by James Oliphant
Lock and load. Here we go again.
Dick Heller, the D.C. security guard who successfully challenged the District's near-total ban on handgun ownership in a case that reached the Supreme Court, filed suit Monday seeking to strike-down the city's re-tailored gun law.
This was no surprise. In fact, District officials such as Mayor Adrian Fenty practically dared Heller, along wiht his lawyers, to do it. Fenty and the city council decided to let the Supreme Court's landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller restrict them as loosely as possible in redrawing the law.
In June, the court ruled 5-4 that the Second Amendment granted Americans the right to own a handgun for self-defense in the home. Beyond that, the opinion penned by Justice Antonin Scalia said little about the breadth of the constitutional right.
Still, a close reading of the opinion seemed to suggest that at the very least, D.C. could not prevent a resident from having a handgun at the ready.
The District, however, decided to test how far the courts were going to go. Its re-tooled statute permitted only the ownership of a revolver, and even it must be unloaded, disassembled or trigger-locked in the home unless there is a threat of "immediate harm" in the home.
Officials also vowed to bureaucratize the gun registration process as much as possible, making it time-consuming and paperwork-intensive. (And anyone who has lived in the District can tell you that that usually happens with any D.C. office, regardless of intent.)
Heller is joined in his new federal lawsuit by two other District residents, Absalom F. Jordan, Jr. and Amy McVey. Jordan complains that the registrations procedures are a burden on his constiutional rights, while McVey owns a .22 semiautomatic handgun that remains illegal under D.C. law.
Meanwhile, a bevy of lawsuits have been filed in cities like Chicago, trying to apply the court's Second Amendment ruling to states and municipalities. Because the District is a federal entity, right now the decision is only effective here.
Washington CityPaper has posted the complaint, which you can find here.
This entry was also posted at Writ Large, the Trib's new legal affairs blog. Check it out here.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Give 'em he(ck), Dick. There's no way their lame justification for confiscating and "testing" every citizen's guns will stand up in the face of the court's earlier ruling.
Posted by: Jeff | July 29, 2008 5:29 PM
This case will probably go only as far as the D.C. Circuit and no further. Once the District Court or Circuit Court of Appeals overturns the new law, that will be the end of it. It's not even close this time around.
Posted by: John W. | July 29, 2008 5:59 PM
John W-that's good. I couldn't believe the lack of respect that this cop got after winning his case.
Posted by: Teresa | July 29, 2008 6:30 PM
To better understand the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution it is helpful to consider how almost every reasonable person would interpret this amendment if it did not involve something which is considered controversial or politically incorrect by some and idolized by others. Arms in the possession of ordinary citizens meet both criteria. Let's, for the sake of argument, suppose that the Second Amendment dealt with books, not arms or weapons, and read like this: "A well educated electorate, being necessary to the maintenance of a free State, the right of the people to own and read books, shall not be infringed." Does anyone really believe that liberals would claim that only people who were eligible to vote should be allowed to buy and read books? Or that a person should have to have voted in the last election before the government would permit him or her to buy a book? Would the importation of books be banned if they did not meet an "educational purpose" test? Would some States limit citizens to buying "one book a month"? Would inflammatory "assault books" be banned in California?
Posted by: CCW4ME | July 30, 2008 12:22 AM
Mr. Oliphant:
You said: "In June, the court ruled 5-4 that the Second Amendment granted Americans..."
Not true at all ... the 2A doesn't grant anything. This fact is so simple, yet so profound, that it's astonishing that so many in the media are ignorant of it.
From the decision:
"The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.”"
Posted by: Carl in Chicago | July 30, 2008 7:41 AM
No matter how many times the deceitful or the ignorant repeat a falsehood, it is still FALSE. No US court has EVER found the 2nd Amendment to be a "collective" right - the very IDEA is a joke. Collectives have POWERS, not rights. As a Jewess in the US, may I remind everyone that America wasn't won with a registered gun? And that criminals on EITHER side of the law are stopped by FIREARMS, not by talk? That is why all REAL Americans put our 2nd Amendment FIRST! And you may quote me on that.
Posted by: Wendy Weinbaum | July 30, 2008 1:45 PM