D.C. Court Of Appeals Strikes Down Some D.C. Guns Laws, Upholds Others
BY Herschel Smith9 years, 3 months ago
In a mixed decision, a federal appeals court on Friday struck down as unconstitutional several strict gun registration laws in the nation’s capital, but upheld other restrictions aimed at public safety.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that the city cannot ban gun owners from registering more than one pistol per month or require owners to re-register a gun every three years. The court also invalidated requirements that owners make a personal appearance to register a gun and pass a test about firearms laws.
But the court upheld other parts of the law, such as requiring that so-called long guns — including rifles and shotguns — be registered along with handguns. The ruling also allows gun owners to be fingerprinted and photographed, pay certain fees and complete a firearms safety training course.
In all, the court upheld six gun laws and struck down four.
The District of Columbia put the registration laws in place after a landmark 2008 Supreme Court decision that struck down a 32-year-old handgun ban in the District of Columbia. The high court ruled in that case the Second Amendment protects handgun possession for self-defense in the home.
A federal judge had previously upheld all the new registration laws.
District of Columbia officials argued that the laws were aimed at preserving gun owners’ constitutional rights while also protecting the community from gun violence.
But writing for the appeals court majority, Judge Douglas Ginsburg said some of the laws did not pass constitutional muster. He rejected, for example, the city’s argument that the one-pistol-per-month rule would reduce illegal trafficking in weapons.
“The suggestion that a gun trafficker would bring fewer guns into the District because he could not register more than one per month there lacks the support of experience and of common sense,” Ginsburg said.
Ginsburg, who was appointed by President Ronald Regan, was joined by Judge Patricia Millett, an appointee of President Barack Obama.
Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, named to the court President George H. W. Bush, dissented in part, saying she would have upheld all the registration laws. She said the majority should have shown more deference to public officials trying to create a workable firearms policy.
Besides the always salient point about turning to the black robed tyrants to legitimize your rights, take particular note again of that last sentence (bold mine). Henderson wanted for a court, who’s sole job it is to find constitutionality of laws – to show deference to “officials trying to create a workable firearms policy.”
Let me see. A workable firearms policy might go something like this. It’s none of your damn business who has guns or what kind they have. How is that, Ms. Henderson? Does that help you?
On September 21, 2015 at 5:16 pm, Mike in Illinois said:
One more sentence at the end could make heads explode in the gun control community.
“It is government’s business what people do with their arms outside exercise of the rights enumerated – keeping and bearing”- so how about if legislatures abandon the unconstitutional path of gun control, instead embarking on criminal control… You know, robbers, rapists and murderers who use guns to market and enable their nefarious endeavors? “