The Benefits of Heller May Not Extend Even to Heller

The other day I wondered whether the District of Columbia, which ostensibly is trying to comply with D.C. v. Heller, would impose such burdensome restrictions on gun ownership that it would end up back in court on the losing end of another Second Amendment lawsuit. It's worse than that: The district won't even let Dick Heller, whom you may recall as the plaintiff in the case that led the Supreme Court to overturn the D.C. handgun ban, register his handgun. As I feared, the district's position is that all handguns that accept magazines holding more than 12 rounds—meaning "all bottom-loading guns," according to a local news report—are prohibited under D.C.'s ridiculously broad "machine gun" ban. So even though Heller's pistol is a semiautomatic with a seven-round clip, it might as well be an Uzi as far as the district is concerned.

"Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights," the Court said in Heller, "the District must permit him to register his handgun." This "machine gun" bullshit seems like open defiance. 

[Thanks to albo for the tip.]

Comments

robc | July 17, 2008, 12:51pm | #

Heller 2: Electric Boogaloo coming to a court near you!

smartass sob | July 17, 2008, 12:52pm | #

The government can always find some way to do what it wants, can't it? What a mockery.

PC | July 17, 2008, 12:57pm | #

Now that everyone's wrists are sore after celebrating the crummy ruling in the Supreme Court case they can now see how it will be applied.

Episiarch | July 17, 2008, 1:00pm | #

Infuriating, yet unsurprising. At least the guys who got this case done in the first place will go again if they have to (I think).

Tom Walls | July 17, 2008, 1:13pm | #

Maybe the Mauser Broomhandle will make a comeback as an allowed semi-auto pistol in DC. Most models have a 10-shot, top-loading fixed magazine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauser_C96

Brandybuck | July 17, 2008, 1:14pm | #

I get so sick of liberals who don't know what "semi-automatic" means. But the people I truly loathe are the liberals who do know what it means but deliberately confuse the issue.

I don't care how big your damned clip is, your semi-automatic is STILL not a machine gun!

heh2k | July 17, 2008, 1:14pm | #

They'll keep at it until a court gives a PROPER ruling of what restrictions are constitutional and which aren't. Even then they may ignore court rules. Tyrants don't care what the court says. See ray nagin being found in contempt of court after new orleans violated civil rights (armed robbery of people found with guns).

P Brooks | July 17, 2008, 1:17pm | #

Politicians agree: "Guns are scary."

Ask Harvey Milk and George Moscone.

albo | July 17, 2008, 1:17pm | #

Maybe the Mauser Broomhandle will make a comeback

They'll have the coolest-looking gang wars ever!

I'm sure the DC police carry semi-auto 9mm or 10mm handguns. So, by DC's definition, their cops carry machine guns.

Conservationist | July 17, 2008, 1:21pm | #

If all the drama in the gun debate had instead been spent on finding repeat offenders and locking them up permanently, this problem would be a non-issue.

No one wants to admit that we have a permanent criminal group (incl. white collar sociopaths), or that class war is an active problem in the USA.

Abdul | July 17, 2008, 1:25pm | #

I'm sure the DC police carry semi-auto 9mm or 10mm handguns. So, by DC's definition, their cops carry machine guns.

Albo, I'm afraid you're late to the party. Earlier this year, the DC cops were given AR-15's.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/08/dc-to-arm-police-with-assault-rifles/

Okay, they're semi-auto as well. But to a DC liberal, it's every bit as scary as full auto.

P Brooks | July 17, 2008, 1:25pm | #

No one wants to admit that we have a permanent criminal group (incl. white collar sociopaths)

You mean the Congress?

Justin | July 17, 2008, 1:27pm | #

Per albo's comment that all the DC cops carry machine guns:

People in DC should pass a law that would prevent regular beat cops or detectives from carrying "machine guns," limiting them to SWAT teams. This would force them to revise their definition of "machine gun" quicklike.

And yes, I know this is a pipe dream.

Other Matt | July 17, 2008, 1:29pm | #

Not to say "I told you so", but when Heller was all over here I kept pointing out that this would be a problem. Unfortunately, this is probably the one area where DC actually meets your expectations.

The problem is, unlike NY that limits mag capacity to 10 rounds, or MD that limits to 20, they say anything that has the capacity for greater than 12 rounds is a problem.

Oh, and prediction on the next problem, ammo. Anyone wanting fun reading go read the DC regs on that. I can't have my lever action .357 carbine in DC, because I can't get ammo for it because I don't have a .357 handgun registered and it's a "handgun" caliber.

DC Official | July 17, 2008, 1:35pm | #

Sorry, only muskets and blunderbusses are allowed.

Think of the children!

Mike | July 17, 2008, 1:39pm | #

Sounds to me like Mr. Heller might want to go back to court to strike down all the registration requirements, then.

Rimfax | July 17, 2008, 1:39pm | #

Ask Harvey Milk and George Moscone.

Is that because they were both shot by a politician or because they were both shot by a former police officer?

Naga Sadow | July 17, 2008, 1:40pm | #

Does this "capacity" requirement include bazookas? How about say . . . an AT-4?

Gilbert Martin | July 17, 2008, 1:43pm | #

"Does this "capacity" requirement include bazookas? How about say . . . an AT-4?"

How about a flamethrower?

It doesn't fire bullets and has no magazine capacity at all.

J sub D | July 17, 2008, 1:43pm | #

We shall now see how the Democrat controlled congress feels about the rule of law.

The Congress shall have Power To… exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such Dis­trict (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Con­gress, become the Seat of the Gov­ernment of the United States…*

Will they allow the DC government to blatantly ignore a SCOTUS decision?

I'm betting yes. I'm also betting the anti-gun nuts will attepmt to justify DC ignoring the ruling and congress's failure to act on it.**

* The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17

** I know, that's a sucker bet.

Josh | July 17, 2008, 1:56pm | #

Fun fact: there is no federal restriction on flamethrower ownership.

T | July 17, 2008, 2:01pm | #

Fun fact: there is no federal restriction on flamethrower ownership.

It doesn't qualify as a destructive device or any other weapon? I'm willing to bet it's covered as a DD.

Other Matt | July 17, 2008, 2:04pm | #

** I know, that's a sucker bet.

Yep.

Josh | July 17, 2008, 2:05pm | #

It's not considered a DD, at least at the federal level, because flamethrowers don't shoot projectiles or explode. Some states have broader definitions that include incendiary devices.

Schmedly | July 17, 2008, 2:05pm | #

Will this stop anyone from owning a pistol and simply not registering it? It wouldn't stop me.

PC | July 17, 2008, 2:09pm | #

"People in DC should pass a law that would prevent regular beat cops or detectives from carrying "machine guns," limiting them to SWAT teams. This would force them to revise their definition of "machine gun" quicklike."

Then every DC cop would be reclassified as SWAT.

Jaydub | July 17, 2008, 2:19pm | #

""People in DC should pass a law that would prevent regular beat cops or detectives from carrying "machine guns," limiting them to SWAT teams. This would force them to revise their definition of "machine gun" quicklike."

Then every DC cop would be reclassified as SWAT."

The irony. Some DC cop shot up Adams Morgan one night _after_ his female friend handed her purse to two robbers. His Glock 17 had a 17+1 capacity. He missed both suspects at less than 15 yards. Definitely a SWAT candidate - I guess it's nice to be a "chosen one."

Naga Sadow | July 17, 2008, 2:27pm | #

What about swords?

PC | July 17, 2008, 2:37pm | #

"DC Official | July 17, 2008, 1:35pm | #

Sorry, only muskets and blunderbusses are allowed.

Think of the children!"

I hope you aren't thinking of putting a bayonet on that musket.

Schmedly | July 17, 2008, 2:39pm | #

Or a cigarette.

Alex Trebek | July 17, 2008, 2:40pm | #

What about swords?

The topic is "S-Words."

mediageek | July 17, 2008, 2:47pm | #

It'll be interesting to watch them knock down the ban on self-loading pistols and force DC to actually revamp their definition of what a machine gun is so that it actually bears some recognizable resemblance to reality.

DannyK | July 17, 2008, 2:55pm | #

There's a reasonably good Op-Ed in the Washington Post today urging D.C. to make a reasonable arrangement that allows firearm ownership but maintains some safety rules. I suspect that won't happen, and that the government will spend way too much money defending losing cases.

Sam-I-Am | July 17, 2008, 2:58pm | #

There's a delicious rich irony in the fact that soon you'll be able
to have a gun in your D.C. restaurant but not a cigarette.

Matthew | July 17, 2008, 3:11pm | #

Tom Walls
Maybe the Mauser Broomhandle will make a comeback as an allowed semi-auto pistol in DC. Most models have a 10-shot, top-loading fixed magazine.

In my experience, so many gun laws are so poorly written, and invariably (it seems) by people with no real working knowledge of firearms, that they often either don't have the effect intended by their sponsors or sometimes even have the opposite effect.

For example, who could have guessed the Clinton era ban on "assault rifles" would generate a domestic industry for semi-auto rifle parts and receivers?

P Brooks | July 17, 2008, 3:23pm | #

Is that because they were both shot by a politician or because they were both shot by a former police officer?

Rimfax-

It's because I believe the politicians couldn't give a fuck less if the little people run around croaking each other, but they don't want a disgruntled "constituent" to show up at their chamber door, packin'. (like the guy in Missouri)

ellipsis | July 17, 2008, 3:51pm | #

I'd prefer to look at the positive side of this... Since Heller is the one guy that the Supreme Court ordered to be allowed a handgun, any follow-up lawsuits/appeals will be slam-dunks. This will result in case law supporting semi-auto ownership as well. Which will be a big poke in the eye for gun banners everywhere.

The more D.C. & Fenty get their chops busted, the better for everyone.

TrickyVic | July 17, 2008, 4:00pm | #

Guns in the founding father's days didn't use ammo with a cartridge. If Scalia believes that only guns used at that time actually have protection, you can kiss any modern gun goodbye. If one truly accepts the arugment that a gun carried by a standard infantryman is ok, automatic weapons are ok.

I think Heller and Scalia's opinion has made more of a 2nd amendment mess. It did absolutely nothing execpt state you have a right, and states can restrict that right.

TrickyVic | July 17, 2008, 4:06pm | #

"""The topic is "S-Words.""""

That was funny as hell. I'll take swords for $100

Colin | July 17, 2008, 4:07pm | #

What DC has done is the equivalent to a singing statement, effectively nullifying the Supreme Court's decision.

Nick | July 17, 2008, 4:15pm | #

The Post says something about Heller possibly filing to run against Norton...anyone else got something on this? I'd be glad to sign the nominating petition.

Black Griff | July 17, 2008, 4:18pm | #

TO ALL SMART GUN owners PLEASE DEMAND NO REGULATIONS, NO BALLISTICS, NO TRAINING, NO SAFE, NO CONCELLED WEAPONS RESTRICTIONS, NO BACKGROUND CHECKS OR ANY LAW THAT TAKES YOUR GUN AWAY. UNTIL GET SHOT BY A STRAY BULLET, MURDER SOMEBODY, SHOOT YOURSELF IN THE FACE OR HAVE YOUR KID SHOOT YOU OR THEMSELVES, GET SHOOT BY A COP BY ACCIDENT, FORGET IT IN YOUR LUGGAGE AT THE AIRPORT, GO ACROSS STATE LINES AND GET ARRESTED WITH IT, HAVE IT STOLEN OUT YOUR HOME WHILE YOUR AT WORK, OR OUT YOUR CAR OR WHAT YOU REALLY WANT IT FOR TO COMMIT SUICIDE.

Stormy Dragon | July 17, 2008, 4:20pm | #

>It doesn't qualify as a destructive device or
>any other weapon? I'm willing to bet it's
>covered as a DD.

In Pennsylvania, flame throwers are considered farm implements and are regulated by the state department of agriculture.

ellipsis | July 17, 2008, 4:21pm | #

As a postscript, if Dick Heller's rejected application is for the same gun he tried to register in 2002, the appeals will probably be pretty swift.

Since, you know, the Supreme Court already ruled on that specific gun.

Josh | July 17, 2008, 4:23pm | #

WTF Griff.

Bingo | July 17, 2008, 4:33pm | #

I love all-caps, its like flagging a post so I don't have to bother reading it.

T | July 17, 2008, 4:34pm | #

Josh,

You called that one. Damn. I know what's getting put on the build list. And the HOA association has no rules against them, either. I bet I can fix that pretty quick.

TrickyVic | July 17, 2008, 4:35pm | #

Griff still thinks the gun is the problem.

Jon | July 17, 2008, 4:42pm | #

The test the Court laid down was that guns that are commonly used for self-defense cannot be banned. Going out on a limb, I'm going to guess that semi-automatic handguns are the prime example of guns commonly used for self-defense.

What is frustrating is that you know that the D.C. lawyers and council are aware of the impropriety here but are banking on the fact that litigation is a huge hassle and so will take someone else's time and money to sort out.

kevrob | July 17, 2008, 4:48pm | #

Sorry, only muskets and blunderbusses are allowed.

Surely, Pennsylvania long rifles are allowed.

Kevin

R C Dean | July 17, 2008, 4:51pm | #

The test the Court laid down was that guns that are commonly used for self-defense cannot be banned.

I have no doubt the argument will be that they aren't banning semi-autos, they are just declining to license them.

mediageek | July 17, 2008, 4:59pm | #

I'm going to guess that semi-automatic handguns are the prime example of guns commonly used for self-defense.

If general sales stats and attendance at defensively-oriented pistol competitions is any indication, self-loading pistols are far more common than revolvers.

Black Griff | July 17, 2008, 5:00pm | #

A legally REGISTERED gun owner is perfectly fine to protect a home or to have in car for those trips to the rough side of town for weed but remember.

A knife, unless thrown at a high velocity can't kill an innocent bystander from a far distance.

A gun is only as "good" as is owner.

There is no test for stupidity or ability before purchase.

A gun is quicker than doctor assisted suicide but attempted suicide is illegal.

2 amendment was not intended for gun owners to carry it on a holster public for potential wild west mayhem.


So I really did understand the whining over the rules of a city for possesion of one unless-

You are a convict
Drug dealer
mass murder
militia man (self proclaimed)
Solid Snake
Hitman
John Wayne
or want to be any of the above.


(THE GOVERNMENT GONNA TAKE MY GUN AWAY!)

govnndotcom | July 17, 2008, 5:01pm | #

Guns don't kill people. Ignorant, low IQ, violent, black and brown criminals kill people.

Get a clue DC morans. I lived there and saw first-hand what the problem is. Call me racist all you want but the truth is those n-words are savages.

Black Griff | July 17, 2008, 5:04pm | #

Guns don't kill people. Ignorant, low IQ, violent, black and brown criminals kill people.

Get a clue DC morans. I lived there and saw first-hand what the problem is. Call me racist all you want but the truth is those n-words are savages.

YEA! We have located the Klan! Look over there kids that one of those good white folks that are the best humans in the world!

Other Matt | July 17, 2008, 5:13pm | #

What is frustrating is that you know that the D.C. lawyers and council are aware of the impropriety here but are banking on the fact that litigation is a huge hassle and so will take someone else's time and money to sort out.

Yes, it's undoubtably a calculated strategy. The really disturbing part is that they view themselves as some kind of valiant knights guarding the "little people" no doubt.

BG-
YEA! We have located the Klan! Look over there kids that one of those good white folks that are the best humans in the world!

WTF? At least use proper american english.

mediageek | July 17, 2008, 5:14pm | #

This one's for govnndotcom.

squarooticus | July 17, 2008, 5:23pm | #

I love when trolls pretend to be multiple people in order to fabricate a point, and don't even bother waiting an hour between posts. Yes, that's "govndotcom" and "Black Griff" I'm talking about.

Jon | July 17, 2008, 5:27pm | #

"I have no doubt the argument will be that they aren't banning semi-autos, they are just declining to license them."

D.C. already tried that argument and lost. The Court of Appeals laughed and held that this functioned as a prohibition as did SCOTUS. One of the D.C. laws struck down was a prohibition on handgun registration.

govnndotcom: "Morons" does not have an "A" in it and whites murder as well. Occasionally reading a book, magazine, news article, etc. will help correct both mistakes.

ellipsis | July 17, 2008, 5:27pm | #

This thread has gone to hell in a hurry.

Episiarch | July 17, 2008, 5:30pm | #

Will Black Griff be my new favorite performance art/idiot? Only time will tell.

Gordo | July 17, 2008, 7:12pm | #

D.C. is a freaking Banana Republic and an embarrassment to the rest of the US. The government doesn't care about the rule of law, they care about what THEY want.

JB | July 17, 2008, 9:36pm | #

I say treat the DC government as it doesn't exist. Their authority stems from the Constitution. They want to ignore the Constitution? So will I. Screw them.

Bradley in DC | July 17, 2008, 11:49pm | #

Tomorrow morning at 9 at 300 Indiana Ave NW at Judiciary Square metro stop (red line), Dick Anthony Heller (of the Supreme Court case of the same name) will register his handgun in DC--the first time for anyone in 32 years!

The press is going to be there--and some of them want to portray this brave 2nd Amendment supporter as the lone gun rights activist. In truth, many of us constitutionalists know the importance of all nine judges reaffirming an individual rights interpretation of the Bill of Rights--that we have an individual right to free speech, etc., not a collective one.

JGR | July 18, 2008, 1:08am | #

Black Griff wrote:
"There is no test for stupidity or ability before purchase."

Same for voting.

Or, for that matter, same for you buying the computer you come online with.

Other Matt | July 18, 2008, 4:15am | #

mg-Don't post stuff like that, joe's head will explode.

Black Griff | July 18, 2008, 3:48pm | #

GREAI! More good white knowledge today I see! Remember kids when all else false and you are mad about the goverment trying to take your gun away hide it and blame the black folks. Then gang up on them on the internet with very deeply thought out insults. This is called hanitizing america!

td | July 19, 2008, 4:56pm | #

your all idiots. I cant't wait for the first Dumb@&% who loses their gun, becomes involves in a shooting a getting arrested for it. Will the Supreme Court back you up then? I SAY NOT.

BEWARE OF WHAT YOU WISH FOR........