Federal Farmer Posted November 5, 2010 at 12:20 AM Share Posted November 5, 2010 at 12:20 AM 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.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burningspear Posted November 5, 2010 at 01:53 AM Share Posted November 5, 2010 at 01:53 AM 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 permitsthe District to condition the lawful possession of handgun ammunition in the home on the possessionof a valid registration certificate for a corresponding handgun (so long as the registration scheme isconstitutional). While 29 Logan held as a matter of statutory interpretation that proper registration isan affirmative defense to UA, the prosecution may assume the burden of charging and provingbeyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant lacked the necessary registration in order to satisfy theSecond Amendment.30 By doing so, the prosecution would establish that the defendant indeed wasdisqualified from exercising his Second Amendment right to possess handgun ammunition in thehome.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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abolt243 Posted November 5, 2010 at 02:01 AM Share Posted November 5, 2010 at 02:01 AM 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 permitsthe District to condition the lawful possession of handgun ammunition in the home on the possessionof a valid registration certificate for a corresponding handgun (so long as the registration scheme isconstitutional). While 29 Logan held as a matter of statutory interpretation that proper registration isan affirmative defense to UA, the prosecution may assume the burden of charging and provingbeyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant lacked the necessary registration in order to satisfy theSecond Amendment.30 By doing so, the prosecution would establish that the defendant indeed wasdisqualified from exercising his Second Amendment right to possess handgun ammunition in thehome.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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted November 5, 2010 at 03:46 AM Share Posted November 5, 2010 at 03:46 AM 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howard Roark Posted November 5, 2010 at 04:13 AM Share Posted November 5, 2010 at 04:13 AM 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papa Posted November 5, 2010 at 04:39 AM Share Posted November 5, 2010 at 04:39 AM I'm in good shape . I only have 600 rounds of ammo that doesn't match any of the guns I own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howard Roark Posted November 5, 2010 at 04:57 AM Share Posted November 5, 2010 at 04:57 AM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papa Posted November 5, 2010 at 05:38 AM Share Posted November 5, 2010 at 05:38 AM Sorry. They are 22LR . 100 round boxes of CCI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billzfx4 Posted November 5, 2010 at 09:17 PM Share Posted November 5, 2010 at 09:17 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnyt101 Posted November 6, 2010 at 01:03 AM Share Posted November 6, 2010 at 01:03 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstrat Posted November 6, 2010 at 05:36 AM Share Posted November 6, 2010 at 05:36 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... 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Guardian Posted November 6, 2010 at 06:00 AM Share Posted November 6, 2010 at 06:00 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnyt101 Posted November 7, 2010 at 09:38 PM Share Posted November 7, 2010 at 09:38 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnjoyLife Posted November 16, 2010 at 07:56 PM Share Posted November 16, 2010 at 07:56 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.