DC caves in on allowed handgun list

swinokur · June 20, 2009, 06:48 AM

Finally

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...prss=rss_metro

vranasaurus · June 20, 2009, 08:55 AM

I was hoping they wouldn't change the law so that the SCOTUS would of had a chance to rule on Californias list.

**Mike Irwin** · June 20, 2009, 09:11 AM

Looks like they're finally opening it up to those evil, horrible, death dealing machine gun pistols...

Damned idiots.

**Tom Servo** · June 20, 2009, 11:47 AM

Quote:

I was hoping they wouldn't change the law so that the SCOTUS would of had a chance to rule on Californias list.

This decision affects the District of Columbia. Gura has a case (Pena v Cid) that addresses the California list. The 9th Circuit hasn't heard it yet, so it'll be next term before SCOTUS could hear it.

WeedWacker · June 20, 2009, 01:20 PM

Quote:

"We are gratified the District is recognizing their approach is unworkable and unconstitutional," said Alan Gura, who was the lead attorney in the District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court case. "There is now a whole new universe of guns that will now be available."

(emphasis mine)

Not so sure that came out right. Either that or the author hand picked the phrases to sound as inflammatory as possible. (probably the latter) SO what exactly does it allow? It says "Maryland" and "Massachusetts" lists are good, but does it rule out the magazine capacity limits? (Ixnay over 10 rounds)

Kreyzhorse · June 20, 2009, 07:43 PM

Mark my words, allowing unsafe guns in DC will cause the streets to run red!

Actually, it's nice to see DC back down on this one. It's far from a complete victory but it's a good step.

vranasaurus · June 21, 2009, 11:10 AM

Quote:

This decision affects the District of Columbia. Gura has a case (Pena v Cid) that addresses the California list. The 9th Circuit hasn't heard it yet, so it'll be next term before SCOTUS could hear it.

If the SCOTUS had ruled the california list unconsitutional in DC it would have essentially ruled it unconcstitutional in California becaus ethe 9th circuit has already ruled for incorporation.

maestro pistolero · June 21, 2009, 11:47 AM

Quote:

If the SCOTUS had ruled the california list unconsitutional in DC it would have essentially ruled it unconcstitutional in California becaus ethe 9th circuit has already ruled for incorporation.

Pending any en banc hearing with results to the contrary, of course.

Bartholomew Roberts · June 21, 2009, 02:03 PM

Well, I hate to see D.C. abandon a stupid, indefensible restriction that would have made them look that much more foolish in Court; but I guess a good thing is a good thing.

legaleagle_45 · June 23, 2009, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Well, I hate to see D.C. abandon a stupid, indefensible restriction that would have made them look that much more foolish in Court; but I guess a good thing is a good thing.

Hi Bart. The decision by DC was made after Alan had filed a motion for summary judgement in Hanson v DC. He had em dead to rights.. Ms Hanson tried to apply to register a Springfield Armory XD-45 Tactical 5" Bi-Tone stainless steel/black handgun and was refused because it was not on the approved list adopted by California. However the Springfield Armory XD-45 Tactical 5" black handgun was on the approved list adopted by California. The only difference between the 2 models is the color.

The problem is the California list, which require the gun mfr to apply ANNUALLY to put a gun on the approved list. The application must be accompanied by a $200 fee, also payable annually. The gun mfgr had not attempted to place the bi tone model on the list and did not pay an application fee for it, so it was not on Californias list. So essentially, the difference between a gun approved by DC (and California) and a gun which is obviously bad and evil incarnate, comes down to the color scheme adopted.

Another of Alan's Plaintiffs tried to apply to register a Para USA
(Para Ordnance) P1345SR / Stainless Steel .45 ACP 4.25" handgun and was denied, because, although it had previously been on the California list, the mfr did not send in the $200 fee to remain on the California list.

The final Plaintif (sit down, you are going to love this one) tried to register a
High Standard 9-shot revolver in .22 with a 9.5" Buntline-style barrel, and was refused because it was not on the list. Well, the High Standard 9-shot revolver in .22 with a 9.5" Buntline-style barrel is exactly the same make of handgun that SCOTUS told DC that Heller could have in DC v Heller...

DC did not even bother to respond to Alan's motion and decided to capitulate.

Brian Pfleuger · June 23, 2009, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by legaleagle_45

So essentially, the difference between a gun approved by DC (and California) and a gun which is obviously bad and evil incarnate, comes down to...$200

There, fixed it for ya.

Bartholomew Roberts · June 24, 2009, 10:58 AM

Yes, I had seen the earlier challenge to the list. I guess part of me is disappointed that D.C. recognized they had a stupid, indefensible argument before they made it in front of a judge. I kind of enjoy watching lawyers try to argue that the sun rises in the West... particularly if they are on the other side.

June 20, 2009, 06:48 AM	#1
swinokur Senior Member Join Date: April 17, 2009 Location: Montgomery County, MD Posts: 215	DC caves in on allowed handgun list Finally http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...prss=rss_metro

June 20, 2009, 09:11 AM	#3
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,390	Looks like they're finally opening it up to those evil, horrible, death dealing machine gun pistols... Damned idiots. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

June 20, 2009, 07:43 PM	#6
Kreyzhorse Senior Member Join Date: April 12, 2006 Location: NKY Posts: 12,463	Mark my words, allowing unsafe guns in DC will cause the streets to run red! Actually, it's nice to see DC back down on this one. It's far from a complete victory but it's a good step. __________________ "He who laughs last, laughs dead." Homer Simpson

June 20, 2009, 08:55 AM	#2
vranasaurus Senior Member Join Date: November 16, 2008 Posts: 1,184	I was hoping they wouldn't change the law so that the SCOTUS would of had a chance to rule on Californias list.

June 21, 2009, 02:03 PM	#9
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	Well, I hate to see D.C. abandon a stupid, indefensible restriction that would have made them look that much more foolish in Court; but I guess a good thing is a good thing.

June 24, 2009, 10:58 AM	#12
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	Yes, I had seen the earlier challenge to the list. I guess part of me is disappointed that D.C. recognized they had a stupid, indefensible argument before they made it in front of a judge. I kind of enjoy watching lawyers try to argue that the sun rises in the West... particularly if they are on the other side.