DC’s opinion seems to be if violating the Constitution one way doesn’t work. Do it a different way.

It’s not opinion. It’s fact. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, stated, “In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.”

Actually, it is opinion. But, it is legal opinion". The best one available in this land!

this is the typical liberal playbook. Treat ‘em like the South was treated in the civil rights era, and send in the National Guard to register the gun owners.

Yep.

As for Bar-B-Que. Have you ever tried “The Shack” at Lake Logan Martin?

What DC is trying to do is not even remotely permitted pursuant to the Supreme Court decision.

If I lived there, I would keep my loaded pistol with additional spare clips handy. I wouldn’t register it and I wouldn’t submit it for police ballistics testing.

That’s crap.

If I used the gun for self-defense and was charged by the city for violating their new gun laws, I would win the court case. These liberal morons can pass any new unconstitutional regulation they wish, but they can’t enforce it.

...requirements that opponents of the handgun ban say violate the Supreme Court ruling...

O.K. Now, when is something going to actually be done to reverse (legally stay) this bizarre requirement and the many others in the new DC laws?

So far it has just been "Yada, yada, yada" from the "winners" of this SCOTUS ruling. DC gets to do just as they wish so far with NO repercussions.

Lets Create the same Hoops for Abortion.

Typical. When they win a supreme court case, we dont resist and are stuck with the decision. When we win a supreme court case, nothing changes and we still get screwed.

If I used the gun for self-defense and was charged by the city for violating their new gun laws, I would win the court case.

If it didn't bankrupt you first.

A fundamental problem in our society is the oft-unstated assumption that justice is frictionless: i.e., quick, impartial, affordable. In fact, the best way to screw up society is to fund special interest legal groups, or to co-opt the state's legal process, so that unfair legal power is arrayed against the individual. That's a big part of the liberal, environmental, and CAIR playbook.

I'll anticipate the next question. Do conservatives ever abuse the courts? Of course they do, although more commonly against institutions and government (think of the endless wrangling on both sides about evolution). Misuse of the legal system (and politicization of same) gums up the regulation of society big-time.

Rant mode off. I'd do the same as you.

Ditto. Isn’t it the case that right now, D.C. has no gun registration law? Wasn’t it struck down?

I guess I’d try to register my gun, and if they blocked me some way I’d say screw it, take it home, and keep it anyway. Maybe sooner or later there’ll need to be a new class action suit against these thugs.

Treat ‘em like the South was treated in the civil rights era

---

Very insightful comment. They rules are not unlike the “voting tests” in the south where aspiring (black) voters were asked questions like “How many bubbles in a bar of soap?”.

From what I’ve seen and know of DC residents, many own, have owned, and will continue to own firearms. They are not going to register them with the MPDC. They will just take their chances, and protect their families which MPDC is not really capable of doing.

If these folks kept their guns for the 30 years the ban was in effect, why would they now give that information to the MPDC or any entity within the DC government? Would any of us?

Why does Justice Ginsburg have a toilet seat around her neck?

Typical gun-grabbers. They know the new rules are unconstitutional. They also know it may take another 15 years for them to work their way up the courts and be dismissed. Until then, the gun ban remains in effect.

Always remember that Heller was a five/four decision. If Obama gets to replace any one of the five, then say goodbye to the Second Amendment for at least a generation.

The most likely Justices to retire next are Stevens and Ginsburg (both firmly in the liberal wing), but anything can happen in the next four to eight years. All that we can count on is that anyone Obama picks to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court will be ultra liberal and young.

Best case, Obama gets to cement the liberal wing in place for another 20 to 30 years. Worst case, the liberal wing takes over for the next 20 to 30 years.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Thomas is telling Breyer that he’s dumber than a bag of hammers...

Ginsburg looks like she’s ready to keel over...

Stevens looks like he’s passing gas...

Alito is thinking, I could wap Souter upside the head and get away with it...Because what are you gonna do??? Take me to Court???

Scalia is trying to get Roberts to use the Force...

Kennedy “?” (absolutely)...

Just remember...If Obama wins in November...Stevens and Ginsburg are gone by the end of January...That will give Obama his legacy less than a month into his presidency...And I bet Clinton is going to be one of those nominees...

If McCain wins, well, there will be no changes to this line up till someone dies...

We need to get a pool going on this one...

I agree that this DC law is one fit to be broken. Though justice is indeed not frictionless, I believe there's a gaggle of decent lawyers who would take that case pro bono so as not to be an undue financial burden to a DC-scofflaw.

That's not to say there wouldn't be a large measure of aggravation along the way, but the further offset to that is the increased security in one's own home, needed to protect one's assets and loved-ones.

I go repeatedly in thought to friends of mine who live near in a row house near Rotterdam. Burglars are commonplace in the community, and strictly enforced disarmament of the citizenry leaves them with only kitchen knives. My belief is that the powers-that-be literally relish a helpless populace that is dependent on the state for their protection. A populace that boldly takes up its own defence would be a threat to their ways, means, tax-base and permanence.

HF

All DC has done in response to the SC decision is to say, you can have a pistol if you do this and this and this and then make it inoperable.

You can possess a gun if you jump through a thousand hoops that effectively block that, but if you’re successful, you still can’t use it for self-defense.

You’re under no obligation to comply with an invalid law and when your family’s personal safety is at stake, you have a moral obligation NOT to comply with it. The law is invalid, and every reasonable person knows it. The first time it is attempted to be enforced, a court will invalidate it. The Supreme Court does not like to be ignored.

That "toilet seat" is actually a localized aeration system (to give her extra oxygen) lest the sketch artists continue to be inclined to show her asleep, balancing her head on her forehead on the table before her. That system is more fashionable than those some are made to schlep around via little tanks on wheels, with the green O2 cannula tubing that has the little vents into one's nostrils.

You heard the conjecture here first.

HF

O.K. Now, when is something going to actually be done to reverse (legally stay) this bizarre requirement and the many others in the new DC laws?

Actually, probably a lot sooner than you may think. In response to your posting I went back to the relevant papers, all of which are linked to in Google's discussion of Heller. At the end of its long majority opinion the Supreme Court simply affirmed the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' opinion and order. The Court of Appeals' decision ordered the district court, "to grant summary judgment to Heller consistent with the prayer for relief contained in appellants' complaint."

That says a lot because Heller's prayer for relief is for attorney fees and costs and substantive relief, including:

An order permanently enjoining defendants . . . from enforcing D.C. Code section 7-2502.02(a)(4), barring registration of handguns; permanently enjoining defendants from enforcing D.C. Code section 7-2507.02 in such a manner as to bar the possession of functional firearms within the home or on possessed land; and permanently enjoining defendants from enforcing D.C. Code sections 22-4504 and 4515 in such a manner as to forbid the carrying of a firearm within one's own home or possessed land without a license.

and "declaratory relief" holding

that by maintaining and enforcing a set of laws banning the private ownership and possession of handguns and functional firearms within the home, forbidding otherwise lawful self-defense usage of arms, and forbidding the movement of a handgun on an individual's property, defendants are violating the plaintiffs' individual rights under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs are therefore further entitled to injunctive relief barring continued enforcement and maintenance of defendants' unconstitutional enforcement and maintenance of defendants' unconstitutional customs, policies, and practices.

That remedy covers a great deal. Now it's up to the district court to fashion an a permanent injunction and declaratory order to provide the aforesaid relief. The mandated relief being as broad as it is, the Heller plaintiffs should be able to argue effectively for an injunction and declaratory relief that will immediately void much of the new ordinance. Equally important, D.C. is going to have to pay all, or nearly all, of the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.

“That remedy covers a great deal. Now it’s up to the district court to fashion an a permanent injunction and declaratory order to provide the aforesaid relief. The mandated relief being as broad as it is, the Heller plaintiffs should be able to argue effectively for an injunction and declaratory relief that will immediately void much of the new ordinance. Equally important, D.C. is going to have to pay all, or nearly all, of the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs.”

---

Good! Thank you for your research. This is sort of what I expected. I hope that we hear of the injunction within days!

That remedy covers a great deal. Now it's up to the district court to fashion an a permanent injunction and declaratory order to provide the aforesaid relief. The mandated relief being as broad as it is, the Heller plaintiffs should be able to argue effectively for an injunction and declaratory relief that will immediately void much of the new ordinance.

Thanks for the research and reply.. However, you use the word "immediately". Here I think I need a definition! Another 5 years is NOT "immediately" to my mind (maybe to our court system, though). So, my question is still out there.

When is something going to actually be done to reverse.....?

Hypothetical and wishful thinking here, but has there ever been a court case to determine if DC “home rule” were legal?

I mean, the Constitution seems pretty specific that DC is to operate under the authority and auspices of the US Congress.

Might be a novel approach to pursue - start challenging laws under the argument that the DC government is unconsitutional and therefore doesn’t have the authority to do many of the things it does.

DC hacks who enact or enforce regulations which defy the SCOTUS’s recent ruling should be personally subject to criminal and civil sanctions.That'll get their attention.

This is likely to be in the next month or two, depending on the D.C. District Court's schedule. The next step will probably be for the District Court to request the plaintiffs to submit a draft permanent injunction and order and request the defendants to comment on it. Then the District Court will decide on the actual injunction. At that point one of the parties will probably appeal the injunction to the Court of Appeals, where the pontiffs are likely to receive a very favorable hearing.

The important thing to remember here is that Heller is now a civil rights case, with the D.C. government having, as per the D.C. Court of Appeals' decision, to pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs. The courts are now vested with what amounts to a receivership over D.C.'s ability to promulgate and enforce any firearms regulations. To see how broad, continuing, and intrusive that court authority can be, all you need to do is look at what courts are regularly allowed to do and actually do in school integration cases.

I dunno why people are upset. The ruling was against the Rights of gun ownership.

The Supreme court ruled that the Gov’t can regulate your right on your private property.

What did you actually think DC would do? They are simply following the Supreme court decision that you do not have a unlimited right.

From the decision:
‘2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”

Keep in mind this decision is the same as the Gov’t saying you do not have an unlimited right to free speech on your own property.

Conservatives by wary on any so called victory.

Ditto. Isn’t it the case that right now, D.C. has no gun registration law? Wasn’t it struck down? I guess I’d try to register my gun, and if they blocked me some way I’d say screw it, take it home, and keep it anyway. Maybe sooner or later there’ll need to be a new class action suit against these thugs.

Suits are already being drawn up. The NRA is on top of this, not to mention Heller is running for public office in DC. Morton Grove has dropped their gun ban and it is only a matter of time and persistence before DC has to cave in and start issuing permits. In my opinion the biggest mistake of the Heller decision was letting DC keep any type of permit system. We will bring more law suits, we will force DC to abandon this BS. They think they are winning but they have already lost. As far as not obeying their idiot laws the Court has already struck them down, the laws have no affect and no teeth. It would take nothing to defeat this in court if a person was arrested for violating one of them.

Can you imagine the hue and cry from the MSM if a city tried to nullify Roe v. Wade this way?

My belief is that the powers-that-be literally relish a helpless populace that is dependent on the state for their protection. A populace that boldly takes up its own defence would be a threat to their ways, means, tax-base and permanence.

It seems that way. Try organizing a Citizen's Defense League sometime and see what happens. Yet, the powers that be largely tolerate the existence of armed, and often criminal gangs like the Crips and MS13, who create all sorts of mayhem and deal with their own group's self-defense.

They're going to be hauled into court and the most egregious restrictions will be struck down and the Circuit Court will grant a permanent injunction against any future repetition of that kind of monkey business.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

pabianice said: "... it may take another 15 years for them to work their way up the courts ..."

I don't think so. As other posters have pointed out, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals now has the Heller decision available to it in order to grant requests by Heller to protect his rights. DC may get a chance to defend their new rules, but I would guess that the DC Circuit Court will be willing to set aside the new rules pending review. DC will soon have NO gun laws until they present to the Court an acceptable set.

In my opinion, the refusal by DC to register Heller's semi-automatic handgun and the new mandate by DC that guns may not be ready to defend against threats are violations which have already been addressed by the Supreme Court. DC already had their chance to justify such laws; they lost. The DC Circuit Court has no obligation to listen to any further arguments from DC on these points.

Since there is effectively no way for you, as a citizen of DC, to purchase a firearm legally - how did you get it?

DC’s opinion seems to be if violating the Constitution one way doesn’t work. Do it a different way.

The DC government is responding to Heller the same way the South responded to Brown: open defiance. The DC government is in a state of rebellion and that rebellion must be put down quickly. If not, then there's no reason for any SCOTUS decision to be obeyed by anyone.

DC laws do not prevent a DC resident from purchasing a firearm elsewhere. How could they?

Since there is effectively no way for you, as a citizen of DC, to purchase a firearm legally - how did you get it?

My guess is, he left an empty shell under his pillow and the Gun Fairy left a pistol in exchange.

Exactly.

the Gun Fairy left a pistol in exchange.

Does the Gun Fairy have an FFL and make you leave a completed form 4473 too? Heheh.

Very seldom get up there. Archibald's is the place, but I'll eat any good barbecue and enjoy it, so next time I'm there I'll remember the recommendation.

The Washington Post is no fan of the Supreme Court’s recently rendered Heller vs. D.C. decision. Last month when the nation’s highest court told Washington D.C. that its gun ban violated the Second Amendment of the Constitution, a Post editorial called the decision a “misguided ruling.” The Post opined that the District’s mayor and council would be on “solid moral and legal ground” if they re-crafted the District’s gun control laws to make them “as tough as possible” under the Supreme Court’s “puzzling mandate.”

This is grounds for a conspiracy lawsuit

Why are leftists so intent on the disenfranchisement of citizens? Hoops and fees are equivalent of polls taxes and these laws are directed at blacks primarily.

We need a return to civil rights in DC.

The Gun Fairy is a private citizen and doesn’t need those things. I look for her at every gun show, but she’s always just out of sight.

An "Oooh, that's gonna hurt" quote from AU72 yesterday:

Mayor Adrian Fenty and his ‘feisty’ attorney general, Peter Nickles are DC’s equivalent of Alabama Governor George Wallace standing in front of the school house door preventing court ordered desegregation.

Nice going, UA72.

It is worth the visit

She pokes her head out for public events and official court photos.

Plus, I wouldn’t put it past the libs to whack one of the originalists if Obama gets to name the replacement, which of course the pubbies will lack the spine to block. Shoot, they’d probably come out ahead if McPain named the replacement.

I agree that this DC law is one fit to be broken.

Unconstitutional rules are not law. Do not refer to them as such.

DC laws do not prevent a DC resident from purchasing a firearm elsewhere. How could they?

Federal statutes forbid interstate sales of handguns except via federally licensed dealer in the destination state, and places restrictions on interstate sales of other firearms. The statutes explicitly regard DC as a state for purposes of the prohibitions and restrictions.

Wait. I live in Texas. Federal law prohibits me from buying a handgun in Oklahoma?

Well, not buying it, but receiving it. If you buy it, they have to transfer it to an FFL in your state, rather than to you, and that guy has to make the transfer to you in accordance with your state laws as if you bought it from him.