Heller v DC (Heller II) DC District Court decision

[Dan F]

The DC District Court has found in favor of... (wait for it)... the defendant.

The report comes from TTAG here.

The decision is here.

Once again, it appears, rational basis masquerades as intermediate scrutiny, the Court shows "special deference" to legislative conclusions, and "experts" speculations count more than hard data.

I could only get about 7-8 pages into it before I had to put it down.

*sigh*

[Tom Servo]

If this is intermediate scrutiny, what must rational basis be? Boasberg shows a clear bias in accepting anecdotes from the defendants as evidence, and he's almost insulting in his dismissal of plaintiffs' arguments.

He closes with this, which gives a good indication of his attitude towards the proceedings.

In any event, as alluded to earlier, see Part III.C.4, supra, the Second Amendment has so far been read to protect only “a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.” McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3044. While one or two firearms may be necessary for such purposes, a large collection of weapons is not. The Constitution, in short, guarantees the right “to keep and bear arms,” not the right “to keep and bear an armory.” As an individual seeks to acquire more guns, he moves farther and farther away from the right to bear arms and closer toward the constitutionally unprotected goal of assembling a personal arsenal. [p. 59]

[speedrrracer]

Sure, in a fair and balanced system Boasberg's insults would not be tolerated, but we all know SCOTUS is not going to right this wrong, so Boasberg is the tin-pot dictator of the moment, and loving it.

[Jay24bal]

Wow, that quote Tom posted is insane, not that I am surprised seeing as the government feels they know best for everyone as of late on a whole host of issues.

I sure hope something comes from this on appeal and the folks of DC are not subjected to judicial lawmaking like this for long.

[Tom Servo]

A few more cheery quotes:

Given that the Supreme Court urges judicial deference to legislative predictions as well as to legislative judgments regarding conflicting evidence,it is plain that Plaintiffs are mistaken about the burden of proof in this case. The District need not prove that the gun-registration laws will actually further its asserted interests in order to prevail. [p. 17]

In sum, to survive intermediate scrutiny, the District must show that its predictions about the effect of its gun-registration laws reflect “reasonable inferences based on substantial evidence.” The standard for substantiality is doubly deferential in this case, where the Court is reviewing a legislative judgment on firearms policy. [p. 21]

Much more persuasive is the District’s second, public-safety, justification for the gun registry. The registration system ostensibly serves this interest by allowing the city government to screen out dangerous or irresponsible people who try to obtain a firearm, to ensure that gun owners are familiar with gun safety and D.C. firearm regulations, and to inhibit the illegal trafficking of firearms. In other words, the basic registration requirement allows the District to keep track of who is responsible for which guns,while also acting as a “hook” onto which the District can attach additional public-safety regulations. [p. 23]

[armoredman]

He's not hiding anything there is he, lets it all hang out.

[Aguila Blanca]

Much more persuasive is the District’s second, public-safety, justification for the gun registry. The registration system ostensibly serves this interest by allowing the city government to screen out dangerous or irresponsible people who try to obtain a firearm, to ensure that gun owners are familiar with gun safety and D.C. firearm regulations, and to inhibit the illegal trafficking of firearms. In other words, the basic registration requirement allows the District to keep track of who is responsible for which guns,while also acting as a “hook” onto which the District can attach additional public-safety regulations. [p. 23]

So ... by registering firearms after purchase, the District has put in place a system to prevent firearms from being purchased by "dangerous or irresponsible people," to ensure that gun owners are familiar with gun safety, and to inhibit illegal trafficking in firearms.

I would sure like to hear Hizzoner explain how that works.

[gc70]

It is quite amazing that the Second Amendment only covers "one or two firearms" in this judge's opinion. I wonder if he would find the First Amendment similarly only covers a limited amount of freedom of speech or a limited frequency of freedom of religious practice?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If that judge had applied his version of "intermediate scrutiny" to the First Amendment, there would be howls of derision from academia. Lucky for him the Second Amendment doesn't get any respect. I'm going long on tar and feather futures at this point.

[press1280]

The judge's background should be no suprise when reading this decision: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._Boasberg

[Sierra280]

Scary. So if a person wants to own just 1 rifle, 1 shotgun, and 1 handgun that constitutes an arsenal?

[SHE3PDOG]

I wonder what this guy would think of my modest collection. I don't believe the constitution puts a limit on the quantity of firearms someone is able to own. I'd love to get in a judge's head like this and see what in the world they are actually thinking because I'm having trouble finding the logic behind interpreting a limit on quantity with the way the 2A is written.

[Armorer-at-Law]

Lots of good quotes for the appeal brief.

[maestro pistolero]

I'm wondering how a person with more than 12 firearms is more dangerous than a person with one or two. You can only fire one at a time. On the other hand, I hope everybody takes advantage of the law to the fullest extent . . . everybody should buy one gun a month, LOL!

[barnbwt]

"I'd love to get in a judge's head like this and see what in the world they are actually thinking"

He's thinking he'd better figure out how to craft a judgment that will keep him getting invited to the parties of his District benefactors (and/or blackmail & kickbacks as the case may be and/or probably is...)

TCB

[Al Norris]

I really don't understand why people are making such a ruckus over this. Consider:

At District court in Woollard (03-12-2012), we had a good decision, only to be overturned (on the flimsiest of grounds).

At District court in Bateman (04-08-2012), we had a favorable opinion that was not appealed.

At the 7th Circuit, we had a good decision with Moore (12-11-2012).

At District court in Benson (01-06-2014), We had a favorable opinion and an injunction was issued (even though stayed until 07-14-2014).

At the 9th Circuit we have (so far) a good decision in Peruta (02-13-2014). This decision, as long as it stands, carries over to Richards and Baker.

That's just 5 cases that made more noise than the 6 other minor cases (in favor of the 2A).

Of all the cases filed and decided, one third were in our favor. And All of those against, were similarly worded.

How can you not expect this?

[speedrrracer]

Originally Posted by Al Norris

How can you not expect this?

We do expect it, but just because you expect the knife doesn't mean it ain't gonna hurt when you get stabbed

[Al Norris]

Well, I suppose I just expect it. It is the good decisions that shock me, nowadays!!

[speedrrracer]

Agreed -- e.g. Peruta put my jaw on the floor. Left work immediately, and treated the rest of the day like a national holiday. Couldn't stop shaking my head

[mnoirot64]

Here we go, legislating from the bench again! If the framers had believed this to be the case, they would have said "the right of the people to keep and bear one or two arms....."

[Tom Servo]

How can you not expect this?

Oh, I expected us to lose this at the District level. I just didn't expect such a vehement, mean-spirited, and rambling opinion.

Now it goes up the ladder.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

Originally Posted by maestro_pistolero

I'm wondering how a person with more than 12 firearms is more dangerous than a person with one or two. You can only fire one at a time. On the other hand, I hope everybody takes advantage of the law to the fullest extent . . . everybody should buy one gun a month, LOL!

You carry them all at once, like Blackbeard. Burning cannon fuse in your hair optional.

[Jay24bal]

I am with Tom. I expected the judgment to go the way it did, but the choice of how he explained it in the opinion shocks me.

We have all heard the arguments that the 2A means "people serving in an organized militia," or "you do not need a semi-automatic firearm to hunt," but to hear a judge try and limit the actual number of firearms one may own is insane. It would be like them saying that the freedom of speech means that one can only write a book/article that us under 2,000 words or that one can only pray once a day.

[s3779m]

I have to rank this one right up there with the sc ruling that obamacare is a tax and people can be forced to buy it. I miss the days when I felt that our govt. and judges were honorable.

[jag2]

Off on a bit of a tangent but back in the 50s there use to be a poll tax. You had to pay $2.00 in order to vote. As I remember it was struck down because you could not charge a fee for a constitutional right. I can't find it now but I read somewhere in that decision that the District could charge a fee for the registration. Now we pay lots of fees, like for a drivers license, but that is not something that is specifically guaranteed to us in the constitution. I'm guessing someone can point out the error in my thinking but it is something to ponder. I'm also guessing that if it was a valid argument that DC would gladly absorb the cost to keep the registration alive.