New Gura suit vs DC on 3/9

[Librarian]

Link to complaint

SAF Press release PDF


SAF CHALLENGES D.C. HANDGUN BAN SCHEME


For 
Immediate 
Release:
 
 
 
 
 Contact:

 Alan
 Gottlieb
 (425)
454*-7012

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and three Washington, D.C. residents today filed a lawsuit challenging a regulation by District of Columbia city government that arbitrarily bans handguns based on a roster of “acceptable” handguns approved by the State of California.

The District is using this list despite a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court last summer that protects handguns “that ordinary people traditionally use for self-defense.” This scheme could eventually bar the ownership of any new handguns.

Attorney Alan Gura, representing the plaintiffs in this case, noted that District bureaucrats “told Tracy Ambeau Hanson her gun was the wrong color.” Americans are not limited to a government list of approved books, or approved religions, he said. A handgun protected by the Second Amendment doesn’t need to appear on any government-approved list either.

“The Springfield XD-45 is approved for sale in Washington,” Gura noted, “so long as it is black, green, or brown, but her bi-tone version is supposedly ‘unsafe’.”

Added SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, “The Supreme Court’s decision is crystal clear: Handguns that are used by people for self-defense and other lawful purposes cannot be banned, whether the city likes it or not. The city needs to accept the Second Amendment reality and stop this nonsense.”

DC Gun Rights Examiner link

 

[Gamera]

“The Springfield XD-45 is approved for sale in Washington,” Gura noted, “so long as it is black, green, or brown, but her bi-tone version is supposedly ‘unsafe’.”

 

[gbran]

This won't stand in D.C. after Heller. We need incorporation to make sure it doesn't stand in CA either.

 

[cbrgator]

I've met Gura personally, and don't worry... He's got a laundry list of gun laws he intends to fight to overturn. He's making his career out of it and by the time his career is over he'll have done more for gun rights in this country than anybody since the founding fathers.
(He does draw the line at automatic weapons though. He has no intention to fight that issue. Just in case you were curious.)

 

[Maelstrom]

A winner here could theoretically seal the fate of any future AWB. Once the argument that certain features can't be banned, the door is open to challenge all bans.

 

[kurtmax]

(He does draw the line at automatic weapons though. He has no intention to fight that issue. Just in case you were curious.)

I heard him say that it's not viable to pursue atm, not that he thinks automatic weapons should be illegal.

 

[cbrgator]

kurtmax, It's both. He thinks there is no shot for full-autos. In his words, "there is nobody in this country that wears a robe to work who will overturn that regulation." He also does not find them necessary for civilians.

 

[ants]

He also does not find them necessary for civilians.

Very curious. Since when did 'necessity' become the prerequisite for civil rights?

Does each book have to be deemed 'necessary' before its possession is protected by the First Amendment?

 

[highorder]

I suspect that was paraphrased; lets not jump all over anyone.

 

[armoredman]

Focus on what can be done, Go Gura!

 

[everallm]

How do you eat an entire elephant

One bite at a time.

This has serious implications for any "approved list" that a state may come up with as well as the ever popular "AWB" based on cosmetic features

 

[yokel]

From Gura's Chicago incorporation case brief:

The Second Amendment also has another purpose, spelled out in the
prefatory clause: preservation of the people’s ability to act as militia.
Heller, at 2800-01. The Amendment’s framers believed this purpose was
“necessary to the security of a free state.” U.S. Const. amend. II. By its
own terms, the Second Amendment secures a fundamental right.

I trust that Mr. Gura realizes that any halfway decent modern day militia is going to require machine guns, grenade launchers, man-portable anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns and missile launchers, recoilless rifles, and small mortars as minimum armament.

 

[KBintheSLC]

Wow... these DC anti's just never cease to amaze me with their "logic".

 

[MagnumDweeb]

Dammit by the time I have the logistics to take on these fights (2nd year law school student) there won't hardly be enough for me(hopefully, lol) to have a go, what'll be left. A bunch of ordinances preventing open carry, okay I want to fight that one anyway here in Florida(just silly we don't have that right, even if by a silly permit). Here's to hoping there are no gun laws to fight by the time I can fight them. There'll still probably be the 1987 Act limiting Machine Guns(I'm of the opinion they should be state regulated with reasonable documentation of ownership much like we have now with FFLs, but homebrews are aloud without paperwork).

 

[Jeff White]

I trust that Mr. Gura realizes that any halfway decent modern day militia is going to require machine guns, grenade launchers, man-portable anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns and missile launchers, recoilless rifles, and small mortars as minimum armament.

Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution says this:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec1

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

If congress decides that the militia should be armed with brooms and shovels, then that is what the militia gets. The militia argument is not going to get the NFA or 922 declared unconstitutional. The constitution is very clear that congress provides for the arming of the militia.

I know that what the constitution says is contrary to all of the comments I read here all the time about the militia clause protecting private ownership of basic Infantry weapons and the comments that since in the founding fathers time cannon and other artillery was privately owned. It's true they were privately owned, but simply because they weren't regulated. Congress clearly has the authority to decide how the militia is armed. Sorry to burst some bubbles.

I think that Gura is right in that no sitting federal judge is going to touch machine guns. And with the wording of Article I Section 8 of the constitution giving congress the authority to provide for the arming of the militia, there really aren't a lot of grounds to use the militia clause to overturn those laws.

 

[DHJenkins]

Isn't the National Guard the defacto militia for the US, anyway?

Are there any state militias that are recognized by the state they're in?

 

[everallm]

Folks,

Please, one of the biggest things to come out of Heller was the complete divorce of 2A from "militia", it's an individual right, look forward not backwards.

 

[DocBoCook]

plus, the last part of my signature puts a name on the "Militia" as defined in Title 10 of the US Code

 

[Prince Yamato]

One piece at a time folks. We'll get the MGs back, just not immediately.

 

[natman]

A winner here could theoretically seal the fate of any future AWB. Once the argument that certain features can't be banned, the door is open to challenge all bans.

The issue with the California handgun list isn't that certain features are banned. California requires that all new handguns sold in the state pass an array of "safety" tests. The manufacturer has to provide several guns for free as well as pay a hefty fee.

The problem is that every different part number has to be tested separately. This means that if a polished blue gun passes, an otherwise identical gun in stainless isn't legal to sell unless the manufacturer ponies up some more test guns and another round of fees.

The real kicker is that California requires the manufacturer to pay even more money to keep tested guns on the approved list. So when a manufacturer decides for any reason to stop paying the fees, a gun that was "safe" yesterday can suddenly become "unsafe" and illegal to sell today. You can imagine what that does to a dealer's inventory.

The whole thing is a bureaucratic nightmare. Heller can't abolish it fast enough.

 

[Librarian]

The problem is that every different part number has to be tested separately. This means that if a polished blue gun passes, an otherwise identical gun in stainless isn't legal to sell unless the manufacturer ponies up some more test guns and another round of fees.

Depends on how 'identical' they are. CA law allows just listing very similar models, without testing -- but each model must be listed and paid for, every year. See Calguns Foundation link.

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

I love D.C.!! They are the one place where preemption is not an issue and there is a somewhat pro-2A judiciary. Never the less these idiots continue to set up the best factual situations you could ever ask for. D.C. politicians are what pro-se felons taking cases on appeal are to our side.

We could never do it with out you Mr. Fenty. I need to send a check for your re-election.

 

[natman]

Depends on how 'identical' they are. CA law allows just listing very similar models, without testing -- but each model must be listed and paid for, every year. See Calguns Foundation link.

Good catch. The cited sections of the code seem pretty clear. So what is the issue with this quote?:

“The Springfield XD-45 is approved for sale in Washington,” Gura noted, “so long as it is black, green, or brown, but her bi-tone version is supposedly ‘unsafe’.”

 

[everallm]

The point about the challenge is that the list is inherently subjective and has no basis in a weapons safety, suitability etc.

By saying the CA list is unacceptable in DC it is a close follow up to say any of these lists are inherently unacceptable in any jurisdiction.

From there the "classic" AWB lists are incapable of standing as they are based on cosmetic features etc.

It could be further legitimately argued that the list by it's nature is a form of "Pay to Play" and illegal therefore.

Each element creates more case law, all grist to the mill.

 

[Colonel]

The issue with the California handgun list isn't that certain features are banned. California requires that all new handguns sold in the state pass an array of "safety" tests. The manufacturer has to provide several guns for free as well as pay a hefty fee.

The problem is that every different part number has to be tested separately. This means that if a polished blue gun passes, an otherwise identical gun in stainless isn't legal to sell unless the manufacturer ponies up some more test guns and another round of fees.

The real kicker is that California requires the manufacturer to pay even more money to keep tested guns on the approved list. So when a manufacturer decides for any reason to stop paying the fees, a gun that was "safe" yesterday can suddenly become "unsafe" and illegal to sell today. You can imagine what that does to a dealer's inventory.

The whole thing is a bureaucratic nightmare. Heller can't abolish it fast enough.

Heller could actually mean the abolition of California?

My faith in the federal judiciary is beginning to be restored!