DC stumbling on dealing with Heller

Whether grudging compliance or studied neglect we shouldn't be surprised. Take a page out of the history books and remember what Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus did when Eisenhower sent elements of the 101st Airborne Division to Arkansas to protect the black students and enforce the Federal court order desegregating schools.

I find it amusing that DC wants to forbid possession of semi-auto pistols by classifying those with high cap magazines as "machine guns." So all DC cops carry machine guns?! Quick, someone alert the BATFE!

What concerns me is DC's talking about making an exception for keeping a pistol ready for use in self defense only while facing an immediate need for self defense.

I seem to remember discussion regarding this in the orals - but I can't find anything in the decision itself.

Yes, but desegregation proceeded "with all deliberate speed"

"desegregation proceeded 'with all deliberate speed'"

Faubus shut down Little Rock high schools for the 1958-1959 school year. This is referred to as "The Lost Year" in Little Rock.

Deliberate yes, speedy no. DC can (and should be compelled to) do WAY better.

Jeff, here is the portion of the argument I believe you are recollecting:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, before you
start with it, how many minutes does it take to remove a trigger lock and load a gun? Because both the gun has to be unloaded; it has to have a trigger lock under the District laws.

MR. DELLINGER: Those are alternatives, Mr.
Chief Justice.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: No, disassembled -

MR. DELLINGER: Just a trigger lock.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: In either case it has to be unloaded, correct?

MR. DELLINGER: There are some versions of the trigger lock that allow you to put the trigger lock on and then load the gun. But the piece that goes in the trigger mechanism, even someone as clumsy as I could remove it and effect it -

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, the law, as I understand it, says that the gun has to be unloaded. So under your hypothetical, I assume that would violate the District's law if the gun is still loaded.

MR. DELLINGER: You know, it's a question of
where you put the parenthesis. I read that as
disassembled and unloaded or under a trigger lock, and that's the, that's the way the District -

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So how long does it
take? If your interpretation is correct, how long does it take to remove the trigger lock and make the gun operable.

MR. DELLINGER: You -- you place a trigger lock on and it has -- the version I have, a few -- you can buy them at 17th Street Hardware -- has a code, like a three-digit code. You turn to the code and you pull it apart. That's all it takes. Even -- it took me 3 seconds.

JUSTICE SCALIA: You turn on, you turn on the lamp next to your bed so you can -- you can turn the knob at 3-22-95, and so somebody -

MR. DELLINGER: Well -

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Is it like that? Is it a numerical code?

MR. DELLINGER: Yes, you can have one with a
numerical code.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So then you turn on
the lamp, you pick up your reading glasses -
(Laughter.)

MR. DELLINGER: Let me tell you. That's right. Let me tell you why at the end of the day this doesn't -- this doesn't matter, for two reasons. The lesson -

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: It may not matter,
but I'd like some idea about how long it takes.

MR. DELLINGER: It took me 3 seconds. I'm not kidding. It's -- it's not that difficult to do it. That was in daylight.

On the issue of not allowing "machine guns" ...

The court said:
"Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home"

IIRC Mr. Heller was trying to register his Beretta, which is a semi-auto, when he was refused and had to file this suit. So ... since the court ruling says they have to register HIS handgun, doesn't that mean they at least have to register is semi-auto?

Could Fenty et al be held in contempt if they don't register Mr. Heller's Handgun (if it is a beretta)?

How does that work?

But Fenty and his sycophants can probably buy themselves a year or two while this works up through layers of appeal again.

And they can hope that they can delay till there is a change on the court that might tip this the other way.

Meanwhile, DC schools continue their collapse, the police remain corrupt, and tax dollars vanish in the black hole that is our nation's capitol. Home rule for the district was, arguably, one of Congress's dumber moves.

In reading the ruling: "In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense." I think you have to take that as meaning that not just handguns, but any firearm cannot be required to be made inoperable at all, since there is no way for a person to predict, in advance, when the need might arise. The time it takes to remove a trigger lock is contrary to the meaning of "immediate". And there's no doubt that a trigger lock renders a firearms inoperable.

Not being a lawyer, I'll even go out on a limb and say that "any firearm" does not mean that the owner of multiple arms must pick only one to keep at the ready, but rather the plain English reading reading that the person may keep any of their arms in operable condition applies. I will admit that I don't see anything in the ruling that speaks to the issue of loaded vs. unloaded. IMHO, unloaded is not "at the ready" for immediate use -- but that's a personal decision (and not one I'd leave up to the D.C. Council).

Bletch. Forgot to put in my name, etc. in the above anonymous post.

Steve & Bill, given the ruling's language on banning an entire class of weapons (because other types are available) being invalid, I'm pretty sure that D.C.'s curious and unique (this goes to the "common use" definition as well) definition of "machine gun" is outside the bounds of regulation they're allowed.

But, as you said, more lawsuits. What a travesty. Oh, and I mentioned over at my blog that even Nickles believes D.C. will get sued yet again.

It is my hope that when the injunction comes down, it will be detailed in telling D.C. exactly which parts of their law are invalid, and that the appropriate lower court will hit them with severe contempt charges if they try to push the boundary.

"It is my hope that when the injunction comes down, it will be detailed in telling D.C. exactly which parts of their law are invalid, and that the appropriate lower court will hit them with severe contempt charges if they try to push the boundary."

Unless the SCOTUS (in the form of Scalia) writes the sanctions, there currently is too much sympathy in the system for gun-grabbers to be treated like the bigots we know them to be. This isn't going to be like Arkansas in the 60's, but more like the South during Reconstruction -- hard fought and likely lost without occupation. It took a very heavy dose of Federalism enforced by the FBI to bring Mississippi into the 20th Century during the Civil Rights movement and I don't think the FBI is our 'friend' on this issue. Somehow, sending in the Feds to repeal gun control just doesn't seem to float the ideological boat all that well. Someone would have to explain very carefully to them that Republican statism and Liberal elitism have the same fascist authoritarian goals -- and that it is BAD, not good like they currently think it is.

Expect 'comfort' rulings to favor restrictive definitions of 'common usage' and 'reasonable restrictions'. Obama will push the SCOTUS hard over for the next 30 years, and McCain would likely find moderate candidates that will pass a Democratic-controlled Senate "in the spirit of compromise."

Regardless of your feelings about GWBush, this administration is likely the high-water mark for gun rights for the forseable future.

Unless the SCOTUS (in the form of Scalia) writes the sanctions, there currently is too much sympathy in the system for gun-grabbers to be treated like the bigots we know them to be.

Which lower court will write the injunction? The district court, or the court of appeals?

The district court had found for D.C., the appeals court's decision was arguably stronger than SCOTUS'.

Rule of law. That's funny. The DC gov is trying to evade the ruling. That is not conjecture, that is what they say they are about. Of course they will get sued again since they have no intention of complying. We are talking about DC, so they could go all out for compliance and STILL take forever to put a broken process into place.

The Mayor, Chief of Police, that despicable jerk temp city attorney Nickles, and the city council should all be charged with conspiracy to violate the civil rights of the citizenry.

Just don't hold your breath waiting for something like that to happen.

Sounds to me like a special master is going to be required to get DC into line. Also, on a related matter, once the mayor is found in contempt, does he lose his DC funded defense lawyers? I'd send money if Cato, or other competent attorney would bring civil action under Title 42 Chapter 21 Subchapter I § 1983 for deprivation of rights.

Why not simply declare the DC government to be in a state of rebellion against the United States...then suppress the rebellion by force of arms? Pour encourager l'autres.