Federal Judge Rebuffs Challenge To DC Gun Laws Passed In Wake Of 2008 Supreme Court Decision

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press



SARAH KARUSH Associated Press Writer

3:15 PM CDT, March 26, 2010
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Friday upheld limitations on gun ownership that the District of Columbia put in place following a 2008 Supreme Court decision overturning the city's outright ban on handguns.

Dick Heller, the plaintiff in the landmark Supreme Court case, had challenged the new regulations, claiming the registration procedures, a ban on most semiautomatic weapons and other limitations violated the intent of the high court's decision.

U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina sided with the city, saying the Supreme Court decision did not ban reasonable limits on gun ownership designed to promote public safety.

"While the (Supreme) Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects a natural right of an individual to keep and bear arms in the home in defense of self, family and property, it cautioned that that right is not unlimited," he wrote.

The decision by Urbina, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton, moves the case along what is likely to be a lengthy path through the legal system.

"We fully expect to go the Court of Appeals," said Heller's lawyer Richard E. Gardiner.

Read more: http://www.39online.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-us-washington-gun-ban,0,3901625.story

[harkadog]

1. This judge is putting his personal opinions and preferences above the intent of the law.

It will be overturned.

[Simpleton]

19. We'll see

<@>

I wish the possibility of freedom well
I don't count on it

[Ter]

2. Arrogant disregard for the law

N/T

[elleng]

3. Urbina is a good judge, thorough and thoughtful.

It saddens me to read that some just can't take it, when courts disagree with them.

'D.C. Council moved quickly to pass new regulations.

The plaintiffs claimed the new process for registering guns — which includes fingerprinting, vision tests, background checks and other requirements, and which limits people to registering one pistol per month — was too burdensome.

But Urbina found the process served "the well-established goal of promoting public safety."

The plaintiffs also challenged the city's ban on assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices. Urbina said the Supreme Court made clear the Second Amendment doesn't protect ownership of "dangerous or unusual" weapons.'


http://www.39online.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-us-washington-gun-ban,0,3901625.story

[paulsby]

5. can u imagine this logic applied to the first amendment?

saying that UNUSUAL speech is not constitutionally protected.

clearly, cindy lauper's first album could have been censored.

after all, she is unusual

[ManiacJoe]

6. Your quote disproves your claim of him being a good judge.

What you have quoted shows why his decision will be easily overturned on appeal as all three of those claims are blatantly false.

[DissedByBush]

8. It saddens me when some judges just can't take it

When the Supreme Court renders a decision contrary to their own views, and thus find it necessary to render decisions that will be overturned, extending the violation of the rights of the people.

The judge is an idiot. So-called "assault weapons" are neither dangerous above and beyond other guns, nor at all unusual. Over half of what's in my local gun store falls into this fabricated category.

The goal of the law isn't public safety, it is to restrict lawful firearms ownership.

This decision will likely not need to be overturned, as a positive decision in McDonald will render it void on the issue of whether the 2A is a fundamental right.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

The Second Amendment is a fundamental right.

[Owl]

4. Good.

[Pavulon]

10. Exactly, when he is overturned on appeal

the 90's holdouts who push gun control over actual solutions will then move on to a useful cause.

[cstanleytech]

7. The Constitution covers the right to bear arms

but does it cover the ammo that goes into those guns? If not thats how I would go after this issue, ban or restrict the sale of the ammo.

[Pavulon]

9. You going to ban the lathe too?

reloading equipment. A lazy reloader can crank out 1000 rounds an hour on a dillon progressive. pick a topic that actually needs something. Gun control is a bamboozle.

[cstanleytech]

12. No, I'm not going to ban anything I am just pointing out possible options.

[Pavulon]

13. A weed ban is an option, a ban on selling leg is an option

both are a complete fuckup and waste of time. that is all.

[elleng]

11. For those interested in understanding this decision

and further HOW courts decide difficult cases, I suggest reading the full Urbina decision included within this link:

http://dcist.com/2010/03/federal_judge_upholds_dcs_gun_laws.php

[Simpleton]

18. Read it Thnx

I downloaded it from scrbd. I especially *sarcasm* like the part about the judge using government agenda as an excuse to wipe some of our rights away. I stand by my previous 'the judge is a dipsh*t comment'.

[Simpleton]

14. Not that it matters.The spirit of the 2nd is dead already.

Not that it matters. Freedom is an illusion. The spirit of the constitutional ammendment pertaining to this has long since perished. It was a protection against tyranny. What good is a .45 against an F-35 in any case? The D.C. law is pointless. Criminals don't care about the law. They will carry guns anyway. All this does is put unarmed law abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals with illegally carried guns. My guess is criminals prefer illegal weapons. On a related note the judge is a dipsh*t. Lots of those everywhere though. I may be one too. Not that it matters.

[divideandconquer]

15. Since criminals don't obey the Constitution, let's do away with it

[Simpleton]

16. K.

K. Then things would be closer to 'true'. The constitution is meaningless if the powerful decide to disregard it anyway. If there are no rights then there will be no sophistry used to bypass those rights. The government and the powerful will still do as they like but they will do it in the open. Then people will be informed as they wish their rulers a respectful f-off.

[Simpleton]

17. I wish Ideally that the Constitution did mean something

Ideally I would like rights for the people. Ideally I would like the people to be orderly. Our basic rights are what the T.V. tells us the Constitutional Lawyers have construed them as.