Heller LiveBlog on ScotusBlog

[The Annoyed Man]

I expect D.C. will come up with a whole list of restrictions though.

Revolvers only, etc...

The mayor of DC issued a statement about .30 minutes ago saying that "semi-automatic and automatic" handguns are still illegal in DC. That would seem to imply that only revolvers will be permitted. I hope that the predators out there will respect this and restrict themselves to the use of only semi-automatic pistols with capacities of 6 rounds or less.

Can you link to that?

Couldn't find a link to the video, but here is a link to part of the text of his comments. Unfortunately his statement about semi-autos is not included as he quoted it, but he DID say it, and I heard it quite clearly, and the issue is covered in the press release:

http://dc.gov/mayor/news/release.asp?id=1325&mon=200806

“I’m disappointed in the Court’s ruling and believe introducing more handguns into the District will mean more handgun violence,� said Mayor Fenty. “But I want to emphasize that at this moment, our gun laws remain in effect. It may be several weeks before there are changes to announce.

“In the meantime, I have directed the Metropolitan Police Department to implement an orderly process for allowing qualified citizens to register handguns for lawful possession in their homes.

Fenty, Nickles and Lanier emphasized that they will continue vigorously enforcing other gun-control laws that the court did not disturb—including the law that all firearms including handguns must be properly registered with the Metropolitan Police Department—and considering other ways to lessen gun violence in the District.

“I commend the efforts of our legal team in presenting our side of this difficult and contentious issue,� said Interim Attorney General Nickles. “I will continue to direct the Office of the Attorney General to fight hard for the people of the District. While we were not successful regarding the handgun and safe storage laws, I am pleased that the court recognized that local jurisdictions like the District can adopt common-sense, reasonable regulations to protect their citizens against gun violence, and that the court left intact the District’s law requiring licensing of those who would carry handguns.�

The Mayor, Attorney General and Chief emphasized that the Supreme Court’s ruling is limited and leaves intact various other laws that apply to private citizens who would purchase handguns or other firearms for home possession. First, all firearms must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department’s Firearms Registration Section before they may be lawfully possessed. Second, automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal and may not be registered. Third, the Supreme Court’s ruling is limited to handguns in the home and does not entitle anyone to carry firearms outside his or her own home.

Ergo, per the mayor, in a few weeks (but not today), one will be able to possess a handgun within the confines of his or her own home, but that handgun may not be semi-automatic. Therefore, you can own a revolver only (or possibly a single shot like a Contender). The Heller ruling in no way addresses those other infringements.

[Pinkycatcher]

Well, we need to tell those residents to get a 500 Smith and Wesson then

[HerbM]

I don't have a problem with NICS, because I agree that there must be a system in place to disqualify certain individuals from firearms purchases - but those disqualifications can only legitimately be argued on the basis of mental health/competence, and/or a record of non-expunged felony convictions. Both are issues which speak to the ability of the applicant to adequately discharge the responsibilities of gun ownership and seek to balance those responsibilities with the public safety.

NICS/Brady has not been shown to provide any significant benefit and there can be no compelling state interest since it is not even enforced upon criminals and other prohibited persons.

Less than 100 criminals are prosecuted each year for Brady/NICS violations -- and the vast majority of these are because the authorities needed to arrest or prosecute a criminal but can't make the real charge stick, or needs a "predicate felony" for a conspiracy or RICO charge.

Review of the ATF’s Enforcement of Brady Act Violations Identified Through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System
Office of Inspector General's (OIG) Draft Report: Review of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' Enforcement of Brady Act Violations Identified through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. A-2004-001
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0406/final.pdf

<<
A June 28, 2001, memorandum from the Attorney General directed the U.S. Attorneys to “make it a priority to enforce the law against those persons who attempt to subvert the legitimate crime prevention objectives of the Brady Act and to incorporate this new focus into [their] comprehensive prosecutive efforts.� During CYs 2002 and 2003, approximately 120,000 cases were referred by the FBI to the Brady Operations Branch. Of these cases, the ATF formally referred only 230 to the USAOs, and the USAOs accepted 185, or 80 percent for prosecution.3 Of these cases, 154 were rosecuted.

We believe that the number of referrals and prosecutions is low because of the difficulty in obtaining convictions in NICS cases. These cases lack “jury appeal� for various reasons. The factors prohibiting someone from possessing a firearm may have been nonviolent or committed many years ago. The basis for the prohibition may have been noncriminal (e.g., a dishonorable discharge from the U.S. military). It is also difficult to prove that the prohibited person was aware of the prohibition and intentionally lied to the FFL. We were also told that in parts of the United States where hunting historically has been part of the regional culture, juries are reluctant to convict a person who attempted to purchase a hunting rifle.
>>

None of the CDC, the National Academy of Sciences, nor DoJ were able to find that ANY gun control reduces VIOLENT CRIME, MURDER, SUICIDE or ACCIDENTS in any significant manner.

[The Annoyed Man]

Here are the Heller pluses:

1. The 2nd Amendment is an individual right.
2. The majority opinion restricted itself to the issue immediately before it, and restrained itself from judicial activism.

Here are the Heller minuses:

1. Government may continue to, or begin to if it isn't doing so already, require registration of your firearms with the local authorities.
2. Government may continue to, or begin to if it isn't doing so already, require that you obtain a license to possess a firearm within the confines of your own home.
3. Government may continue to, or begin to if it isn't doing so already, restrict your lawful ownership of handguns to revolvers and single shots only.
4. Government may continue to, or begin to if it isn't doing so already, forbid your right to carry a weapon outside of the home, concealed or not, permitted or not.

Supreme Court decisions are as important for what they don't say as they are for what they do say. To me, it is bizarre and beyond intellectually dishonest that the liberal element of the Supreme Court can find a right to abortion, which is not a specifically enumerated right in the Constitution, through the justification of intellectual gymnastics like "penumbras and emanations," but it cannot apply the same intellectually gymnastic flexibility to an enumerated right.

I make this statement without addressing abortion per se, although I'm agin it, but rather because of the intellectual inconsistency of the judicially liberal position. I also find it ironic, but completely within character, that our most conservative justices resisted the temptation to make any kind of intellectual leaps and restricted themselves strictly to the specific consideration before them, which was whether or not Mr. Heller's RKBA was violated because DC would not issue him a license to possess a handgun within his own home for self-defense purposes. If the conservative 4 had acted in the liberal 4 style of doing things, the decision would have gone a lot farther and been more complete. Of course, they may then have not been able to get Kennedy to side with them.

In any case, what this highlights for me is that there was a lot of breathless hype about the meaning of Heller before the decision was rendered, and few of us really wanted to believe that it was not going to be some kind of magic panacea for gun rights. What it really means is that we have gained some ground on an important point, but we are going to have to attack the issues in court very specifically, and case by case, until the individual right interpretation has been expanded to include items which are still lacking. We have had our rights gradually eroded exactly because the left used these kinds of piecemeal attacks against them. It was a hugely successful strategy for them. Of course we all want to see everything restored in one fell swoop, but that is an unrealistic expectation; and it is entirely realistic to expect that we can regain everything we've lost by turning the piecemeal strategy around and using it in our favor. All that is required is for unity among us, and a view toward the long haul.

[HerbM]

[srothstein]

“I’m disappointed in the Court’s ruling and believe introducing more handguns into the District will mean more handgun violence,� said Mayor Fenty. “But I want to emphasize that at this moment, our gun laws remain in effect. It may be several weeks before there are changes to announce.

I believe, but am not positive that the mayor is 180 degrees out of synch with court rulings. As I understand it, when the law is declared unconstitutional, it makes it null and void from when it was passed. Thus, the laws as currently written are no longer in effect at all.

If they were written with some type of separation clause, then other parts may still be in effect, but the laws requiring licenisng and such, as they were fought by Heller and named in the suit, are no longer in effect at all.

this is one of those times where I would almost love to be the test case. If the Metro PD arrests someone now for a violation of this law, I could only wish i could get part of his settlement from the lawsuit for illegal arrest.

[The Annoyed Man]

I don't have a problem with NICS, because I agree that there must be a system in place to disqualify certain individuals from firearms purchases - but those disqualifications can only legitimately be argued on the basis of mental health/competence, and/or a record of non-expunged felony convictions. Both are issues which speak to the ability of the applicant to adequately discharge the responsibilities of gun ownership and seek to balance those responsibilities with the public safety.

NICS/Brady has not been shown to provide any significant benefit and there can be no compelling state interest since it is not even enforced upon criminals and other prohibited persons.

Maybe so, but that is an enforcement problem, and does not address the fundamental issue of whether or not it is in our interest to keep firearms out of the hands of habitual criminals or the insane. Even so, I can live with it, IF the state in which I reside uses NICS, because NICS does not significantly impede my right to buy any kind of weapon I want to (in order to defend myself from the criminal or insane). I am an upstanding citizen, current on my taxes, with no arrest record of any kind, and no mental health adjudications. California has steadfastly refused to use NICS. I lived there most of my life, and never gave the state any reason to think that I was anything other than a reliable citizen. Yet, for me to buy a simple revolver, I had to first take a handgun safety test to obtain a card which enabled me to make the purchase. That card had to be renewed periodically. Then, once I had made the purchase, I had to wait for 2 weeks to actually take possession of the firearm. For a couple of years there, all of my ammunition purchases had to be registered as to manufacturer, caliber, lot#, and quantity with the city of Pasadena! Compared to that kind of insanity, NICS is a breath of fresh air, and I'm glad to be gone from there! So I can live with NICS.

[The Annoyed Man]

“I’m disappointed in the Court’s ruling and believe introducing more handguns into the District will mean more handgun violence,� said Mayor Fenty. “But I want to emphasize that at this moment, our gun laws remain in effect. It may be several weeks before there are changes to announce.

I believe, but am not positive that the mayor is 180 degrees out of synch with court rulings. As I understand it, when the law is declared unconstitutional, it makes it null and void from when it was passed. Thus, the laws as currently written are no longer in effect at all.

Couldn't agree more, but the practical fact is that the DC municipal authorities will drag their heels, and come hell or high water, they will see to it that it takes as long as possible to implement; because they are not happy about having their precious ban overturned.

If they were written with some type of separation clause, then other parts may still be in effect, but the laws requiring licenisng and such, as they were fought by Heller and named in the suit, are no longer in effect at all.

I can only counter that Scalia himself said that DC must issue Heller a license. If he intended to strike down the licensing requirement, he would have said that DC could not require Heller to be licensed. Instead, what he said was that DC could not capriciously administer the issuance of licenses and that DC must therefore issue one to Heller. That implies that DC may require a license, but that it must issue licenses to anyone who is presumably not barred from having one by reason of criminal history or psychiatric adjudication.

this is one of those times where I would almost love to be the test case. If the Metro PD arrests someone now for a violation of this law, I could only wish i could get part of his settlement from the lawsuit for illegal arrest.

I think that it is a matter of time before the balance of DC's most egregious RKBA infringements will be struck down, but as I said above, the main value of Heller is that it get the ball rolling in the right direction, even if it is not a panacea. Given the ruling, it will be much easier to attack those issues piecemeal.

[The Annoyed Man]

BTW, HebM, I would rather that there be no NICS. It's just that I can live with it, and I can concede the need in principle of having a way to prevent (in so far as that is possible) the purchase of firearms by dangerous people.

[HerbM]

BTW, HebM, I would rather that there be no NICS. It's just that I can live with it, and I can concede the need in principle of having a way to prevent (in so far as that is possible) the purchase of firearms by dangerous people.

Living with it is different from supporting it, excusing it, or even tolerating it agreeably.

The CHL is something we pretty much all "live with" but even that should be removed as a requirement since no gun control law actually can be proven to server ANY purpose.

You can even make an argument that it would be better to ALLOW criminals to buy guns (from the dealers perspective) and then just have the police pick them up.

I am pretty much now convinced that 4th Amendment protections should be suspended for anyone losing their 2nd Amendment rights (after due process) due to criminal or egregiously irresponsibility (insane, drug/alchohol addict, etc.)

Shift the burden of rights loss to the CRIMINAL -- remove the burden from the law abiding.

[aardwolf]

“I’m disappointed in the Court’s ruling and believe introducing more handguns into the District will mean more handgun violence,� said Mayor Fenty. “But I want to emphasize that at this moment, our gun laws remain in effect.

Alabama Governor George Wallace said "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

I hope President Bush will stand up to Fenty and other "Schoolhouse Door" bullies.

[DParker]

In any case, I found it interesting that Scalia cites Eugene Volokh, a noted conservative con-law professor who takes the liberal (in the classical sense) of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right.

Given Volokh's prominence and leanings in this area I'd have been suprised if Scalia hadn't cited him.

[Frost]

It seems to me that semi-auto pistols clearly pass the test of "in common use for lawful purposes" I don't see how they could get away with continuing to ban them.

[DParker]

If they were written with some type of separation clause, then other parts may still be in effect, but the laws requiring licenisng and such, as they were fought by Heller and named in the suit, are no longer in effect at all.

There was no striking down of licensing requirements. What was struck down in that area was the witholding of licenses for "arbitrary" and/or "capricious" reasons.

[gmckinl]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj2L8OhR4ak

Mayor Fenty addressing the SCOTUS ruling today. This is clip running for 5:12. Note a couple of statements he makes...

+ most semi-automatic handguns generally remain illegal (2:45)
+ the police will make clear what handguns specifically may be registered (4:38)

What a piece of work...