A federal judge in Washington, applying the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision creating a constitutional right to have a gun, ruled on Friday that three new gun control restrictions in the Nation’s capital city survive a Second Amendment challenge. In the ruling by U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina, the District of Columbia government’s laws requiring that guns be registered and banning assault weapons and large-capacity bullet-feeding devices are valid. The case is Heller, et al., v. District of Columbia (District Court docket 08-1289); the opinion can be found here. (The lead individual in the case, government security guard Dick Anthony Heller, is the same District resident who won the Supreme Court case with the same title in 2008.)
Such gun control laws, the judge ruled, are to be subjected to constitutional analysis using an “intermediate” level of review — that is, a challenged law will be upheld if it is “substantially related to an important governmental interest.” Courts around the country have differed on what level of review should apply to gun regulation, and that issue thus is a likely one for future Supreme Court analysis. The Justices did not lay down a standard in 2008, other than to say it would take more than simple “reasonable” justification to satisfy the Second Amendment.
...
In deciding how to weigh challenges in the new District laws, the judge noted that the Supreme Court had not placed gun rights in the category that gets the greatest constitutional protection — that is, rights that are deemed to be “fundamental.” The judge remarked: “If the Supreme Court had wanted to declare the Second Amendment a fundamental right, it would have done so explicitly.” Moreover, he added,
declaring gun rights to be fundamental could not be squared with the Supreme Court’s remarks that some forms of regulation would remain valid....
The judge said that these regulations do implicate the Second Amendment right to defend one’s self in the home, but that they are justified as ways for local officials to monitor gun use, track guns used in crimes, and allow prosecution for failing to register.
...
The new law provides a list of what it considers to be assault weapons, including pistols, rifles and shotguns, or guns that have military-style features such as use of a magazine that can be detached.
The judge concluded that these weapons are not in common use, are not possessed by law-abiding citizens as a general rule, and are dangerous. Thus, the judge ruled, they are outside the Second Amendment’s protection. Thus, Urbina said, there was no need to weigh their constitutionality. If intermediate scrutiny were applied, however, the judge said the ban would satisfy that standard because the ban is keyed to public safety.Source:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/03/new-d-c-gun-laws-upheld/#more-17880So "...these regulations... are justified as ways for local officials to ...allow prosecution for failing to register"?
If this is a accurate representation of the judge's reasoning, he reasons like a lot of gun control advocates on this site. Circularly.
And he accepted blatantly false "findings" from lying government thugs. Just like courts have done for decades on this subject to reach the "correct" results. So-called assault weapons ARE in common use, ARE possessed by law-abiding citizens as a general rule.
He needs a stinging backhand to the kisser, and I hope the Supreme Court delivers it. Blatant government lies and corruption in order to achieve gun control goals, sacrificing all pretense of objectivity, and defying reality will not work. Everyone is watching and people aren't fooled by this stuff anymore.