DC Gun Ban, take 2: Heller sues DC again

[Little-Acorn]

Plaintiff Dick Heller had sued Washington, DC a few years back, over their 32-year-old gun ban, saying it violated his 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court agreed last month, and said tha DC had to provide laws that would allow Heller to keep his handgun in his home.

DC passed a new law... and when Heller applied for the permit the law said he needed, DC rejected it, saying that Heller's handgun (which fired one shot at a time as most pistols do) was "a machine gun". Somehow the DC City Council concluded that this did not violate the Supreme Court's ruling.

So, Heller has now sued again.

The new DC gun ban will expire in 90 days. So by the time Heller's second lawsuit gets anywhere, it will probably be dismissed as moot, since the law Heller is complaining about, is gone. By then, DC will have yet another gun law of some kind.

This tactic is common among corrupt legislators: Keep changing the laws, run plaintiffs around from court to court filing lawsuits, keep fighting delaying actions and getting the suits tossed out, while the plaintiff spends his life savings on lawyers and his pro-bono counsel gets tired of it and quits.

In fact, such actions were listed in the Declaration of Independence, as one of the reasons disqualifying England from ruling the Colonies any longer.

We knew this would be a long, drawn-out battle. The outcome of this particular suit is predictable: It will be thrown out as moot by whatever Federal court it lands in, once the temporary DC law expires in September. Heller (or somebody) will have to re-sue under whatever law the DC City Council puts up next, unless that body surprisingly decides to obey the Supreme Court and the Constitution for a change - an unlikely event.

Round 2, coming up. :salute:

----------------------------------------

http://newsmax.com/us/washington_gun...28/117034.html

Lawsuit Filed Against New DC Gun Regulations

Monday, July 28, 2008 5:00 PM

WASHINGTON -- The plaintiff in the Supreme Court case that struck down Washington's 32-year-old handgun ban filed a new federal lawsuit Monday, alleging the city's new gun regulations still violate an individual's right to own a gun for self-defense.

Dick Heller and two other plaintiffs argue that the city's regulations are "highly unusual and unreasonable" in the complaint filed in U.S. District Court.

The lawsuit claims the District of Columbia continues to violate the intent of the Supreme Court's June 26 decision by prohibiting the ownership of most semiautomatic weapons, requiring an "arbitrary" fee to register a firearm and establishing rules that make it all but impossible for residents to keep a gun in the home for immediate self-defense.

The D.C. Council was immediately criticized by gun rights advocates when it unanimously passed emergency gun legislation July 15. The law will remain in effect for 90 days, and the council expects to begin work in September on permanent legislation.

The regulations maintain the city's ban of machine guns, defined in the law as weapons that shoot more than 12 rounds without reloading. That definition applies to most semiautomatic firearms.

Handguns, as well as other legal firearms such as rifles and shotguns, also must be kept unloaded and disassembled, or equipped with trigger locks in the home unless there is a "reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm."

"A robber basically has to make an appointment" for a resident to be able to prepare the weapon for use, Heller's attorney, Stephen Halbrook, said Monday. Halbrook also called the city's definition of machine guns "bizarre."

"The District's ban on semiautomatic handguns amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of arms that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for the lawful purpose of self defense in the home," the lawsuit alleges.

D.C. interim Attorney General Peter Nickles said the suit came as no surprise and that he expects a long legal fight as the issue makes it way through the courts.

"I think there's a fundamental disagreement with the intent of the Supreme Court's decision," said Nickles, noting that the Supreme Court's ruling did not give officials much guidance with respect to regulating firearms.

"I feel comfortable with what the city has done," Nickles said.

After the Supreme Court narrowly struck down Washington's handgun ban last month in a narrow 5-4 decision, the D.C. Council quickly moved to comply with the ruling, and residents were allowed to begin applying for handguns July 17 for the first time since 1976.

Monday's lawsuit alleges that Heller initially tried to register a semiautomatic Colt pistol, but was denied because D.C. police considered the weapon to be a machine gun.

Besides Heller, the other plaintiffs are Absalom Jordan, whose application to register a .22-caliber pistol was denied, and Amy McVey, who must return to D.C. police headquarters two more times to register her weapon after being photographed and fingerprinted and undergoing a background check, according to the lawsuit.

[Cancel11]

Constitutionally speaking, Congress could simply remove DC's government from power and replace it with a more compliant one. Of course, that isn't going to happen, because our Congress is dominated by gun-grabbing liberals.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Constitutionally speaking, Congress could simply remove DC's government from power and replace it with a more compliant one. Of course, that isn't going to happen, because our Congress is dominated by gun-grabbing liberals.

Speaking of power, congress could simply remove the government of all redneck states and replace it with ones more compliant and democratic. Of course that is going to happen, because congress is dominated by gun-nuts who love seeing churches get shot up, especially if the slaughter is in liberals.