Jump to content


Photo

DC Court of Appeals - Hangun Ammunition Ban


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
13 replies to this topic

#1 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Members
  • 9,346 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 04 November 2010 - 06:20 PM

The DC Court of Appeals has ruled that the Government can ban ownership of handgun ammunition for which one does not have a corresponding firearm registered. Chicago has such an ammunition ban.

[F]rom the Court’s reasoning [in Heller], it logically follows that the right to keep and bear arms extends to the possession of handgun ammunition in the home; for if such possession could be banned (and not simply regulated), that would make it “impossible for citizens to use [their handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” By the same token, given the obvious connection between handgun ammunition and the right protected by the Second Amendment, we are hard-pressed to see how a flat ban on the possession of such ammunition in the home could survive heightened scrutiny of any kind. We therefore conclude that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to possess ammunition in the home that is coextensive with the right to possess a usable handgun there. The government has not taken issue with that conclusion....


People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#2 burningspear

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 788 posts
  • Joined: 23-May 07

Posted 04 November 2010 - 07:53 PM

The appellant's conviction was reversed. But the DC Appellate court also said that the current Washington, D.C. ban on the possession of handgun ammunition in the home that does not match the caliber of a person's registered handgun (assuming the constitutionality of handgun registration) does not violate the Second Amendment.

"The limited nature of our holding should be understood. The Second Amendment permits
the District to condition the lawful possession of handgun ammunition in the home on the possession
of a valid registration certificate for a corresponding handgun (so long as the registration scheme is
constitutional). While 29 Logan held as a matter of statutory interpretation that proper registration is
an affirmative defense to UA, the prosecution may assume the burden of charging and proving
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant lacked the necessary registration in order to satisfy the
Second Amendment.30 By doing so, the prosecution would establish that the defendant indeed was
disqualified from exercising his Second Amendment right to possess handgun ammunition in the
home.31 The application of the UA statute to the defendant in such a case would not be unconstitutional."

Link to Herrington v. United States

That is troubling to me. If I lived in DC, sold my registered .38 handgun, but kept some of the ammo, I would violate the DC ammunition ban, until I registered another .38 or maybe a .357. Examples after examples come to mind, all real, all simple. Of course, I am also glad I don't live in Chicago.

#3 abolt243

    Tim Bowyer

  • Moderator
  • 11,698 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 04 November 2010 - 08:01 PM

The appellant's conviction was reversed. But the DC Appellate court also said that the current Washington, D.C. ban on the possession of handgun ammunition in the home that does not match the caliber of a person's registered handgun (assuming the constitutionality of handgun registration) does not violate the Second Amendment.

"The limited nature of our holding should be understood. The Second Amendment permits
the District to condition the lawful possession of handgun ammunition in the home on the possession
of a valid registration certificate for a corresponding handgun (so long as the registration scheme is
constitutional). While 29 Logan held as a matter of statutory interpretation that proper registration is
an affirmative defense to UA, the prosecution may assume the burden of charging and proving
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant lacked the necessary registration in order to satisfy the
Second Amendment.30 By doing so, the prosecution would establish that the defendant indeed was
disqualified from exercising his Second Amendment right to possess handgun ammunition in the
home.31 The application of the UA statute to the defendant in such a case would not be unconstitutional."

Link to Herrington v. United States

That is troubling to me. If I lived in DC, sold my registered .38 handgun, but kept some of the ammo, I would violate the DC ammunition ban, until I registered another .38 or maybe a .357. Examples after examples come to mind, all real, all simple. Of course, I am also glad I don't live in Chicago.


The next thing you know, they'll want to ban Happy Meals. Oh, someplace already does that.

Some parts of this country are going to heck. Thankfully, I own a gun for every bullet that I have!!

AB
Are you a member of the ISRA?? If not, why not?? Join over 18,000 other Illinois gun owners in the fight for your rights!!!

The Roman Empire fell due to a large, corrupt government, overspending, an overextended military, insecure borders, and the illegal immigration of Goths, barbarians (anyone who was not educated), and religious fanatics. Sound familiar?


"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams

Luke 11:21 - "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed." NASB


#4 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,739 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 04 November 2010 - 09:46 PM

Since a firearm is not functional as an arm without ammunition, would this ruling also give the city the ability to ban handguns if the owner does not posses ammunition for it?

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#5 Howard Roark

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,101 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 09

Posted 04 November 2010 - 10:13 PM

Since a firearm is not functional as an arm without ammunition, would this ruling also give the city the ability to ban handguns if the owner does not posses ammunition for it?


DC (and Chicago) won't ever require ammunition. They would prefer ammunition not be available.

Note to self: start cool ammo collection like in Don Kilmer's link. Keep dated receipts.

Link from Don Kilmer
Howard Roark
Yay guns!!! boooo anti-gunners!

#6 papa

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,847 posts
  • Joined: 13-December 07

Posted 04 November 2010 - 10:39 PM

I'm in good shape . I only have 600 rounds of ammo that doesn't match any of the guns I own.

#7 Howard Roark

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,101 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 09

Posted 04 November 2010 - 10:57 PM

I'm in good shape . I only have 600 rounds of ammo that doesn't match any of the guns I own.


If those 600 rounds are all different, for different firearms, then you are the winner of the awesome-est collection.

Post pix. Please no .22LR bricks.
Howard Roark
Yay guns!!! boooo anti-gunners!

#8 papa

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,847 posts
  • Joined: 13-December 07

Posted 04 November 2010 - 11:38 PM

Sorry. They are 22LR . 100 round boxes of CCI.

#9 billzfx4

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,236 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 08

Posted 05 November 2010 - 03:17 PM

I had "a couple" of boxes of .38 before I owned anything to shoot them from.
I knew I would eventually find something I liked, so if I saw the ammo on sale or ran across a good deal...I stocked up!
Don't mistake my kindness for weakness. I am kind to everyone, but when someone is unkind to me, weak is not what you are going to remember about me.

#10 johnyt101

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 675 posts
  • Joined: 28-February 08

Posted 05 November 2010 - 07:03 PM

The DC Appellate court also said that the current Washington, D.C. ban on the possession of Holy Books in the home that does not match the faith of a person's registered religion (assuming the constitutionality of religion registration) does not violate the First Amendment...

#11 mstrat

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,395 posts
  • Joined: 27-September 10

Posted 05 November 2010 - 11:36 PM

The DC Appellate court also said that the current Washington, D.C. ban on the possession of Holy Books in the home that does not match the faith of a person's registered religion (assuming the constitutionality of religion registration) does not violate the First Amendment...


Just make sure you leave that Book at home. The 1st Amendment does not extend past your front door.

If you find yourself in need of religion outside of your home, simply contact the authorities and wait for them to show up and say a prayer on your behalf.
ProtectIllinois.org: Share this link to teach others about RTC in IL

#12 Silver Guardian

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,645 posts
  • Joined: 18-February 08

Posted 06 November 2010 - 12:00 AM

The DC Appellate court also said that the current Washington, D.C. ban on the possession of Holy Books in the home that does not match the faith of a person's registered religion (assuming the constitutionality of religion registration) does not violate the First Amendment...


People have to register for religions now?
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression." – Thomas Paine

#13 johnyt101

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 675 posts
  • Joined: 28-February 08

Posted 07 November 2010 - 03:38 PM

No SG thank the Lord ppl dont have to register their religion. I was just using burningspears recap of this case to prove a point. I just changed the 2nd amendment parts to 1st amendment parts to show how ignorant this court's ruling was.

#14 EnjoyLife

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 106 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 06

Posted 16 November 2010 - 01:56 PM

This is stupid on so many levels. When I come home from a range where I shot some rental guns, I had to purchase ammunition. I have several 1/2 boxes that I didn't fully shoot up...