DC Rejects Handgun Application

[WildBill]

In closing, and I really mean closing, I cannot use the IANAL copout. I have been admitted to the bar of the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for 42 years. Before my fairly recent retirement I was a practicing trial lawyer, trial judge and appellate judge. I hasten to add that this makes me no smarter than any other member of this forum, but I would hope that it demonstrates that I may know a bit about procedures of the courts of the District of Columbia. I got involved in this in an effort to answer some good honest questions. I have tried to do so, and of course I have done some hopefully advised speculation (equals "guesses"). Some have listened; at times my efforts have fallen on deaf ears. So be it. I've not won them all, and I never expected to. With the greatest respect to all assembled here, Jim

Jim, I can't speak for others, but I am disappointed [but not surprised] that the Supreme Court did go further in their decision. This has been a major cause of frustration for me, and I suspect other forum members.

I respect your views and I would personally be saddened if you did not continue to present your opinions on the CHL Forum. I am grateful for your many years of service and value your experience and wisdom. I would think that as a lawyer and judge you would welcome a friendly debate [read argument].

As for your effors sometimes falling on deaf ears, I remember something about leading a horse to water.

[Liberty]

Jim, I actually understand what you have been saying.. You have been explaining the way it is. I understood that and accept it. I was venting a bit on the way I think it should be. I wasn't disagreeing with you at all, I'm just not that smart. I am smart enough to appreciate that the DC City Leaders are elitist that don't take our constitution to heart. I would like to see them imprisoned. I am also smart enough to understand that its not gonna happen. That's a shame .. it really is.

[57Coastie]

I didn't mean to imply, guys, that I was off the forum due to a nose bent out of joint. I was just giving up on trying to get my points across on this particular issue, and I didn't seem to be getting there. And then good cyber-friends like WildBill tell me they were just pulling my leg. Can't win.

I recognize, BTW, that I have been guilty of writing comments as if I were writing a legal brief, and that is not necessarily productive. My wife says I have been making my living by the sweat of my tongue for so long that I have forgotten how to talk English. I can't dispute that.

Keep in mind, however, that everything I say is my personal opinion -- it is not necessarily "the law." Judges are just men who get mad and do weird, and sometimes dumb, things just like the rest of us, and I should never be understood to say that "this is the way it is going," when I really have just made another one of those guesses.

In any event, the important thing is that we simply cannot decide where we can constructively go now if we do not understand where we have been.

Jim

[KBCraig]

KB,

The only firearm in issue before the Supreme Court was Mr. Heller's 9-shot revolver...

Was it?

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I appreciate your experience here. The only place that "revolver" appears in the Heller ruling, is three times in Stevens' dissent, where he refers to a 1927 Act that prohibited mail delivery of pistols and revolvers.

Granted, I have not read the original complaint, the District ruling, or the DC Circuit ruling, so if the complaint itself is limited to a 9 shot .22 revolver, then I suppose this ruling can be so limited.

[Mike1951]

I have forgotten much about Heller, but I had gotten the impression that he wanted to be able to keep at home the revolver that he used on his security job.

Surely, a .22 is not an ideal choice for an armed security officer.

Likewise, it is a less than ideal choice for home protection.

I just expected the arm in question to be a .38.

[57Coastie]

KB & Mike,

I certainly understand your frustration, and I share it, but our frustration was inevitable when the courts, rather than the legislatures, including, in DC's case, the U. S. Congress, were chosen as the most likely forum to begin this war.

Mr. Heller's lawyers intentionally chose to start the war with a minor battle -- registering and licensing his revolver -- in order to limit the issues the courts would have to face, and to, as it were, get a foot in the door. This case was of course not really about self-defense with a .22 revolver. It was about the 2nd Amendment, and Mr. Heller's lawyers took great care to draw a fine bright line and make the case a simple one for the Court to deal with.

And the strategy worked. As put by the Court, "[S]ince this case represents this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field." As put by Robert Levy, Mr. Heller's co-counsel, to whom we owe so much, "Even the NRA concedes that you can’t have mad men running around with weapons of mass destruction. So there are some restrictions that are permissible and it will be the task of the legislature and the courts to ferret all of that out and draw the lines."

The latter process is what is happening now, and if the legislatures do not get involved it is going to be a very long time before "it is ferreted out and the lines are drawn." Meanwhile Heller is sitting there resting on a one-vote majority with a national election pending shortly upon which the future composition of the Court depends. In this political environment is there any surprise that the DC local government is stalling? Not at all.

And I have broken my own resolution, but you, I, and so many others have real. honest, and important concerns. As I put it before, if those with our thinking have any realistic chance to decide where to go next, we have to understand where we are now and how we got there. In my humble opinion possibly the most important thing the Heller decision did was to get a stumbling block out of the way of legislative action in both DC and the separate states -- resolve the basic issue of individual or collective right. The legislatures do not have to worry about that any more. Compared to this, Mr. Heller's registering and licensing his revolver is arguably inconsequential.

Jim

[stevie_d_64]

Define Irony...

If Heller were to be the ONLY one in D.C. to eventually get his "permission slip" by registering his pistol/revolver with everyone and their mother knowing about it, for use (just in case) ONLY in his home...

Everyone else is basically...[insert chirping cricket sound effect]

I mean really...Give a liberal(s) a chance to "interpret" something, and they'd be sure to screw something up for sure...

WE can yell and scream all we want to our elected officials up there to do something about this...But what are they going to do, that in OUR interpretation of the Supreme Courts opinion on this case is fairly clear to us...

I need a show of hands here...

Did anyone really believe there was going to be an immediate, and irrefutable turn of events by this ruling???

I'm not at all cross with anyone that believes that, or those that believe I have been a negative nancy for the last year and a half on this...I am just as frustrated, but at the same time, the best thing out of this was that our indivudual right to keep and bear arms was affirmed as an individual right...

That's it in a nutshell for me, unless I have completely missed the boat on something that cannot be interpreted (by anyone for or against the opinion/ruling) as anything more than wishful thinking...

I am very dissapointed (in the time that it has taken "for others" to figure this out to some extent, and in our government) that all of this has not answered all of our questions, and yet after they made the decision, it created more questions and angst in our community anyway...

Rest assured that in the long run the sun will still come up tomorrow morning, and that we live in a state that at least respects to some degree a basic, moral, individual and unalienable right...We'll just have to accept that there are some places that are really behind the curve on this concept...

[Liberty]

Did anyone really believe there was going to be an immediate, and irrefutable turn of events by this ruling???

Depends on what you mean by immediate.

As a result of this ruling a couple of Illinois countys and towns are backing off their anti-gun stances. Suits are filed in San Fransisco and Chicago.

I fully expect that DC is is going to court again. I fully expect they will lose. My only regret is that they won't be totally humiliated because they have no self respect.

I think this ruling really sewed it up for the National Parks Rules change.

We are even seeing some positive press from the MSM. This is an immediate, and irrefutable turn of events

Yeah I would have liked to seen the DC council folks drawn and quartered or at least tossed in jail. But we knew that wasn't even a remote possibility.

With political policy its all about direction. This has been a tremendous step in direction, will be a predecessor to lots of good thing.

When I see the Brady's admit on National TV that we Americans have a right to own arms. The disapointment on their faces is priceless. That is a immediate, and irrefutable turn of events

So, yeah I think we are seeing things develop pretty quickly, its pretty irrefutable that the effect is a positive and permanent change in direction for this country.

We are winning, We are winning big time. While this ruling didn't have an effect of getting rid of the ATF. We are one step closer. Someday Stevie, Someday.

[flintknapper]

Did anyone really believe there was going to be an immediate, and irrefutable turn of events by this ruling???

Depends on what you mean by immediate.

As a result of this ruling a couple of Illinois countys and towns are backing off their anti-gun stances. Suits are filed in San Fransisco and Chicago.

I fully expect that DC is is going to court again. I fully expect they will lose. My only regret is that they won't be totally humiliated because they have no self respect.

I think this ruling really sewed it up for the National Parks Rules change.

We are even seeing some positive press from the MSM. This is an immediate, and irrefutable turn of events

Yeah I would have liked to seen the DC council folks drawn and quartered or at least tossed in jail. But we knew that wasn't even a remote possibility.

With political policy its all about direction. This has been a tremendous step in direction, will be a predecessor to lots of good thing.

When I see the Brady's admit on National TV that we Americans have a right to own arms. The disapointment on their faces is priceless. That is a immediate, and irrefutable turn of events

So, yeah I think we are seeing things develop pretty quickly, its pretty irrefutable that the effect is a positive and permanent change in direction for this country.

We are winning, We are winning big time. While this ruling didn't have an effect of getting rid of the ATF. We are one step closer. Someday Stevie, Someday.

While I am not normally a person to gloat, this DID give me a certain measure of satisfaction, (shame on me).

[stroo]

I actually view DC's reaction as the best possible one for 2nd Amendment supporters. In my experience when the losing party to a suit fails to comply with the court's order, or marginally complies, courts tend to get upset and sometimes overreact against that party.

In this case, it seems to me that DC has not complied with the Supreme Court or the DC Circuit Courts' findings prohibiting rules rendering a gun for home defense inoperable and has minimally complied with the courts rulings requiring that DC allow residents to own handguns. As 57coastie has said, I would expect the DC District and Circuit courts to come down hard on DC for their games playing. This may actually result in rulings that go farther in finding various types of restrictions unconstitutional than would have been the case if DC had reasonably responded to the Supreme Court's order.

Time and litigation will tell, but I view DC's new rules to be an advantage to our side. It is never wise to try to make a court look stupid which is what DC is trying to do to both the Supreme and DC Circuit courts.