« Women and guns: a growing phenomenon | Main | Another Bloomberg mayor bites the dust »
Injunction against Corps of Engineers gun restrictions
It's Morris v. US Army Corps of Engineers, D. Idaho, Jan. 10, 2014.
The Corps promulgated a regulation generally forbidding possession of a firearm and other arms (with exceptions for hunting and use at authorized ranges) on land it controls, including 700 dams and associated recreation areas. The court strikes down the regulation on 2A grounds. The court reasons that the regulation affects the core Heller right of self-defense, and that possession in a tent is as protected as possession in a home, the regulation entirely forbids that, and therefore is subject to strict scrutiny.
It reasons that possession for self-defense outside the tent is also protected. It reasons that a complete ban on that is a serious infringement, but it is not necessary to pick a standard of review since this would fail even intermediate review. It grants a preliminary injunction since plaintiffs have proven a "strong likelihood" that they will win at trial.
8 Comments | Leave a comment
If you wanted a gun-savvy and -friendly District Court judge, I'd guess Idaho is probably among the top places to look.
This being a 9th Circuit case, it will be interesting to see if any of the pending three-judge-panel carry decisions from California and I think Hawaii will conflict with this, or just maybe be influenced by it?
Oregon Court of Appeals issued a similar judgment last month, but said nothing about Standard of Review. The OR case involved a person cited forpacking in his campsite outside of his tent. The Court ruled that the entire rented campsite must be considered equivalent to the entire interior of a home. The ruling voids prohibition against State Park carry for paying customers, at the least.
Most of expect the State Parks admin to weep, wail and gnash their teeth inthe Legislature next week, asking for a new law.
ANY LAW-ABIDING,LEGAL GUN-OWNING CITIZEN SHOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE THEIR LEGALLY-OWNED FIREARM ANYWHERE AN ARMED FELON MIGHT GO......ANYWHERE.
RIGHTS are not subject to opinion.
The core purpose of the Second Amendment is for
self-defense. (Washington D.C. V. Heller, 2008). The purpose of "bearing arms" is to have available the means of self-defense for either offensive or defensive use in case of confrontation with another. (Washington, D.C. v. Heller 2008). The Second Amendment is a fundamental, individual and constitutionally protected right through the "due process" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which is enforced pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act 2005)
The right to initiate the act of self-defense is not limited to the home but the right itself, exists anywhere a person has a right to be. (Case of Wild Bill Hick Killed Dave Tutt; Beard v. United States, U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Harlan 1895 and again, Beard v. United States, U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Oliver Wendell Homes 1921).
Correction:
Not: Beard v. United States, U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Oliver Wendell Homes !921)
Correct: Brown v. United States, U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes 1921)
My God, this is great! Are some of our "Black Robes" finally discovering that there's a Constitution is this increasingly Kafkaque land of ours? Is there really some hope here? Seeing something as logical as this really takes me by surprise - pleasantly so.