The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 20, 2009, 06:48 AM   #1
swinokur
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 17, 2009
Location: Bethesda, MD
Posts: 215
DC caves in on allowed handgun list

Finally

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

swinokur is offline  
Old June 20, 2009, 08:55 AM   #2
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
I was hoping they wouldn't change the law so that the SCOTUS would of had a chance to rule on Californias list.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old June 20, 2009, 09:11 AM   #3
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 35,694
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.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old June 20, 2009, 11:47 AM   #4
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,047
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.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old June 20, 2009, 01:20 PM   #5
WeedWacker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2006
Location: Body: Clarkston, Washington. Soul: LaCrosse, Wisconsin
Posts: 1,529
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)
__________________
- Weed
Disequilibrium facilitates accommodation.
9mm vs 45 ACP? The answer is 42.
WeedWacker is offline  
Old June 20, 2009, 07:43 PM   #6
Kreyzhorse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2006
Location: NKY
Posts: 11,452
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
Kreyzhorse is offline  
Old June 21, 2009, 11:10 AM   #7
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
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.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old June 21, 2009, 11:47 AM   #8
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,068
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.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old June 21, 2009, 02:03 PM   #9
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,637
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.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old June 23, 2009, 04:58 PM   #10
legaleagle_45
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 23, 2009
Posts: 7
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.
legaleagle_45 is offline  
Old June 23, 2009, 05:18 PM   #11
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,336
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.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is online now  
Old June 24, 2009, 10:58 AM   #12
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,637
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.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.09632 seconds with 7 queries