D.C. resident seeks right to have working rifles, shotguns (new motion re: Heller)

[benEzra]

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/09/dc_resident_see.html

D.C. resident seeks right to have working rifles, shotguns

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

A D.C. resident who successfully challenged the city of Washington's strict gun control law asked the D.C. Circuit Court on Wednesday to allow him and other residents to have immediate access to rifles and shotguns -- in functioning condition -- for self-defense. His lawyers argued that the D.C. government, in an appeal to the Supreme Court, had conceded that the ban on such working firearms was unconstitutional, so the lawyers argued it should be blocked by court order.

...

The Circuit Court ruling struck down not only a provision that bans anyone from having a handgun for personal or private use, but also a separate clause that says that any firearm that is legal for individual possession in the city -- rifles and shotguns, that is -- must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place if it is kept in a home. The Court found that the second provision would deny anyone the use of a "functional firearm," even for self-defense, and nullified it, too.

In the city's appeal to the Supreme Court, it asked the Justices to uphold only the part of the local law that applies to private possession and use of handguns. In a footnote, the city's petition said that it did not interpet that clause "to prevent the use of a lawful firearm in self-defense" -- in other words, a rifle or shotgun, since those are the type of weapons that remain legal under the local law.

Relying upon that footnote, and other aspects of the city's arguments to the Supreme Court, Heller's lawyers said that "it appears the city has conceded the unconstitutionality of the functional firearms ban. If so, there is no reason for the stay of the mandate to remain in effect with respect to that provision," and that part of the mandate should be issued "forthwith."

Current D.C. law does indeed prohibit the possession of any rifle or shotgun in functional condition inside your own home, by statute; it either has to be unloaded and disassembled, or disabled with a trigger lock (which generally requires the gun to be unloaded as well), and there is no exception whatsoever for the keeping of a gun for defensive purposes.

Since the city is not bothering to appeal the overturning of that portion of the law, and in fact seemed to tacitly endorse its overturning in their appeal of the handgun portion re: the keeping of defensive rifles and shotguns, what is the likelihood of the stay being lifted regarding shotguns and rifles? Thoughts?

[jody]

1. By effectively banning "functional firearms", devious gun-grabbers goals are revealed - BAN GUNS!

"second provision would deny anyone the use of a 'functional firearm,' even for self-defense, and nullified it, too".

[slackmaster]

2. IBFTGFNWANBATCWOPDITOH

In before fightthegoodfightnow whines about not being able to control what other people do inside their own homes.

[SteveM]

3. So D.C.'s rearguard action may result in the lifting of the stay?

They may have really stepped in it this time. Question: who would lift the stay, the Appellate Court or the Supreme Court, and how fast could they do this? Also, does D.C. figure that its desire to ban handguns is a "reasonable restriction" since long guns are allowed? In the paper-thin history of 2A-related court rulings, I have not seen this distinction in non-auto gun-type be the focal point of reasonable restriction.

To all on this thread: Did you see Code Pink's "disruption" of Hairytage Foundation on C-SPAN? (memo to MoveOn: THAT's how you do it.)