D.C. rejects Heller’s gun permit application

posted at 1:12 pm on July 17, 2008 by Allahpundit

The 32-year ban ends this morning — or does it? Even crueler than being first in line for the iPhone only to find they’re out of stock…

Dick Heller is the man who brought the lawsuit against the District’s 32-year-old ban on handguns. He was among the first in line Thursday morning to apply for a handgun permit.

But when he tried to register his semi-automatic weapon, he says he was rejected. He says his gun has seven bullet clip. Heller says the City Council legislation allows weapons with fewer than eleven bullets in the clip. A spokesman for the DC Police says the gun was a bottom-loading weapon, and according to their interpretation, all bottom-loading guns are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns.

Here’s the money passage from Scalia’s opinion in Heller describing which weapons can still be regulated:

Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.”… We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”… It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

There’s nothing “dangerous and unusual” about a bottom-loading handgun; the District’s just jerking around with formalistic distinctions in order to limit as many household weapons as it can. See this DCist post, via Instapundit, for more examples of that from the new regs, especially the apparent requirement that your gun must remain disassembled until an intruder breaks in, whereupon you’re entitled to try to hastily put it together while your uninvited guest clubs/stabs/shoots you to death. Believe it or not, our Democratic Congress may solve this problem; if not, Heller’s surely going back to court for round two to force some judge to put meat on the bones of whatever Scalia meant by “the sorts of lawful weapons that [are] possessed at home.” Exit question: How many millions of dollars in litigation expenses will it cost the District to fight, and lose, the next round of lawsuits instead of complying with the Court’s decision now in good faith?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

jdun on July 17, 2008 at 7:43 PM
AMartinez on July 17, 2008 at 7:53 PM

IF the gun was made before 86.

mad saint jack on July 17, 2008 at 8:01 PM

The Mauser Broomhandle would not be legal in DC because some had 20 round magazines.

Under DC law some semi-autos should be legal. The glock 36 is a 6 shot .45 ACP and has never had a mag of more than 12 rounds made for it. Also the Sig p239 and many of the newer single stack semi-autos should be legal.

DC is not even following their own law.

mad saint jack on July 17, 2008 at 8:13 PM

a capella on July 17, 2008 at 6:43 PM

I don’t recall James Bond using a pretty good sized revolver either. Shoulder holsters have their place. Long road trips, hunting in overalls, fishing, movies, trips to the store when it’s cool out, when wearing heavy coats are such situations I’ve found the shoulder holster to work just fine. I wont be jogging while wearing one. To each his own I guess.

A Tauraus ultra lite .38 carries quite nicely in the back pocket when wearing an untucked button down shirt.

And don’t laugh, but a single action Northern Arms .22 mini mag is the ultimate in conceal carry. Get one of those double ended detachable keychains for quick release, put it on a lanyard, attach it to the gun and wear it like a necklace under your shirt. Or, once again, carry it in the front or back pocket of your blue jeans.

I keep semi autos in the truck ready to go.

I’d stay away from fanny packs.

BowHuntingTexas on July 17, 2008 at 8:13 PM

All Americans should be taught to shoot at the least a pellet gun of 177 cal. and move up upon their ability and desire to learn. While most people will trimble with fear over a 12 gauge with dove shot, because of the bang. The majority of Americans have forgotten about their 2nd ammendment and our rights to ownership of firearms.

AMartinez on July 17, 2008 at 8:21 PM

Something that seems fishy about the DC process (ok, one of the many things) is having to bring the gun in when applying. If the permit is denied, can’t they just take the gun? Or know you have it, and come by and get it later?

I’m not much of a conspiracy theorist, but from what I’ve read I wouldn’t put it past them in this case.

cs89 on July 17, 2008 at 8:29 PM

cs89 on July 17, 2008 at 8:29 PM

I sure that is why Heller took a lawyer not a gun.

mad saint jack on July 17, 2008 at 8:36 PM

I sure that is why Heller took a lawyer not a gun.
mad saint jack on July 17, 2008 at 8:36 PM

Lawyer…Gun…
The difference?

eeyore on July 17, 2008 at 8:50 PM

The libtards in DC will never learn. Do the American taxpayers have to foot the legal bills for DC?

Mooseman on July 17, 2008 at 8:52 PM

Lawyer… Gun.. The difference? A gun will save your life at little cost. A lawyer will take all you own legally.

AMartinez on July 17, 2008 at 8:55 PM

NRA news says:

One person registered a gun today.

mad saint jack on July 17, 2008 at 9:02 PM

NRA news says:

One person Started to registered a gun today.

mad saint jack on July 17, 2008 at 9:03 PM

Lady at police station.
“There’s a revolver in the bag.” Guard “WHAT?” eyes wide.

They did a ballistic test and she took the gun home.

Two weeks to process.

mad saint jack on July 17, 2008 at 9:11 PM

With our ccp permit now in Alabama we recognize from 22 other states. The ones that don’t allow us to carry I will not visit.

AMartinez on July 17, 2008 at 9:13 PM

I don’t understand why Heller was registering something he has a Constitutional right to bear.

Do I have to register my right to believe in a specific faith?

Or register my speech?

Only unlawful misuse (“Shouting ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater”, “Practicing human sacrifice as a cult ritual” etc.) voids our “inalienable rights”.

It’s a right, Heller.

No need to register it.

You are born with it.

This is America, not Obamica.

So far.

profitsbeard on July 17, 2008 at 9:15 PM

profitsbeard on July 17, 2008 at 9:15 PM

SCOTUS did not speak on registration.

They ruled on the handgun ban, the trigger lock requirement, and one more law(I think the law was you could not move a gun from room to room).

mad saint jack on July 17, 2008 at 9:34 PM

Regarding the safe storage law. DC has kept the law the same and added a self-defense exception.

This type of exception was discussed in the SCOTUS oral arguments and the US Solicitor General stated that that kind of exception would be insufficient.

mad saint jack on July 17, 2008 at 9:40 PM

profitsbeard on July 17, 2008 at 9:15 PM

Sorry, Mr. Beard, but Heller left significant room for restrictions:
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. …the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…[N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on…laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Now there will be at least a decade of fights over every aspect of the right.

eeyore on July 17, 2008 at 9:43 PM

What if you brought the gun in fulled loaded, cocked and locked could you get a permit then. What if you had 12 guns do you have to bring em all in? I’ve got lots of different holsters and plenty of ammo.

dhunter on July 17, 2008 at 9:53 PM

dhunter on July 17, 2008 at 9:53 PM

“cocked and locked” means a semi-auto they will refuse to register it.

They will only register one gun per person every 90 days.

They ban ammo for any gun that cannot be registered.

mad saint jack on July 17, 2008 at 9:58 PM

eeyore on July 17, 2008 at 9:43 PM

Court roulette anyone?

jerrytbg on July 17, 2008 at 10:02 PM

Typical bureaucratic reaction.

It gives insight into why the Supreme Court worded its Miranda opinion in such plain language, out of exasperation (whether one agrees completely with the substance of the warning). They were convinced that their mandate would not be followed without that kind of paint-by-numbers expression of the rules.

Of course, writing appellate opinions in that manner goes against every tradition of judicial decisionmaking.

I wonder what kind of jurisdiction the District Court retains to provide relief here.

VG

Voiceguy on July 17, 2008 at 10:16 PM

A Tauraus ultra lite .38 carries quite nicely in the back pocket when wearing an untucked button down shirt.

And don’t laugh, but a single action Northern Arms .22 mini mag is the ultimate in conceal carry. Get one of those double ended detachable keychains for quick release, put it on a lanyard, attach it to the gun and wear it like a necklace under your shirt. Or, once again, carry it in the front or back pocket of your blue jeans.

I keep semi autos in the truck ready to go.

I’d stay away from fanny packs.

BowHuntingTexas on July 17, 2008 at 8:13 PM

My brother, sheesh that dude has lots of guns, has a Colt jr. .25ACP fits right in your front pocket! LMAO

(Its small so make sure the target is close like right up on you or you will probably miss)

Chakra Hammer on July 17, 2008 at 11:52 PM

Yeah, I just didn’t get Scalia’s wording. I mean he overturns a ban. That implies people will be having guns they could not lawfully have before. That’s the frigging point.

freevillage on July 18, 2008 at 12:53 AM

Yeah, I just didn’t get Scalia’s wording. I mean he overturns a ban. That implies people will be having guns they could not lawfully have before. That’s the frigging point.

freevillage on July 18, 2008 at 12:53 AM

The wording as it understand it, is regular handguns/weapons not like rocket launchers or laser weapons. >:D

Like the gun that tried to get a permit for i think that should have been approved.. that is in common use.. hell, the magazine was what 7 rounds? please..

Chakra Hammer on July 18, 2008 at 1:07 AM

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&productId=45916&tabselected=tech&isFirearm=Y&parent_category_rn=

Smith & Wesson Model 327 TRR8 Revolver

Model: 327 TRR8
Caliber: .357MAG/.38+P
Capacity: 8 Rounds
Barrel Length: 5″
Front Sight: Interchangeable
Rear Sight: Adjustable
Grip: Rubber
Frame: Large
Finish: Black Glassbead – Includes Tactical Rails
Overall Length: 10.5″
Material: Frame: Scandium Alloy, Cylinder: Stainless Steel
Weight Empty: 35.3 oz.

——————-

Whats the difference Heller’s pistol only held 8 rounds 7 in the magazine and 1 in the chamber.

I wonder if this S&W would be legal since it doesn’t load from the bottom..

heres a picture of it all jazzed up

http://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore/SmWesson/upload/images/firearms/170269a_lrg.jpg

Chakra Hammer on July 18, 2008 at 1:18 AM

Got Pitchfork?

We need some bumperstickers “Have torch and pitchfork… will travel”.

BadBrad on July 18, 2008 at 6:23 AM

mad saint,
I’d say if my semi auto is cocked and locked they damn well better register it and the 11 others I have hidden around my person get my drift.

dhunter on July 18, 2008 at 10:57 AM

The handgun that Mr. Heller tried to register in 2002, the registration of which was ordered by the courts, is a nine-shot revolver. It is fully registerable under D.C. law as it stands today, and Mr. Heller will have it registered to him.

There are significant, practical limits on the number of arguments that can be put together in one lawsuit. In our case, we chose to focus on the handgun and functional firearms bans – and that was plenty work for the courts to consider. Litigants do not have unlimited space in the briefing, or unlimited time in argument, and there is a significant strategic advantage – as we have demonstrated – in keeping constitutional litigation focused and narrow.

That does not mean that the rest of the D.C. Code with respect to firearms is constitutional. Much of it is not. But the entire code was not directly at issue in our case.

Clearing the Air

mad saint jack on July 18, 2008 at 11:33 AM

Sorry, Mr. Beard, but Heller left significant room for restrictions:
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. …the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…[N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on…laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

eeyore on July 17, 2008 at 9:43 PM

Just what part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do they not understand?

fossten on July 18, 2008 at 11:38 AM

fossten on July 18, 2008 at 11:38 AM

The “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” part.

mad saint jack on July 18, 2008 at 11:43 AM

What’s the UN’s position on all this?

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on July 18, 2008 at 12:23 PM

What’s the UN’s position on all this?

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on July 18, 2008 at 12:23 PM

http://www.iansa.org/un/bms2008.htm

mad saint jack on July 18, 2008 at 12:34 PM

Amazing. Even when the COURTS say your property is not illegal, they still deny it.

This is why state “PERMIT” systems are unconstitutional for mere possession of an object, at least in my view. “INFRINGED” seems to be the key word on any restriction on firearms but thats just me.

tx2654 on July 18, 2008 at 12:38 PM

The wording as it understand it, is regular handguns/weapons not like rocket launchers or laser weapons.

So, you’re saying that there’s a problem with my Terawatt Plasma Rifle?

trigon on July 18, 2008 at 1:37 PM

So, you’re saying that there’s a problem with my Terawatt Plasma Rifle?
trigon on July 18, 2008 at 1:37 PM

That depends on whether the framulator mogrifies horizontally or vertically.

eeyore on July 18, 2008 at 3:18 PM

So, you’re saying that there’s a problem with my Terawatt Plasma Rifle?

trigon on July 18, 2008 at 1:37 PM

none of these ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BFG9000

Big F’n Gun LOL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BFG10K

Chakra Hammer on July 18, 2008 at 3:36 PM

DC is trying their best to not obey this ruling by…not a big surprise in a leftist town…

DCJeff on July 18, 2008 at 3:56 PM

Dick Heller managed to register his revolver with the DC police.

snowflakesinhell.com

mad saint jack on July 18, 2008 at 4:32 PM

From Page 1:

Guns should regulated similar to cars.

lorien1973 on July 17, 2008 at 1:22 PM

Some great rebuttals already, just wanted to add the obvious (since I’m a master of), The Constitution does not say “the right to own and drive an automobile shall not be infringed”.

Although they right to bear arms is being infringed.

kirkill on July 18, 2008 at 6:27 PM

The only really bad thing is that we don’t have anywhere near enough prison space to cope with all the idiots conspiring to violate the civil rights of the American people.

It would be nice to get a few of them tried, however, it might get the ball rolling.

Merovign on July 19, 2008 at 2:55 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3