Molly B. Posted November 16, 2010 at 11:39 PM Share Posted November 16, 2010 at 11:39 PM Gun Rights Advocates Challenge D.C. Firearm Restrictions Calling this city's gun laws the most "radically restrictive" in the country, a lawyer for a group of District of Columbia residents urged a federal appeals court in Washington today to strike down laws that requires gun owners to register all firearms and pass a training course. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals is scrutinizing whether the District's registration laws trample the Second Amendment right of individuals to keep and bear arms. The city’s law bans assault rifles and magazines that hold more than ten bullets. The case in the appeals court is the sequel to the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller, where the high court voided the city’s handgun ban and declared that individuals have a right to possess a firearm in a house for self-defense. Lawyers who are following the latest case say a ruling in favor of the District residents, including lead plaintiff Dick Heller, would threaten gun laws around the country. Background on the case is here. Stephen Halbrook, the attorney who argued for the plaintiffs today in the D.C. Circuit, told the panel judges—Karen LeCraft Henderson, Douglas Ginsburg and Brett Kavanaugh—that the District’s anti-gun measures are “highly unusual” in that they require the registration of all firearms. “This is a most unusual law, to say the least,” Halbrook, a solo practitioner in Fairfax, Va., said in court. Halbrook also said District officials wield too much power in deciding which firearms to ban. He said the city can ban a weapon that officials deem against the “public interest.” The District’s top appellate lawyer, Todd Kim of the D.C. Office of the Attorney General, argued the city’s gun regulations do not infringe a person’s right to keep a firearm in a house for self-defense. Kim said the Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms “but not to keep guns secret from the government or to possess military-style weapons and high-capacity magazines.” During one courtroom exchange, Ginsburg questioned Kim on why the District considers assault rifles “offensive weapons.” Kim argued that such firearms are not useful for self-defense and are designed for “mass murder.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted November 16, 2010 at 11:50 PM Share Posted November 16, 2010 at 11:50 PM During one courtroom exchange, Ginsburg questioned Kim on why the District considers assault rifles "offensive weapons." Kim argued that such firearms are not useful for self-defense and are designed for "mass murder." Then why is DC arming their police with these weapons designed for "mass murder"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skorpius Posted November 17, 2010 at 12:07 AM Share Posted November 17, 2010 at 12:07 AM I've got toes and fingers crossed for this one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
05FLHT Posted January 14, 2011 at 01:31 PM Share Posted January 14, 2011 at 01:31 PM Appellee's Supplemental Brief, submitted 1/12/11, attached.HellerII Per Curiam Appellee Response 2011_01_12.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.