Case Analysis Legal

Andrew Hanson v. DC (D.C. Cir.) — Magazine Ban

Aug 26, 2023 Anonymous Web Angel(GFZ)

Normally, I would spend time analyzing a filing. This particular filing is by the Appellants/Plaintiffs (good guys). It is a good history of DC gun infringements over the last decades.

(1100 Words)

For roughly two-score years, the District of Columbia has done its level best to rid firearms entirely from within its borders by imposing some of the most egregious—and unconstitutional—restrictions in the Nation. In 1976, the District banned the possession of nearly all handguns by first making it a crime to possess a firearm without registering it, and then prohibiting the registration of handguns. Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down this prohibition on the basis that it violated the core right of self-defense enshrined in the Second Amendment. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 636 (2008).

Having been rebuffed by Heller, the District got creative. It combined one restriction—that “no persons or organization in the District shall possess or control any firearm, unless the persons or organization holds a valid registration certificate for the firearm,” D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4)—with another that forbade handgun registration for use other than “self-defense within that person’s home,” Id. § 7-2502.02(a)(4). In so doing, the District effectively attempted to ban the carrying of all firearms outside the home. This provision, however, was held unconstitutional in Palmer v. District of Columbia, 59 F. Supp. 3d 173, 184 (D.D.C. 2014).

Read More

        
Feedback

Friday Feedback

Aug 25, 2023 Anonymous Web Angel(GFZ)

It has been a good week overall. We got some great news out of a local court in Massachusetts regarding honoring out of state permits to carry.

It is really great news. About a half dozen of the people I watch have talked about it as well as J.Kb.

One point, it is an “as applied” ruling. In any court opinion, the court can rule on how something applies to the plaintiff/defendant OR they can rule on the law. In this case, the court ruled that their finding only applied to the defendant.

This means that if J.Kb were to travel to Mordor and was investigated by the authorities and found to be carrying under his New Hampshire license, he would have to go through the same type of trial. Until the Massachusetts courts knock down the law, this will be the case.

It is still wonderful news.

The Rahimi case is getting attention in all the usual places. You’ll be hearing more about it as it will be the next big Second Amendment case heard by the Supreme Court.

Sometime in the next month or so, the good guys will have to have all of their briefs in. That will be easier reading. In looking at all of this, I might actually attempt to write a brief for the case… I am not sure how that will go.

The comments are open, feel free to be commenters.

        
Arguments Legal

Stupid Arguments before the Supreme Court

Aug 24, 2023 Anonymous Web Angel(GFZ)

The Rahimi case has brought out all the normal infringers, along with a number of lesser known groups and people. They filed numerous amicus curiae briefs. I had intended to do a brief look through them all. Nope, no, forget it. Too much pain. What follows is a sampling of the first few, along with a couple of others I found interesting. Most of the text came from the table of contents. Take it for what you will.

(2300 words, mostly theirs)

If you want to go read these yourself, they are all on the Supreme Court’s webpage under the Rahimi case.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-915.html

American’s Against Gun Violence

  1. Bruen’s “text and history” test, applied in Rahimi, relied on two deeply flawed assumptions
    1. Both Bruen and Heller are based on the false premise that the text and history of the Second Amendment established an individual right to own a gun
      1. The “well regulated militia” clause refers to the right to possess and use firearms in connection with militia service
      2. The “keep and bear arms” clause refers to a right to possess firearms if needed for and in relation to military activities
      3. The Second Amendment did not codify any right inherited by English ancestors because no such individual right to own firearms ever existed
      4. The drafters of the Second Amendment knowingly did not include language to provide for an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense
      5. Heller and Bruen improperly departed from this Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment
    2. Bruen’s framework is also improper because it compels a foregone conclusion and perpetuates the myth that gun ownership is important for individuals’ safety and self-defense
  2. Heller and its progeny “threaten the breakdown of law and order” as Justice Breyer warned in the Heller dissent
    1. Gun related deaths have been significantly increasing since Heller
    2. Gun ownership conveys a greater risk than benefit
    3. Gun related deaths in the United States far exceed those of any other high-income country
These infringers admit that under Heller and Bruen there is no gun control law that survives. … because it compels a foregone conclusion

American Medical Association

Read More