Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« An interesting auction | Main | Fed subpoena online newspaper comments »

Results in SAF/Alan Gura suit against DC

Posted by David Hardy · 17 June 2009 07:14 PM

SAF, rep'd by Alan Gura, sued DC in a followup action to challenge its post-Heller handgun regs. A recent SAF bulletin reports that DC has caved on one of the major provisions, i.e., adoption of the California list of "approved" handguns.

9 Comments | Leave a comment

Turk Turon | June 17, 2009 7:34 PM | Reply

Excellent! Another step forward.

How I Make $300 a Day Online | June 17, 2009 8:05 PM | Reply

Hey, great post, very well written. You should write more about this.

Jim D. | June 17, 2009 10:12 PM | Reply

(At least that last post wasn't in Russian.)

DARN! I was hoping it would get tossed by the Supremes and liberate us Californios.

DirtCrashr | June 18, 2009 9:09 AM | Reply

Now if we can only get the CA to drop the illegitimate "approved" list!

Bill | June 18, 2009 9:56 AM | Reply

So can we push the pope to fast track Alan Gura's canonization? I mean, so far he's racked up his two miracles.

fwb | June 18, 2009 10:02 AM | Reply

One would think the SC would read the Article 1, Section 8 and ask the question, "If the DC Council is legislating in DC, how can Congress exercise exclusive legislation in the district, which is an explicit and absolute requirement of the Constitution?"

Congress cannot legitimately delegate ANY authority because delegation of delegated authority is a breach of trust and a violation of the oath of office.

Tir gan teanga, tir gan anam!

zippypinhead | June 18, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply

Actually, this concession probably makes the SAF case a bit tougher to litigate as a practical matter, because it removes the single best reversal-bait in the ordinance. The way D.C.'s ordinance mis-applied the California approved list led to some strikingly absurd outcomes. The most publicized dumb result involved prohibiting a two-toned Sig while permitting the solid color version of the same model. But the most legally significant misuse of the list by D.C. in effect prohibited registration of the exact model .22 revolver that was the subject of Dick Heller's successful challenge in the Supreme Court. No court could uphold a law that reached that result.

How could that be, you ask? Because D.C. flatly prohibited registration of any handgun not on the California list. The list was only intended to preclude current sales in California of unlisted firearms, not mere possession. Thus the list does not include many handguns that aren't currently manufactured (unless the manufacturer specifically took action and spent $$$ to get its old models scheduled).

Note also that D.C.'s concession simply modifies the list to add guns on other states' approved lists and to prevent guns from coming off the list because they're no longer sold commercially, but does not abandon the overarching concept of limiting registerable handguns to a government-devised "approved" list.

Frank Perdicaro | June 18, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply

This is a complicated dance: I will try to explain the few little bits that I know.

In general there is a loose group of smart people in California and a loose group of dumb people on the city council in DC. The California group was doing some work, saw the DC group make a mistake, and acted quickly.

After Heller, DC looked around for any scheme that might
be used to continue gun banning. It spotted the
California roster scheme and adopted it. The Californians
realized the California roster would eventually be ruled
unconstitutional because it did not permit Heller's gun.

Litigation was started in DC first and CA second on the same
point -- the roster and Heller's gun. DC just figured out
that the roster is unconstitutional and did an emergency
law change in the city. The pending litigation rules across
the circuits now make it so the DC court had to tell the 9th that
the defendant (DC) agrees the CA roster is unconstitutional
and it needs to be abandoned.

OK, so the DC court just told the 9th the CA roster is
unconstitutional. Great. Can we now dispose of the parallel
case in the 9th by summary judgement? Yes, I think we can,
perhaps next week? The CA roster will just vanish.

THANK YOU DC City Council!

The XD Bitone is another poison pill hidden in the text. I
have been working this one for a while. The state of CA
has multiple, mutually exclusive definitions of what is a
"firearm". In the "Glock frames" underground ruling case
already settled by the CA Dept. of Administrative Law, the
state already lost on this point. The contradictory laws are
unconstitutionally vague. The XD Bitone can and cannot
be purchased in California. Buy it with your right hand, and
it is illegal. Buy it with your left hand, and it is legal.

So even if the bomb from the DC circuit does not kill the
case in the 9th, the defects of the roster will kill the roster.

Anonymous | June 18, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply

This was a district ct opinion not a circuit Ct.

Leave a comment