Hanson V DC, The DC Magazine Capacity Case

[rbird7282]

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

That asshat should be impeached and removed from the bench


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sunrise]

That asshat should be impeached and removed from the bench


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He’s so proud of himself. He deliberately ignored and misconstrued established precedent. This will eventually be overturned on appeal.

See this Commentary Thread I mentioned earlier:



Until that happens, practice those reloads for DC.

 

[jcutonilli]

That asshat should be impeached and removed from the bench


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You blame the judge, I blame the plaintiff's lawyers.

DC postulated that weapons "most useful in military service" are excluded from 2A protection. The plaintiffs counter by stating that the Supreme Court’s precedents do not withhold protection from arms merely because they are useful in militia service. The plaintiffs do not explain why DC is misreading Heller however.

The plaintiffs presented evidence that agrees with DC that an average of 2.2 rounds are fired in defensive use. Apparently this data comes from the NRA armed citizen database. If anyone reads the armed citizen reports from the NRA you will notice that the number of shot fired in not typically recorded most of the time. I don't know how you can accurately get an answer given all of the missing data.

Those are just a few examples. There are a lot of poor arguments coming from the plaintiffs in this case.

 

[teratos]

You blame the judge, I blame the plaintiff's lawyers.

DC postulated that weapons "most useful in military service" are excluded from 2A protection. The plaintiffs counter by stating that the Supreme Court’s precedents do not withhold protection from arms merely because they are useful in militia service. The plaintiffs do not explain why DC is misreading Heller however.

The plaintiffs presented evidence that agrees with DC that an average of 2.2 rounds are fired in defensive use. Apparently this data comes from the NRA armed citizen database. If anyone reads the armed citizen reports from the NRA you will notice that the number of shot fired in not typically recorded most of the time. I don't know how you can accurately get an answer given all of the missing data.

Those are just a few examples. There are a lot of poor arguments coming from the plaintiffs in this case.

It doesn’t matter how many shots are fired. The 2A is a restraint against government, not the people.

 

[Sunrise]

You blame the judge, I blame the plaintiff's lawyers.

DC postulated that weapons "most useful in military service" are excluded from 2A protection. The plaintiffs counter by stating that the Supreme Court’s precedents do not withhold protection from arms merely because they are useful in militia service. The plaintiffs do not explain why DC is misreading Heller however.

The plaintiffs presented evidence that agrees with DC that an average of 2.2 rounds are fired in defensive use. Apparently this data comes from the NRA armed citizen database. If anyone reads the armed citizen reports from the NRA you will notice that the number of shot fired in not typically recorded most of the time. I don't know how you can accurately get an answer given all of the missing data.

Those are just a few examples. There are a lot of poor arguments coming from the plaintiffs in this case.

I absolutely blame the Judge. Have a look at this and the cases cited:

 

[rbird7282]

You blame the judge, I blame the plaintiff's lawyers.

DC postulated that weapons "most useful in military service" are excluded from 2A protection. The plaintiffs counter by stating that the Supreme Court’s precedents do not withhold protection from arms merely because they are useful in militia service. The plaintiffs do not explain why DC is misreading Heller however.

The plaintiffs presented evidence that agrees with DC that an average of 2.2 rounds are fired in defensive use. Apparently this data comes from the NRA armed citizen database. If anyone reads the armed citizen reports from the NRA you will notice that the number of shot fired in not typically recorded most of the time. I don't know how you can accurately get an answer given all of the missing data.

Those are just a few examples. There are a lot of poor arguments coming from the plaintiffs in this case.

Yes I blame the judge. Doesn’t matter how many rounds are fired in self defense on average, it’s irrelevant. Not infringed=not restricting in any way. You may not agree with that but The Second Amendment says shall not infringe, it simply doesn’t get any clearer.
Every time our side gets ruled against, your answer is always the same, the case wasn’t argued correctly. You must be smarter than all of the lawyers arguing these cases. Why don’t you go win one for us?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jcutonilli]

It doesn’t matter how many shots are fired. The 2A is a restraint against government, not the people.

It may matter. SCOTUS has said the right is not unlimited. What is protected are arms "in common use". They have not provided any indication as to what that means.

How many shot are fired does provide information about common usage. It is up to the lawyer to provide context, which the plaintiffs lawyers have not really done.

 

[Occam]

It may matter. SCOTUS has said the right is not unlimited. What is protected are arms "in common use". They have not provided any indication as to what that means.

How many shot are fired does provide information about common usage. It is up to the lawyer to provide context, which the plaintiffs lawyers have not really done.

Here's a guess: the way that the overwhelming majority of the states conduct themselves with respect to magazine capacity would be the "common" usage. Done. That's not difficult for us or a judge to grasp. More importantly, DC's own law enforcement folks - including the ones that protect that judge - carry standard capacity mags, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of cops never fire a single round at a human in their entire careers. Fishing for stats while arguing about the government-limiting principles in the Bill of Rights is pure BS.

 

[jcutonilli]

I absolutely blame the Judge. Have a look at this and the cases cited:

Different case, different judge. The arguments presented are sufficient for certain judges, but not all of them. There are usually enough judges at the higher levels to overcome any temporary wins. The reasoning of this judge in this case is not sufficiently different from the majority of other judges to make this particular judge stand out.

 

[jcutonilli]

Yes I blame the judge. Doesn’t matter how many rounds are fired in self defense on average, it’s irrelevant. Not infringed=not restricting in any way. You may not agree with that but The Second Amendment says shall not infringe, it simply doesn’t get any clearer.
Every time our side gets ruled against, your answer is always the same, the case wasn’t argued correctly. You must be smarter than all of the lawyers arguing these cases. Why don’t you go win one for us?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The 2A talks about not infringing the right, but it does not define what that right actually is. It certainly is not unlimited, which means there can be certain restrictions imposed without actually infringing on the right.

I don't claim to be smarter than all the lawyers arguing the cases. I simply understand the other sides argument. I try to get involved, but the lawyers don't seem to want to argue the case differently. There is only so much that I can do.

 

[jcutonilli]

Here's a guess: the way that the overwhelming majority of the states conduct themselves with respect to magazine capacity would be the "common" usage. Done. That's not difficult for us or a judge to grasp. More importantly, DC's own law enforcement folks - including the ones that protect that judge - carry standard capacity mags, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of cops never fire a single round at a human in their entire careers. Fishing for stats while arguing about the government-limiting principles in the Bill of Rights is pure BS.

Unfortunately you or I do not decide these cases. They are decided by judges that only have the arguments before them to decide. I am not aware that the plaintiffs mentioned anything about how the police use their arms. The job of the lawyer is to defeat the other sides argument. The fact that the lawyers leave out important information demonstrates my point.

 

[clandestine]

I don't claim to be smarter than all the lawyers arguing the cases. I simply understand the other sides argument. I try to get involved, but the lawyers don't seem to want to argue the case differently. There is only so much that I can do.

You come across as an Antigunner.

 

[Sunrise]

Yes I blame the judge. Doesn’t matter how many rounds are fired in self defense on average, it’s irrelevant. Not infringed=not restricting in any way. You may not agree with that but The Second Amendment says shall not infringe, it simply doesn’t get any clearer.
Every time our side gets ruled against, your answer is always the same, the case wasn’t argued correctly. You must be smarter than all of the lawyers arguing these cases. Why don’t you go win one for us?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here's a guess: the way that the overwhelming majority of the states conduct themselves with respect to magazine capacity would be the "common" usage. Done. That's not difficult for us or a judge to grasp. More importantly, DC's own law enforcement folks - including the ones that protect that judge - carry standard capacity mags, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of cops never fire a single round at a human in their entire careers. Fishing for stats while arguing about the government-limiting principles in the Bill of Rights is pure BS.

Exactly right on both counts here.

 

[Sunrise]

Different case, different judge. The arguments presented are sufficient for certain judges, but not all of them. There are usually enough judges at the higher levels to overcome any temporary wins. The reasoning of this judge in this case is not sufficiently different from the majority of other judges to make this particular judge stand out.

It's a different case which cites the same cases that this Judge deliberately ignored the established precedent of. That case cited Heller, which that Judge followed and this Judge didn't. It cited Bruen, which that Judge followed and this Judge didn't.

I'll let Kostas do the talking here:

Thread by @MorosKostas on Thread Reader App

@MorosKostas: Alright, let's talk about some of this ruling, and what it got right and wrong. Spoiler: it got most of the key questions wrong. I am going to skip the factual and legal background sections...…

threadreaderapp.com

My favorite sections:

Notice the sleight of hand here. He starts with "whether the prohibited weapons are ‘typically possessed . . . for lawful purposes.” That's the correct standard for 2A protection.

But then he narrows that to JUST self-defense, which is not the only lawful purpose.

.....

This is such ahistorical nonsense. Just look at my thread on the 19th century commentary - military small arms are MOST protected by the Second Amendment. This is a point SCOTUS will have to clarify soon, because it will keep being abused.

......

A common trend with bad-faith analyses by antigun judges is to basically sneak in barely-veiled interest balancing under the guise of a plain text analysis.

Here, this is just him saying the burden of a mag cap law is light. That's interest balancing.

......

It's also straight up nonsense because even if the test were only about self-defense, the fact remains that many popular semiauto pistols today come standard with mags over ten rounds. Thus, they are commonly *owned* for self defense, which is the test.

......

Wow, now he's not even trying to hide the policymaking in his ruling. Police maintaining their advantage is NOT part of the Second Amendment analysis. Maybe this judge should run for congress and write bills with police exemptions if this is what he wants to do.

.......

And now, after he spent all that time magically switching the standard to commonly USED for self defense, he switches back and declares they are not typically POSSESSED for self defense.

You disagree with anything he said?

 

[Sunrise]

The 2A talks about not infringing the right, but it does not define what that right actually is. It certainly is not unlimited, which means there can be certain restrictions imposed without actually infringing on the right.

I don't claim to be smarter than all the lawyers arguing the cases. I simply understand the other sides argument. I try to get involved, but the lawyers don't seem to want to argue the case differently. There is only so much that I can do.

It doesn't have to define what the right is. Historically, arms included privately owned cannon and ships.

You've contacted George Lyon (attorney-of-record) about getting involved in this case?

 

[Sunrise]

Unfortunately you or I do not decide these cases. They are decided by judges that only have the arguments before them to decide. I am not aware that the plaintiffs mentioned anything about how the police use their arms. The job of the lawyer is to defeat the other sides argument. The fact that the lawyers leave out important information demonstrates my point.

These Judges also have their politics before them. Judge Contreras deliberately ignored the precedent established in Heller, Bruen and other cases. He intentionally ignored plain text analysis and substituted a balancing test of his own creation instead which was completely incoherent and inappropriate in making reference to preserving a "police advantage". You tell me: Since when did that become part of any Second Amendment related analysis? Finally, he was purposefully inconsistent and sloppy with his verbiage to reach his desired outcome which was politically driven.

 

[JohnnyE]

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.

This guy wasn't.

 

[Sunrise]

This guy wasn't.

View attachment 411501

Oh the favors that were called it on that....

David Gregory Broke Gun Law, Newly Revealed Arrest Affidavit Shows (Video) - TheWrap

NBC News was aware of what the then-"Meet the Press" host could face for on-air stunt in late 2012

www.thewrap.com

 

[jcutonilli]

You come across as an Antigunner.

Because I understand the the other side's arguments and find fault with the plaintiff's arguments when they lose? It is about learning from your mistakes and making better arguments so that you will win the next time.

Maybe you are happy with the status quo and all of the losses that happen in Court. Doing the same thing over an over and expecting a different result is often described as insanity. It seems to describe what you seem to believe.

 

[jcutonilli]

It's a different case which cites the same cases that this Judge deliberately ignored the established precedent of. That case cited Heller, which that Judge followed and this Judge didn't. It cited Bruen, which that Judge followed and this Judge didn't.

I'll let Kostas do the talking here:

Thread by @MorosKostas on Thread Reader App

@MorosKostas: Alright, let's talk about some of this ruling, and what it got right and wrong. Spoiler: it got most of the key questions wrong. I am going to skip the factual and legal background sections...…

threadreaderapp.com

My favorite sections:

Notice the sleight of hand here. He starts with "whether the prohibited weapons are ‘typically possessed . . . for lawful purposes.” That's the correct standard for 2A protection.

But then he narrows that to JUST self-defense, which is not the only lawful purpose.

.....

This is such ahistorical nonsense. Just look at my thread on the 19th century commentary - military small arms are MOST protected by the Second Amendment. This is a point SCOTUS will have to clarify soon, because it will keep being abused.

......

A common trend with bad-faith analyses by antigun judges is to basically sneak in barely-veiled interest balancing under the guise of a plain text analysis.

Here, this is just him saying the burden of a mag cap law is light. That's interest balancing.

......

It's also straight up nonsense because even if the test were only about self-defense, the fact remains that many popular semiauto pistols today come standard with mags over ten rounds. Thus, they are commonly *owned* for self defense, which is the test.

......

Wow, now he's not even trying to hide the policymaking in his ruling. Police maintaining their advantage is NOT part of the Second Amendment analysis. Maybe this judge should run for congress and write bills with police exemptions if this is what he wants to do.

.......

And now, after he spent all that time magically switching the standard to commonly USED for self defense, he switches back and declares they are not typically POSSESSED for self defense.

You disagree with anything he said?

I disagree that the test is "commonly *owned*". The test is "in common use"

I also disagree that it is bad-faith by the judge. In order to figure out whether it is really the judge or the lawyer, you need to evaluate the arguments that were presented. I see a poor performance by the lawyer and a judge that took advantage of that poor performance.

The judges are not ignoring the precedent, they are cherry picking the parts of the precedent that the government says is appropriate. It is the job of the plaintiff to demonstrate why the cherry picking is wrong. The plaintiffs fail to do that and SCOTUS continues to deny cert to a significant number of 2A cases because they don't provide any additional explanation of the errors.