You know, I could have sworn the U.S. Supreme Court last month clearly said this sort of chicanery was unconstitutional...
Dane von Breichenruchardt, a gun advocate and adviser to Heller, said further legal challenges are likely because city officials continue to insist on stringent regulations.
"They think they're above the Supreme Court," he said, echoing other gun rights advocates.
Von Breichenruchardt, president of the Bill of Rights Foundation, said that as long as the city outlaws most semiautomatic firearms, Heller likely will be prohibited from registering his weapon of choice — a .45-caliber Colt pistol. Heller said he'd return today to register a different weapon.
.45-caliber Colt. I'm guessing that'd be John Browning's masterpiece that nowadays is made by everybody and their brother, some variant of the Model 1911. The Court clearly said that arms in common use were protected by the Second Amendment, and considering, once again, that defensive sidearms such as the Glock and 1911 variants -- both of those, of course, are semiautomatics -- are close to the top of the best-seller list of guns in this country, it would only follow that they're in common use by the citizens. Which means, of course, that the D.C. regulation that bans most semiauto firearms looks on its face to be unconstitutional as per the decision handed down in Heller v. D.C. I am led to believe that Mr. Heller and his representatives knew exactly what they were doing, though -- they were looking to take action so Heller would have standing to take the D.C. authorities back to court to have these particular regulations struck down. It'll be interesting to see what the courts do with this.
On with the show, commenter dtb had this to say, in comments:
for the record I'm not anti gun. just pro-gun law
I read that and I was reminded of a really good answer to the old question, "You have a permit to carry that?"
"Yeah, I have a permit. It's called the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution."
But you know the Second Amendment is never what they mean when they say things like "I'm pro-gun-law." No. It always means various and sundry regulations that directly contravene that amendment, from background checks right on up to outright bans -- you know, things that would have had our Founding Fathers beside themselves with rage. All of which brought to mind an exchange in an old movie, slightly modified, of course...
"I'm not anti-gun. Just pro-gun-law."
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
|