Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Heller Hauling DC Back Into Court

Dick Heller, the man who took the District of Columbia to court and won over its unconstitutional restrictions on legal firearms possession, is again taking the District back to court because their new restrictions are in violation of the Second Amendment. One requirement would require that the gun remain in a gun lock or disassembled at all times unless in imminent harm (a standard that is patently absurd on its face), and the other relates to the definition of acceptable firearms:
The lawsuit challenges the District’s requirement of trigger locks for revolvers and continued refusal to allow residents to keep semiautomatic handguns.

Police earlier this month denied Heller’s application to register a Colt Model 1911 semiautomatic pistol on the basis that the pistol constituted a “machine gun,” the lawsuit states.

Under D.C. law, any weapon that has the capability to fire 12 rounds without reloading is considered a “machine gun.”

The District considers a semiautomatic firearm that shoots fewer than 12 shots without reloading, such as Heller’s World War I-era Colt, to be a machine gun under the theory that it “can be readily converted or restored to shoot” more than 12 shots, the lawsuit said.

The definition essentially prevents the usage of all handguns except revolvers, the lawsuit alleges.

“That’s a very weird definition,” Halbrook said. “It’s the only one like it in the world.”

One of the three plaintiffs, Amy McVey, the first D.C. citizen to register a handgun this month, is also suing over the District’s requirement that handguns be kept secured by a trigger lock or in a gun safe. D.C. requires that the handguns be kept secured unless there’s the “perceived threat of immediate harm to a person.”
The District hasn't learned. They refused to listen to the majority opinion, which noted that a statutory scheme that made it nearly impossible to comply would be struck down as unconstitutional just as surely as the one at issue in Heller, and now will spend taxpayer money to defend itself from a suit it is nearly guaranteed of losing.

No comments: