Hanson V DC, The DC Magazine Capacity Case

[Ismee]

28
Apr 20, 2023
MEMORANDUM OPINION denying 8 Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 4-20-2023. (lcrc3) (Entered: 04/20/2023)
Main Doc
Memorandum & Opinion

Its as if this goon is UNAWARE of the magazine capacity of the illegals...

"saying it "keeps the advantage police have over armed civilians" and they "are not covered by the [2A] because they are most useful in military service."...

So as i understand this (and fortunately im not an officer of the court), The illegals DON'T abide by the mag capacity limit.... The Police SHOULDN'T be bound by the mag limit, to keep their [tactical] advantage, but Dumb-ass little-old-law-abiding-me, GETS the dirty end of the stick in a gun battle. How blind, ignorant and unsympathetic does one have to be to get appointed to the bench in this clown-court?

 

[Sunrise]

28
Apr 20, 2023
MEMORANDUM OPINION denying 8 Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 4-20-2023. (lcrc3) (Entered: 04/20/2023)
Main Doc
Memorandum & Opinion

Its as if this goon is UNAWARE of the magazine capacity of the illegals...

"saying it "keeps the advantage police have over armed civilians" and they "are not covered by the [2A] because they are most useful in military service."...

So as i understand this (and fortunately im not an officer of the court), The illegals DON'T abide by the mag capacity limit.... The Police SHOULDN'T be bound by the mag limit, to keep their [tactical] advantage, but Dumb-ass little-old-law-abiding-me, GETS the dirty end of the stick in a gun battle. How blind, ignorant and unsympathetic does one have to be to get appointed to the bench in this clown-court?

You weren't supposed to notice that. Please report for reprogramming ASAP. Thanks.:

 

[rbird7282]

Not surprising at all:

From FPC Action Foundation today: "A DC federal judge has denied a motion for preliminary injunction against the district's magazine ban, saying it "keeps the advantage police have over armed civilians" and they "are not covered by the [2A] because they are most useful in military service."

Ruling

It's like these judges have never heard of Miller.

What a lying POS that judge is


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ismee]

" they "are not covered by the [2A] because they are most useful in military service."...

If this is Rudy's reasoning for "denying 8 Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction", sounds like his reasoning to rule against the Plaintiffs on the complaint. He should just dispense with decorum, and issue his ruling as summary judgment, so we can procede beyond this impediment and be on to the appeals court.

 

[Kanly]

How many people you think have been sentenced for up to 3 years or paid a fine of up to $12,500 for illegally possessing a standard capacity magazine.

My guess is zero. Especially when I look at MPD weekly gun confiscation thread on Twitter and then look up some of the names and see they've been arrested multiple times for illegal guns and magazines and ammo and a lot are under 21.

But you can bet your life any good upstanding legal citizen with a permit will get the book thrown at them for the slightest mistake.

 

[Longhorse]

If the magazines are "most useful in military service," that should strengthen the argument that they are covered by the 2nd Amendment, not be used as an argument against it. That's completely backwards.

 

[jcutonilli]

The opinion was about more than just "most useful in military service" There were a number of reasons. This is yet another example of poorly argued cases getting poorly decided.

 

[delaware_export]

wasn’t the premise of miller, circa 1938 short barrel shotgun, … weapons that are most useful ARE protected.

And the SBS in the case was not protected because it was not MOST USEFUL for military service…

This court just completely tossed scotus precedent on its ear… and used scotus logic for protected to say something is NOT protected.

Or am I missing something here?

 

[jcutonilli]

wasn’t the premise of miller, circa 1938 short barrel shotgun, … weapons that are most useful ARE protected.

And the SBS in the case was not protected because it was not MOST USEFUL for military service…

This court just completely tossed scotus precedent on its ear… and used scotus logic for protected to say something is NOT protected.

Or am I missing something here?

Heller modified Miller.

We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179.

The judge misread the M16 sentence in Heller just like the 4th circuit in Kolbe.

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

 

[Sunrise]

The opinion was about more than just "most useful in military service" There were a number of reasons. This is yet another example of poorly argued cases getting poorly decided.

You should share your suggestions with Plaintiffs’ Attorney: https://www.arsenalattorneys.com/george-l-lyon

I am not being facetious. If you have legit feedback on how this could have been litigated better, you should tell him for all of our benefit.

 

[Kanly]

Heller modified Miller.

The judge misread the M16 sentence in Heller just like the 4th circuit in Kolbe.

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned


I have seen this sentence in so many pro-gun control briefings and arguments.

To my non-lawyer mind -- is not Scalia just doing a thought experiment here? Is he not saying "It may be posited or argued ...?"

I see and hear it all the time: "Well even Scalia said the M16/AR-15 can be banned."

The sheer amount of disingenuous, dishonest and out-of-context comments/arguments -- in legal briefings no less -- is truly astonishing to me.

 

[jcutonilli]

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned


I have seen this sentence in so many pro-gun control briefings and arguments.

To my non-lawyer mind -- is not Scalia just doing a thought experiment here? Is he not saying "It may be posited or argued ...?"

I see and hear it all the time: "Well even Scalia said the M16/AR-15 can be banned."

The sheer amount of disingenuous, dishonest and out-of-context comments/arguments -- in legal briefings no less -- is truly astonishing to me.

I think it was more than just a thought experiment. I believe Scalia was trying to make the argument that military usefulness is not the criterion that should be used. The criterion should be common use. This is why the statement about "arms that are highly unusual in society at large" was made and "bombers and tanks" were cited as examples of arms not protected.

 

[Occam]

I was just reading an article in Stars and Stripes (the .MIL newspaper/web outlet), and it was riddled with commas, periods, and hyphens. Clearly such punctuation is very useful to the military, and shouldn't be covered by the First Amendment.

 

[Sunrise]

Thread:



Spot-on analysis here.

 

[Blacksmith101]

Suggestion, maybe this thread should get moved to the National 2A thread since there are now multiple LCM lawsuits in several other states and the rulings issued will tend to effect all the others. I think this is a national issue rather than just a DC issue.

 

[Longhorse]

So what's the next step? Appeal to a higher court?

 

[Kanly]

I think it was more than just a thought experiment. I believe Scalia was trying to make the argument that military usefulness is not the criterion that should be used. The criterion should be common use. This is why the statement about "arms that are highly unusual in society at large" was made and "bombers and tanks" were cited as examples of arms not protected.

Thank you for the clarification/explanation jcutonilli. It is very much appreciated by this non-attorney.

 

[Ismee]

So what's the next step? Appeal to a higher court?

from where I see it, that was just the Preliminary Injunction, But the judge tipped his hand as to the merits of the case. It's as though he would just copy and paste to the final ruling.

 

[Blacksmith101]

Judge Says D.C.’s Ban On High-Capacity Gun Magazines Is Constitutional​

Judge Says D.C.'s Ban On High-Capacity Gun Magazines Is Constitutional

The ruling comes amidst an increase in litigation from gun advocates looking to overturn some of D.C.'s strict rules on gun possession.

dcist.com

 

[Occam]

"Contreras did just the opposite, finding that the city’s ban does not violate the Second Amendment. He wrote that high-capacity magazines do not merit constitutional protection because they have traditionally been linked to military service and are not necessary for self-defense..."

So, that means the very much NOT military security people who look after that judge's well being will be happy to accept that same mag limit? How about all the other very much non-military LEOs and protective details that operate within DC's boundaries?

Regardless, this flies in the face of Bruen. Text/History/Tradition requires that judge to agree with arguments pointing out that when the 2A was ratified, there were such limits in place - otherwise, it's an infringement without an historical example in place when the Bill of Rights said "shall not be infringed." Get thee to the appeals nunnery!