Heller II trial court rules for DC 3/26/10

krucam said:

I'll buy dinners for Patrick & c&rdaze if I'm wrong...
http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=25131&page=28

2010 is going to be a great year...

Click to expand...

kharn said:

Heller 2 does not require McDonald, it is DC-only so there are no incorporation questions and can be appealed immediately. The parties will probably be asked to submit supplemental briefs in light of McDonald, when it comes out in June.

Click to expand...

... The big change from the 2008 Heller decision might have simply been that D.C. law now requires that gun owners (primarily those owning long guns) only have to store their guns locked and unloaded if minors might have access to them. And it is probably this change that helps explain why D.C.'s murder rate fell by 25 percent the year after the handgun ban was struck down as unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

Decoy said:

I have a feeling that D.C. will just openly ignore the court for a second time.

Click to expand...

Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- Following the dismissal of a second lawsuit against the District of Columbia by Dick Anthony Heller in U.S. District Court (his first lawsuit resulted in the 2008 Heller ruling), the Brady Campaign for the Prevention of Gun Violence was a little too quick on the trigger in its press release applauding Judge Ricardo M. Urbina’s decision.

Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke, who has garnered quite a bit of self-created publicity lately in his war against Starbucks Coffee, admitted quite by accident that his organization still believes in banning entire classes of firearms, despite the 2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that such bans would not pass constitutional muster.

But that doesn’t matter to the Brady Bunch. Their agenda has always been one of gun prohibition, not control. The kinds of controls they consider “common sense” are so Draconian in nature that they actually discourage firearms ownership, and lower the civil right to keep and bear arms to the level of a highly-regulated privilege.

Click to expand...

William J. Olson, P.C., Attorneys At Law

Heller II, Amicus Brief Filed in Support of Appellants, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (July 30, 2010)
On July 30, 2010, in the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, our firm filed the only amicus curiae brief filed in support of the challenge by appellant Dick Heller and others to portions of the D.C. Code that (i) require registration of all firearms, (ii) prohibit registration of so-called “assault weapons” and (iii) prohibit possession of so-called “high capacity” magazines.

Our brief argues that the District Court erred when it upheld the District’s laws employing “intermediate scrutiny” – a judicially created standard of review that permits laws that are “reasonably related to an important government interest.” Our brief demonstrates that the Supreme Court has rejected such “interest balancing” standards of review in both the Heller I and McDonald cases. Instead, once a court determines that a person is part of “the people” and that the weapon is one of the “arms” protected by the Second Amendment, the amendment provides its own standard of review — “shall not be infringed.”

The brief then explained why the District has no jurisdiction to require a citizen to obtain a permit from the city to possess a firearm protected by the Second Amendment, and why the “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines” which the District of Columbia seeks to ban are protected “arms under the Second Amendment, as provided in United States v. Miller (1939) and the Heller I decision.

Our amicus brief in Heller v. District of Columbia, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, No. 10-7036, was filed on behalf of:
Gun Owners of America, Inc.
Gun Owners Foundation
Virginia Citizens Defense League
Maryland Shall Issue, Inc.
Gun Owners of California, Inc.
Lincoln Institute for Research and Education
Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund

Click to expand...

krucam said:

Did I miss something in one of the MSI Newsletters??? Apologies if this was mentioned/announced, but I missed it...until today.

Particularly, this:



Amicus Brief (MSI et al) July 30, 2010: http://www.lawandfreedom.com/site/firearms/HellerII_Amicus.pdf
Kudos to MSI...Fantastic rebuttal to the Intermediate Scrutiny erroneously applied in the Spring ruling.

Heller v. District of Columbia (aka Heller II) US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit docket 10-7036
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cadc/10-7036/
http://www.lawandfreedom.com/site/firearms/

Click to expand...

Sthomas229 said:

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=41195
We all miss something now and then

Click to expand...

II. THE REGISTRATION, EXPIRATION, AND RE-REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS VIOLATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT
A. Heller Reaffirms Miller’s Premise that Second Amendment Protection Precludes Registration.
B. A Person May Not Be Required to Register to Exercise a Core Constitutional Right.
C. Registration Is Not a Traditional Regulation.
D. Registration Has No Militia Purpose.
E. Fees May Not Be Charged to Exercise Constitutional Rights.
F. Rationing Pistol Acquisition to One Per Month.
G. Fingerprints and Photographs.
H. Ballistics Testing.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1) Whether strict scrutiny should be applied to determine the validity, under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, of the challenged provisions of the District’s firearms laws.
2) Whether the challenged registration requirements violate the Second Amendment.
3) Whether the prohibition on “assault weapons” violates the Second Amendment.
4) Whether the prohibition on “large capacity ammunition feeding devices” violates the Second Amendment.
5) Whether the challenged registration requirements and the prohibitions on “assault weapons” and “large capacity ammunition feeding devices” are authorized by D.C. Code § 1-303.43.

Click to expand...

krucam said:

10/08/2010 Open Document CLERK'S ORDER filed [1270576] scheduling oral argument before Judges GINSBURG, HENDERSON, KAVANAUGH 11/15/2010 AM [10-7036]

and earlier, but missed:
09/29/2010 Open Document CLERK'S ORDER filed [1268704] granting appellant's motion to extend time to file reply brief [1268428-2]; [1248731-2] APPELLANT Reply Brief now due 10/18/2010 [10-7036]

Appellant is Heller/Plaintiffs. We should have a brief from them by 10/18, before the 11/15 Oral Arguments. See my Post #36 above...

Click to expand...

10/18/2010 Open Document APPELLANT REPLY BRIEF [1271969] filed by William Carter, Dick Anthony Heller, Absalom F. Jordan, Jr. and Mark Snyder [Service Date: 10/18/2010 ] Length of Brief: 6,995 words. [10-7036]

Click to expand...