in the laws of the United States."

D.C. officials were not immediately available for comment.

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmund:
He wanted to register a semi-automatic Colt, but he was denied a license because D.C. police said they considered the weapon to be a machine gun, the suit alleged.

Under the D.C. law, semi-automatic pistols capable of shooting more than 12 shots without reloading are considered machine guns.

LMFAO!!!!! That is absolutely, positively pitiful and disgraceful, not to mention ludicrous. Lots of bad adjectives.

quote:

Originally posted by flesheatingvirus:

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmund:
He wanted to register a semi-automatic Colt, but he was denied a license because D.C. police said they considered the weapon to be a machine gun, the suit alleged.

Under the D.C. law, semi-automatic pistols capable of shooting more than 12 shots without reloading are considered machine guns.

LMFAO!!!!! That is absolutely, positively pitiful and disgraceful, not to mention ludicrous. Lots of bad adjectives.

Is this taking a turn for the surreal or, should I quickly look into getting a Class III license for my P229?

I really want to know if the D.C. police kept straight faces when they explained their position to Heller. Heller's response? "I'm on 'Candid Camera', right?"

~Tom

The stupid gungrabbers don't seem to understand that this is perfect for the gun-rights folks. We will keep winning and establishing precendent that's far more favorable than if they had acted semi-reasonably.

LOL!

Give 'em enough rope and let 'em twist.

I can't wait!! NOW we get to see those turkeys try to defend the proposition that a semi-auto (sounds like a 1911, no?) is the same thing as a machinegun. The visuals on TV should be wonderful.

Edited: Heller's pistol is a single-stack 1911, the second plaintiff tried to register a 10-shot target .22 pistol, the third plaintiff has a revolver but is suing about the requirement to keep the gun disassembled and disabled via trigger lock until she's facing an imminent threat. Their lawyer was on a radio show this evening hosted by some guy named Cam - Sirius 144.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Il Cattivo,

Actually, the lock thing isn't that much of a slam dunk. The wording of the holding indicated that the problem with the way the law was written was the lack of a self-defense exception. I don't know what to make of the semi-auto ban (as far as the law is concerned, I do know what I think of it as far as I'm concerned).

Let's go for round two.

Keep making stupid decisions, and let's keep filing lawsuits.

Let's allow the courts to "clarify" this once again.


Kevin

With any luck this will go all the way back to the Supreme Court. If by that time McCain is President (which I believe he will be) and has been able to appoint one or two strict originalist judges we will see the Second Amendment affirmed as it was originally intended.

Ridiculous. And this coming from a lifelong California resident.
DC politicians wanna duke it out with the SCOTUS. Let them try, I predict they won't get far.

Read this in the post today. DC is happy to tie this up in court for many many years. They will continue to interperate this and any other decision as they see fit until someone smacks them and makes it hurt.

I would like to see the supreme court come out and tell DC this is not what they meant but I don't think it's going to happen.

Isn't the Appeals Circuit for DC reasonably gun-friendly? Maybe some federal sanctions would get things moving.

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Hopefully it won't take too many more times before the idiot DC politicians get smacked down for contempt of court or something. Clearly they are trying to circumvent the court's ruling.

A 1911 machinegun. I wonder where I can pick one up, that sounds kinda cool.

Many local communities such as Morton Grove, IL are repealing their gun bans in light of the recent SCOUS decision:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jzuKVVghkdWlzTXGYFObkLdveT5wD9281KD80
One of the reasons is that they don't want to spend money on legal cases they don't have much of a chance to win. DC on the other hand, is a federal district. And guess who has to pay their attorney fees? Everyone who pays federal income taxes. That's what really irritates me...I'm helping fund this nonsense. It's time to talk to your congressional representatives, folks.