Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federal Judge Upholds D.C.'s Post-'Heller' Firearm Restrictions
The National Law Journa ^ | March 29, 2010 | Tony Mauro

Posted on 03/29/2010 10:21:45 AM PDT by greatdefender

Judge Ricardo Urbina of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled Friday that the Washington, D.C., firearm ordinances enacted after the Supreme Court's D.C. v. Heller decision in 2008 "permissibly regulate the exercise of the core Second Amendment right to use firearms for the purpose of self-defense in the home." Urbina dismissed a case brought by Dick Heller, the same plaintiff who challenged the previous D.C. ordinance in the Supreme Court.

Heller challenged the District's firearms registration process, its ban on assault weapons and its prohibition of "large capacity ammunition feeding devices," claiming they violated the Second Amendment. In analyzing the Supreme Court's Heller decision, Urbina said the Second Amendment right to bear arms "is not unlimited." He cited Justice Antonin Scalia's admonition that the Court's decision, while declaring an individual right to bear arms, did not "cast doubt" on a range of firearms regulations. Urbina said he was applying "intermediate scrutiny" to D.C.'s new ordinances, and under that standard, he concluded the regulations were permissible because they serve the District's "important governmental interest" in public safety.

Gun control advocates applauded the ruling as proof that the Heller decision did not sweep away all forms of firearm regulation. "Today's court decision is the latest ruling to make it clear that the Second Amendment allows strong common sense gun laws," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. "Once again, the courts have rejected the gun lobby's attempt to transform the core right to guns in the home for self-defense into a mandate for their ‘any gun, anywhere' agenda. Politicians and legislatures at all levels should stop using the Second Amendment as an excuse for inaction against gun violence. They should follow the District's example and pass the strong, common sense gun laws Americans need and demand to protect their communities."

D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles offered this written statement in reaction to the ruling: "I am gratified that the Court repeatedly recognized the reasonable and conscientious efforts that the Council and the Mayor made to strike the proper balance between addressing the legitimate rights of firearm owners, and taking every reasonable action to assure the safety of the District's residents and visitors."

Heller's lawyer Stephen Halbrook said on Friday that the decision was disappointing, and "I'd be surprised if we don't appeal." Halbrook, a Virginia lawyer and Second Amendment scholar, commented that even though Urbina said he was using an intermediate level of scrutiny in appraising the D.C. law, he was in fact overly deferential toward the city. "He repeated uncritically whatever the [D.C. Council] committee report said." Halbrook also said the ultimate fate of the D.C. ordinance may depend in part on what the Supreme Court says about how fundamental the right to bear arms is in the pending case of McDonald v. City of Chicago.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Front Page News
KEYWORDS: banglist; blackrobedtyrants; bradywatch; dc; gunband; guncontrol; heller; judicialtyranny; lawsuits; ruling; shallnotbeinfringed

1 posted on 03/29/2010 10:21:46 AM PDT by greatdefender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: greatdefender
strong common sense gun laws," said Paul Helmke

common sense gun laws = total prohibition for non police and non military.

2 posted on 03/29/2010 10:24:45 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your most dangerous enemy is your own government,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greatdefender
Another Clinton communist judge:

"...the Supreme Court did not explicitly hold that the Second Amendment right is a fundamental right, despite the fact that it stated that "[b]y the timeof the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects" and noted that Blackstone "cited the arms provision of the Bill of Rights as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen." Id. at 2798. If the Supreme Court had wanted to declare the Second Amendment right a fundamental right, it would have done so explicitly. The court will not infer such a significant holding based only on the Heller majority’s oblique references to the gun ownership rights of eighteenth-century English subjects."

3 posted on 03/29/2010 10:26:01 AM PDT by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greatdefender

Heller was always just the beginning. Court recognition of the 2nd Amendment will necessarily be followed by cases from all over the country testing the limits thereof — does the right to “bear” mean the right to carry?; does the 2nd protect automatic-weapon ownership?; can trigger-locks be required?; can certain ammunition be banned?; can certian weapons additions or alterations be banned (drums, suppressors, etc.)?.

Heller raised more questions than it answered, and basically opened an entire new arena of jurisprudence surrounding the 2nd Amendment.

SnakeDoc


4 posted on 03/29/2010 10:29:47 AM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant ... that even a god-king can bleed." - 300)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: harpseal; TexasCowboy; nunya bidness; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; Shooter 2.5; wku man; SLB; ..
Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!
5 posted on 03/29/2010 10:31:36 AM PDT by Joe Brower (Sheep have three speeds: "graze", "stampede" and "cower".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greatdefender
permissibly regulate the exercise of the core Second Amendment right to use firearms for the purpose of self-defense in the home

So he's once again trying to re-write the Constitution to a narrow "right" granted only by the judiciary for certain narrow "purposes".

In other words, no right at all.

Just another totalitarian.

6 posted on 03/29/2010 10:32:39 AM PDT by Regulator (Welcome to Zimbabwe! Now hand over your property....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
Judge needs to be brought up on charges. Violation of Title 18, Section 241/242.

Yes. I'm serious.

7 posted on 03/29/2010 10:35:53 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Oathkeeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor
>> does the right to “bear” mean the right to carry?

I dunnow; it looks pretty confusing to me. /s

Definitions of "bear" on the Web:

* move while holding up or supporting; "Bear gifts"; "bear a heavy load"; "bear news"; "bearing orders"

* wear: have on one's person; "He wore a red ribbon"; "bear a scar"

* have rightfully; of rights, titles, and offices; "She bears the title of Duchess"; "He held the governorship for almost a decade"

8 posted on 03/29/2010 10:38:54 AM PDT by QBFimi (When gunpowder speaks, beasts listen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: QBFimi

It took the Supreme Court 220 years to declare that the “right to keep” included the right to own ... they haven’t caught up on the definition of “bear” yet.

SnjakeDoc


9 posted on 03/29/2010 10:42:08 AM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant ... that even a god-king can bleed." - 300)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: greatdefender

Well, obviously, the wise latino Judge knows much much more than those who wrote the constitution. He has benefit of wise latino experience unlike the pesky royal oppression and domination of our forefathers. Such sociological wealth! Such foresight! Such bullshit.


10 posted on 03/29/2010 11:02:14 AM PDT by Gaffer ("Profling: The only profile I need is a chalk outline around their dead ass!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greatdefender

This ruling needs a serious ass-kicking by the SCOTUS.


11 posted on 03/29/2010 11:03:49 AM PDT by thethirddegree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greatdefender
In analyzing the Supreme Court's Heller decision, Urbina said the Second Amendment right to bear arms "is not unlimited."

Shall ... not ... be ... infringed!

12 posted on 03/29/2010 11:12:09 AM PDT by TigersEye (Duncan Hunter, Jim DeMint, Michelle Bachman, ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: facedown

That is very funny. I assume that is comedy. What, it’s not? My mistake.


13 posted on 03/29/2010 11:16:35 AM PDT by lastchance (Hug your babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: greatdefender

ping


14 posted on 03/29/2010 11:21:35 AM PDT by phockthis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: facedown

Amazing! He thinks 18th century “English” subjects had more natural rights than Americans. I guess we really screwed up breaking away from the Monarchy. /s


15 posted on 03/29/2010 11:22:26 AM PDT by TigersEye (Duncan Hunter, Jim DeMint, Michelle Bachman, ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: greatdefender

APPEAL!!! APPEAL!!!


16 posted on 03/29/2010 11:41:31 AM PDT by kenmcg (uicl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greatdefender

You can’t beat city hall
Heller went the right way and DC made mince meat of the decision.

Gun owners will never beat them. They can make laws faster that the Supreme Court can rule them Constitutional.

There is but one way and it may come to that later.


17 posted on 03/29/2010 11:50:56 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greatdefender

2nd amendment is clear on federal laws, and D.C. anti got no non-federal laws.


18 posted on 03/29/2010 12:09:49 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga

>> common sense gun laws = total prohibition for non police and non military.

Communist sense.


19 posted on 03/29/2010 2:39:40 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Your Hope has been redistributed. Here's your Change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: greatdefender
He is a federal judge. We need to impeach the b*stard and send him packing when we get back in power. This moron either can't read the plain English in our Constitution (and doesn't care) or he totally fails to understand the Heller decision, which plainly spelled it out. It's most likely the former.

He must think we are either "subjects", or he aims to make us that way. In any case, he isn't fit to sit on the federal bench much less be a judge in any American court.

20 posted on 03/29/2010 3:30:55 PM PDT by Gritty (Today the future lies between the certainty of decline and the probability of catastrophe-Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Berosus; bigheadfred; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fred Nerks; ...
Urbina dismissed a case brought by Dick Heller, the same plaintiff who challenged the previous D.C. ordinance in the Supreme Court. Heller challenged the District's firearms registration process, its ban on assault weapons and its prohibition of "large capacity ammunition feeding devices," claiming they violated the Second Amendment.

21 posted on 03/29/2010 3:48:34 PM PDT by SunkenCiv ("Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others." -- Otto von Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

Excellent!

This country will split apart as sure as these judges shred what little would hold it together- rights.


22 posted on 03/29/2010 3:49:15 PM PDT by budwiesest (It's that girl from Alaska, again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: greatdefender

The leftist aka progressive gun haters will not give up on banning the right to bear arms. They could careless what the SC says.


23 posted on 03/29/2010 4:54:02 PM PDT by DMG2FUN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DMG2FUN

SCOTUS seems to be coming irrelevant. Called, in part, “lack of standing”.


24 posted on 03/29/2010 5:59:33 PM PDT by mcshot (The nightmare is playing out. America has been conned by ignorance & fraud.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson