One fascinating part is that the case being argued now was originally raised just 12 days after the big victory in Heller vs. D.C. That would have been before they even know how restrictive the registration practice would be.Gun owners in Washington told a federal appeals court that the city’s firearm registration process and a ban on some assault rifles violate their constitutional rights.
The lawyer for Dick Heller, the plaintiff in a U.S. Supreme Court case in 2008 that expanded Second Amendment rights, argued to the three-judge panel today that the District of Columbia’s regulations are so burdensome that gun owners are deprived of their constitutional rights. The rules are inconsistent with high court rulings, including Heller’s earlier case, he said.
Washington requires residents who want to keep a gun at home to be fingerprinted and photographed by police, provide a five-year work history, and note their intended use of the weapon. Residents must register every firearm they own every three years. Applicants must allow police to run ballistic tests on each gun they register. Firearms defined by the city as assault weapons and magazines that hold more than 10 bullets are banned.I was wondering when does the restrictive part come in. To me there's nothing objectionable about this. All these measures will contribute towards minimizing the gun flow to criminals.
Once again the pro-gun crowd refuses to be inconvenienced, even for the greater good.
What's your opinion? Was filing this lawsuit immediately after the first case was decided an indication of planned incrementalism? Isn't that what they always accuse the gun control folks of doing?
Please leave a comment.