DC One Gun Per Month Law Struck Down

[alsaqr]

By a federal appeals court.

In a 2-1 ruling, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for D.C. knocked down several provisions of the District’s Firearms Amendment Act of 2012, including requirements that gun owners re-register weapons every three years, bring their firearm with them to be registered and pass a knowledge test of local laws.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...7fa290-5e22-11e5-8e9e-dce8a2a2a679_story.html

 

[blahpony]

The decision comes weeks before the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for D.C. is set to hear oral arguments on a federal judge’s 2014 ruling striking down the District’s regulations for carrying concealed weapons.

I really hope this news today will affect the hearings. I'm sick of disarming every time I go visit Mom in DC.

 

[ilbob]

slowly but surely the courts are whittling away at the worst of the 2A abusers.

ten or 20 more decades and who knows how far along we will get.

 

[old lady new shooter]

By a federal appeals court.




https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...7fa290-5e22-11e5-8e9e-dce8a2a2a679_story.html

In California we also have to wait 30 days between handgun purchases. Which actually becomes 40 days because when you fill out the form you have to state you haven't purchased another handgun within the past 30 days, but the 10-day waiting period doesn't start until you fill out the form.

I wonder whether the DC case will have any effect on our laws out here...

 

[Spats McGee]

I wonder whether the DC case will have any effect on our laws out here...

Not directly, but the attorneys who litigate these issues in CA may point to it as persuasive.

 

[Midwest]

I wonder if it will have any effect on New Jersey's 1 handgun per month law.
.

 

[Spats McGee]

Not directly, but the attorneys who litigate these issues in NJ may point to it as persuasive.

 

[deadin]

including requirements that gun owners re-register weapons every three years, bring their firearm with them to be registered and pass a knowledge test of local laws.

One gun a month and re-register every three years??
It would take me over five years just to get them all registered in the first place. How can I re-register something I haven't been able to register in the first place???? :banghead:

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

One gun a month and re-register every three years??
It would take me over five years just to get them all registered in the first place. How can I re-register something I haven't been able to register in the first place????

You can't. That's the point.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Has anyone bothered to read the opinion yet?

 

[alsaqr]

Yes, i read the opinion and the dissent by Judge Karen L. Henderson.

There is a link to the decision that does not require registration. See page 28 for the Conclusion:

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/local/court-opinion-on-dc-gun-laws/1746/

BTW: Judge Karen L. Henderson was appointed by Bush I.

 

[Yo Mama]

Looks like they upheld registration, being fingerprinted, and paying for a right to exercise your 2nd amendment. :banghead:

 

[gun_with_a_view]

Has anyone bothered to read the opinion yet?

Yes. Just another recalcitrant local federal court decision tip-toeing around the issue of scrutiny. In the instant case, the court erroneously chose the standard of evaluation to be intermediate scrutiny rather than strict scrutiny. To be overturned later on appeal.

For those who like to read deep, why strict scrutiny should apply in gun law cases, beginning on page 18:
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1181&context=nulr_online

 

[Frank Ettin]

....i read the opinion and the dissent by Judge Karen L. Henderson.

There is a link to the decision that does not require registration. See page 28 for the Conclusion:

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/local/court-opinion-on-dc-gun-laws/1746/...

Excellent. It's worthwhile to read it. It offers some insight into the process of an appellate court requiring the government justify its regulations.

....Looks like they upheld registration, being fingerprinted, and paying for a right to exercise your 2nd amendment....

Yes, and it's interesting to see on what bases the Circuit Court did so.

...Yes. Just another recalcitrant local federal court decision tip-toeing around the issue of scrutiny. In the instant case, the court erroneously chose the standard of evaluation to be intermediate scrutiny rather than strict scrutiny. To be overturned later on appeal....

Well the courts really haven't yet settled the question of the level of scrutiny. We'll have to see how that develops as Second Amendment jurisprudence matures.

As far as being overturned on appeal, this was the appeal. So unless the Supreme Court takes it, this part is done.

...For those who like to read deep, why strict scrutiny should apply in gun law cases, beginning on page 18:
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1181&context=nulr_online

A good article. Both Rosenthal and Malcolm are worth reading on Second Amendment issues. We of course would all like to see strict scrutiny finally adopted; and there are some good arguments as to why it should, at least with regard to some issues. However, its wholesale adoption is by no means a foregone conclusion.

 

[swinokur]

here's the opinion in pdf.

conclusion and order as well.

 

[CDW4ME]

Regardless of location, one gun per ____ makes no sense if someone already has ___ guns.

 

[mp510]

Regardless of location, one gun per ____ makes no sense if someone already has ___ guns.

Without suggesting the idea that it is good, the premise behind those laws is usually that people will be less likely to engage in firearms trafficking when the number of firearms that they are allowed to purchase is subject to limitations.

 

[Praxidike]

Regardless of location, one gun per ____ makes no sense if someone already has ___ guns.

They argue that it's meant to stop gun trafficking.

 

[M-Cameron]

including requirements that gun owners re-register weapons every three years,

ummm?......what is the purpose of this requirement?

if my gun is already registered, what benefit is there to me having to register it again?

 

[Somewhere in NM]

Frank,

The court determined that a registration requirement does not infringe the constitution, presumably because it doesn't directly prevent an individual from obtaining and bearing arms.

Is there a counter argument that could be used with other appeals courts and SCOTUS?

If this stands, I guess our focus would have to be on legislation for this point

 

[gun_with_a_view]

its (strict scrutiny) wholesale adoption is by no means a foregone conclusion.

It would be adopted wholesale by all courts once SCOTUS says it applies, assuming it does. That's not an unreasonable assumption by any means. Being as the plaintiff/appellant in this case is none other than Dick Heller, this one may indeed go all the way up the ladder if the parties involved take the bait.

 

[swinokur]

This was a ruling bu the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. The only avenue left for either side is to ask for an en banc review or ask SCOTUS for CERT.

Neither is guaranteed.

DC is still smarting from the SCOTUS ruling in Heller. IMO they'd be ill served by an appeal. According to a lawyer friend of mine who practices before the DC Circuit, they don't frequently grant en banc requests.

watching and waiting.

 

[Jeepergeo]

Next Churches and the press will need to register, and the Boy Scouts in order ti have a meeting. Yet your 14 year old daughter can walkninto a DC Planned Parenthood Clinic and get a an abortion and not even .need to show ID.

Our rights as we know them are dwindling at a rapid pace.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Next Churches and the press will need to register, and the Boy Scouts in order ti have a meeting. Yet your 14 year old daughter can walkninto a DC Planned Parenthood Clinic and get a an abortion and not even .need to show ID.

Our rights as we know them are dwindling at a rapid pace.

Let's stick with the real world, shall we?

Since you alluded to the First Amendment, let's consider the regulation of rights protected by the First Amendment. While the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, assembly and religion, we know there has been a history of certain regulation of speech, assembly and religion. A few examples are:

1. Laws prohibiting such things as false advertising, fraud or misrepresentation, as well as laws requiring certain disclosures in connection with various transactions, would absolutely survive a challenge to their validity on Constitutional grounds even though such laws do impinge on the freedom of speech. Among other things, such laws serve compelling state interests related to promoting honest business and helping to preserve the integrity of commercial transactions. They tend to be only as broad as necessary to serve that function.
   
   
2. If you are offering securities or certain other types of investments to the public, your written solicitation materials will have to first be approved prior to use by one or more regulatory agencies. If you are selling medicines in interstate commerce, your labeling will have to be approved in advance by the FDA, and you will have to have demonstrated, through hard, scientific data, that any claims or representations made are true. These are also laws that abridge freedom of speech, and yet they are regularly enforced.
   
   
3. Laws respecting the time, place and manner of speech or assembly have also survived Constitutional challenges. Thus a municipality may require that organizers obtain a permit in order to hold an assembly or a parade and may prohibit such activities during, for example, the very early morning hours. Such regulations would be permitted only to the extent necessary to serve the compelling state interest of protecting public health and safety. Any such regulations, to be constitutionally permissible, could not consider the content of the speech or assembly; and they would need to be applied in an even handed manner based on set guidelines and not subject to the discretion of a public official. See, for example:
   
   
   • Hill v Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 120 S.Ct. 2480, 147 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000), in which the Court, in upholding a Colorado law restricting protesting, educational or counseling activities within 100 feet of the entrance to a health facility, noted:

     ...We are likewise persuaded that the statute is "narrowly tailored" to serve those interests and that it leaves open ample alternative channels for communication. As we have emphasized on more than one occasion, when a content-neutral regulation does not entirely foreclose any means of communication, it may satisfy the tailoring requirement...

     
     
   • Santa Monica Food Not Bombs v. Santa Monica, 450 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir., 2006) in which the court upheld a Santa Monica ordinance requiring a permit for public assemblies. In fact in Santa Monica Food Not Bombs the court specifically acknowledges that the ordinance may burden the protected right, noting, at pg 1038:

     ...A narrowly-tailored permitting regulation need not be the least restrictive means of furthering a locality's asserted interests. The regulation may not, however, burden substantially more speech than necessary to achieve a scheme's important goals. See United States v. Baugh, 187 F.3d 1037, 1043 (9th Cir.1999). "[T]he requirement of narrow tailoring is satisfied `so long as the . . . regulation promotes a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation.'" Ward, 491 U.S. at 799, 109 S.Ct. 2746 (quoting United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675, 689, 105 S.Ct. 2897, 86 L.Ed.2d 536 (1985))...

   
   
4. In the leading case on prior restraint (Near v. State of Minnesota Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S.Ct. 625, 75 L.Ed. 1357 (1931)) the Court in striking down a Minnesota statute allowing for the abatement, as a public nuisance, of malicious, scandalous and defamatory news analyzed in considerable detail and depth the scope and extent of the infringement of the freedom of press, the interests served and the availability of other and narrower remedies. And the Court then reached the conclusion that the statute went too far to be a permissible regulation.
   
   But nonetheless the Court also noted that certain interests, under certain circumstances would justify even prior restraint (Near, 283 U. S. 657, at 715 - 716):

   ...The objection has also been made that the principle as to immunity from previous restraint is stated too broadly, if every such restraint is deemed to be prohibited. That is undoubtedly true; the protection even as to previous restraint is not absolutely unlimited. But the limitation has been recognized only in exceptional cases. 'When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its error that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.' Schenck v. United States, 249 U. S. 47, 52, 39 S. Ct. 247, 249, 63 L. Ed. 470. No one would question but that a government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops.6 On similar grounds, the primary requirements of decency may be enforced against obscene publications. The security of the community life may be protected against incitements to acts of violence and the overthrow by force of orderly government. The constitutional guaranty of free speech does not 'protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 418, 139, 31 S. Ct. 492, 55 L. Ed. 797, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 874.' Schenck v. United States, supra. These limitations are not applicable here. Nor are we now concerned with questions as to the extent of authority to prevent publications in order to protect private rights according to the principles governing the exercise of the jurisdiction of courts of equity...

   
   
5. In the past, laws prohibiting polygamy have been upheld against challenges that they violate the right to free exercise of religion (Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 10 S.Ct. 299, 33 L.Ed. 637 (1890)).
   
   
6. And let's consider the question of a tax on newspapers.
   
   
   1. For example, in Minneapolis Star and Tribune Company v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575, 103 S.Ct. 1365, 75 L.Ed.2d 295 (1983) the Supreme Court struck down on First Amendment grounds a Minnesota tax that affected only a few of the large newspaper publishers. And a major factor in the Court's decision was the differential nature of the tax.
      
      
   2. For example, the Court points out (Minneapolis Star and Tribune, 460 U. S. 575, at 581):

      ...Clearly, the First Amendment does not prohibit all regulation of the press. It is beyond dispute that the States and the Federal Government can subject newspapers to generally applicable economic regulations without creating constitutional problems. See, e.g., Citizens Publishing Co. v. United States, 394 U.S. 131, 139, 89 S.Ct. 927, 931, 22 L.Ed.2d 148 (1969) (antitrust laws); Lorain Journal Co. v. United States, 342 U.S. 143, 155-156, 72 S.Ct. 181, 187, 96 L.Ed. 162 (1951) (same); Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622, 71 S.Ct. 921, 95 L.Ed. 1233 (1951) (prohibition of door-to-door solicitation); Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186, 192-193, 66 S.Ct. 494, 497-98, 90 L.Ed. 614 (1946) (Fair Labor Standards Act); Mabee v. White Plains Publishing Co., 327 U.S. 178, 66 S.Ct. 511, 90 L.Ed. 607 (1946) (same); Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 6-7, 19-20, 65 S.Ct. 1416, 1418 1424, 89 L.Ed. 2013 (1945) (antitrust laws); Associated Press v. NLRB, 301 U.S. 103, 132-133, 57 S.Ct. 650, 656, 81 L.Ed. 953 (1937) (NLRA); see also Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 92 S.Ct. 2646, 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972) (enforcement of subpoenas). ...

      
      
   3. But in Minneapolis Star and Tribune (at 581):

      ...Minnesota, however, has not chosen to apply its general sales and use tax to newspapers. Instead, it has created a special tax that applies only to certain publications protected by the First Amendment. Although the State argues now that the tax on paper and ink is part of the general scheme of taxation, the use tax provision, quoted in note 2, supra, is facially discriminatory, singling out publications for treatment that is, to our knowledge, unique in Minnesota tax law.
      
      Minnesota's treatment of publications differs from that of other enterprises...

      
      
   4. However, the Court also admitted the possibility of a permissible regulatory tax (at 582):

      ...A tax that burdens rights protected by the First Amendment cannot stand unless the burden is necessary to achieve an overriding governmental interest....

So in fact the reality is that rights protected by the Constitution may nonetheless be subject to some limited regulation. The foregoing discussion of First Amendment jurisprudence serves the limited purpose of demonstrating that the courts do permit limited regulation of a constitutionally protected right. There are numerous examples of laws sustained by the courts which abridge freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, and freedom of religion. And First Amendment jurisprudence also offers some clues as to how such regulations will be evaluated by the courts.

We can not expect, nor will we see, perfect correspondence between the regulation of rights protected by the First Amendment and the regulation of rights protected by the Second Amendment. First Amendment jurisprudence is quite mature at this point, but Second Amendment jurisprudence, in the wake of Heller, is in its infancy. However, we can expect some regulation of Second Amendment rights to be upheld by the courts.

 

[mp510]

ummm?......what is the purpose of this requirement?

if my gun is already registered, what benefit is there to me having to register it again?
__________________

Ostensibly, they would claim that the purpose is to ensure that you did not unlawfully divert the firearm or at best did not fail to report it lost or stolen. Remember that the re-registration required bringing the firearm to an MPDC facility in person.