DC took several step backwards from where it started

[Indy Lurker]

The DC law States:

§ 7-2507.02. Firearms required to be unloaded
and disassembled or locked.

Except for law enforcement personnel described in § 7-2502.01(b)(1), each registrant shall keep
any firearm in his possession unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar
device unless such firearm is kept at his place of business, or while being used for lawful
recreational purposes within the District of Columbia.




In their Brief:

"The text and history of the Second Amendment conclusively refute the notion that it entitles individuals to have guns for their own private purposes.

Instead, it protects the possession and use of guns onlyin service of an organized militia. "





By the end of their oral arguments DC was saying:

"It is a universal or near universal rule of criminal law that there is a self-defense exception. It goes without saying. We have no argument whatsoever with the notion that you may load and have a weapon ready when you need to use it for self- defense."


************************

What a turn around.

The law clearly states: "...shall keep any firearm in his possession unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock ..."


But now according to MR. DELLINGER they "...have no argument whatsoever with the notion that you may load and have a weapon ready when you need to use it for self- defense."


Last week it was a crime to keep a loaded gun at home in DC, now it "goes without saying" that it's ok.

The people of DC have already won a substantial victory.

[zanne]

1. Oral arguments are no indication of how the justices will rule...

I remember the 2000 Supreme Court oral arguments about recounting the votes in Florida. It sounded pretty much like Gore would get his recount. The final decision surprised alot of people.

Don't count your eggs before they're hatched.

[MaryCeleste]

4. That is true

However, given the predispositions, its looking like the DC ban is going down in flames

[DonP]

6. Pay more attention to the judges questions

than the oral arguments.

The way they phrase their questions is a far better indicator of their POV than the well rehearsed oral arguments.

With six justices asking questions based on what was pretty clearly a predisposition to an individual rights position, Dellinger had to change his approach about 10 minutes into his oral arguments. The majority of their questions, coupled with their previous rewording of the question before the court, made it clear that the indiviudal rights reading had already been determined. Breyer and Kennedy surprised a lot of folks during the orals. The law school blogs are all talking about it today.

Dellinger realized that and quickly threw his entire original collectivist argument overboard and shifted to Plan B, where the point was the need for less than strict scrutiny and a broad local regulation of the accepted individual right.

Maybe one of the best gauges of how it really went is that Mayor Daley here in Chicago already had a press conference to announce that the court's findings will not have any impact on Chicago's gun laws (almost identical to DC's). Well that and Helmke of the Brady Bunch trying to be relevant and holding a press conference on the steps outside the court with no coverage.

Does anybody at the Joyce Foundation ever look at what they are getting for their millions?

[Indy Lurker]

16. I'm not talking about how the Justices will rule

When I said "The people of DC have already won a substantial victory."

I'm talking about how the attorney for DC stated:

"We have no argument whatsoever with the notion that you may load and have a weapon ready when you need to use it for self- defense."

After making such a statement to the Supreme Court, I think it would be difficult to prosecute anyone in DC for not having a trigger lock on a rifle or shotgun. (assuming they didn't leave the rifle or shotgun unlocked when they were away from their home)

ONEDIT:

MR. DELLINGER also said:

The district believes that what is important here is the ban on handguns. And it also believes that you're entitled to have have a functional usable weapon for self defense in the home and that's why this is a very proportionate law.

[TooBigaTent]

2. People should take their soon-to-be-legal guns into the Supreme Court as a

show of support for the Justices and their wisdom.

See how they like the reality of an armed society.

[SteveM]

3. I'm sure some of the justices are armed.

[MaryCeleste]

5. My Eyes! My Eyes!

Ginsberg with a hand cannon...

[DonP]

7. She strikes me as more of a compact semi-auto .380 kind a gal.

On the other hand I can easily see Souter with a S&W Model 29 in .44 Mag.

I wonder what the CCW of choice would be for the different judges?

I can easily see Scalia with a .357 snubbie.

There's a John Milius/Sam Peckinpah movie in there somewhere.

The ironic point is that I heard that Dick Anthony Heller either had been or currently is armed security for the Supreme Court and was not allowed to bring his service weapon home with him after his shift. That's what started the whole thing.

[Indy Lurker]

20. Don't look now,

but The supreme court is protected by the evil handguns the city of Dc has banned for civilians.

[EricTeri]

22. That may well happen

if the USSC sides with DC.

Be careful what you wish for...

[slackmaster]

8. Dellinger was spouting bullshit

When he said it was not the city's position that people could not keep a rifle or shotgun loaded and ready to use for self-defense.

[gorfle]

9. I wondered about that...

I wondered about that, because if shotguns are legal for home defense, I would not be too overly concerned that handguns were not. I mean, I think handguns should be allowed like any other arm, but frankly I think a shotgun is the best home defense weapon.

[HALO141]

12. Long gun have...

some deficiencies of their own with regard to home defense. I certainly wouldn't say that a shotgun is ALWAYS better than a handgun. Some circumstances, yes, others, no.

[gorfle]

21. In my opinion...

In my opinion, the shotgun almost always trumps the handgun for home defense, except perhaps in the hands of an extremely practiced shooter.

They require less accuracy in a high-stress situation.
They have far less potential for over-penetration and wall-penetration collateral damage.
They are highly intimidating.

About the only problem with them is maneuvering around corners or other tight places. I think specifically defense-purposed short shotgun, like the Mossberg defenders and the like, minimize this issue. Recoil could be a concern also, but defensive shotguns like the "Cruiser" series of Mossberg shotguns are available in 12, 20, and 410 gage. Each hold 6 rounds.

[HALO141]

27. Shotguns are fine

if you're going to stay put. The stopping power is superior to that of a handgun (with the possible exception of the .410). If you have to move around in confined spaces (such as a dwelling), however, weapon retention becomes more problematic.

I've used both.

[spin]

40. Staying put is a good idea...

Say you're in your bedroom asleep and a noise wakes you up. You decide to play cops and robbers. You grab your shotgun or handgun and head out to do a room to room search.

The armed bad guy in your living room hears you. He seeks cover behind a chair. You enter the living room. Blam...you are dead!

Now assume you hear a noise and hide behind your bed and call the police on your cell phone (the bad guy cut the wires to your regular phone). The bad guy enters your bedroom. You have time to make sure he's not your kid with an upset stomach. Blam...he's dead.

Do I do this? No, I usually exhibit bad judgment and search the house.

Once, I heard a "bang, bang, bang" in a house I had just moved into. The telephone wasn't hooked up yet so I grabbed my handgun and investigated. I found nothing. The next day the same thing happened. I left my gun behind and quietly went through the house. When I entered the kitchen I found my cat attempting to pry open a cabinet door with his claws to gain access to his food. He could only open it an inch or so then it would slam shut.

[smb]

44. Staying put is a good idea...

...if you don't have anybody else in need of your protection.

[MaryCeleste]

39. In my counter opinion: Shotties are less effective over all.

- Pistol grip only models redefine the concept of pain when being shot. Hard to get a second shot off
- Many here are advocating buckshot, which has some of the same over penetration concerns as handguns. There are Glasers and other low penetration rounds out there as well.
- Pump shotguns are not nearly as intuitive as pistols for follow up shots and harder to clear in case of a jam
- I will give you the intimidation factor. Nothing instills terror in a perp than the sound of a slide action shotgun being cycle.

In terms of level of practice required, once basic skill level is reached, monthly practice is more than enough to main it.

[smb]

43. Houses Are Full Of "Corners Or Other Tight Places"

"About the only problem with (shotguns) is maneuvering around corners or other tight places."

We're talking about the inside of a house, remember? Trivializing the problem of maneuvering "around corners or other tight places" is like asking Mrs. Lincoln "Other than that, how was the play?"

[Indy Lurker]

18. But now it's on record

How are they going to get a conviction for that now, with a transcript of Dellinger saying:


"It is a universal or near universal rule of criminal law that there is a self-defense exception. It goes without saying. We have no argument whatsoever with the notion that you may load and have a weapon ready when you need to use it for self- defense."


It sounds to me like you can now have a loaded shotgun for self-defense in the home.

[gorfle]

28. The operative words are "when you need it"

As has already been pointed out, the weapon will be used is the phrase "when you need to use it for self defense".

In other words, you can't have it assembled, loaded, and ready to go, except when you need to use it for self defense.

So the debate will be, how long before the actual crisis will you be allowed to make the firearm ready? Six months prior? Or only when the door is physically in the process of being kicked in?

[HALO141]

10. perhaps not...

"It is a universal or near universal rule of criminal law that there is a self-defense exception. It goes without saying. We have no argument whatsoever with the notion that you may load and have a weapon ready when you need to use it for self- defense."

The way this is worded it could be interpreted to mean that in the event you need to defend yoursef, the City has no argument with you retrieving your weapon, reassembling it and then loading it. Of course, it's hard to imagine anyone having that much time in the midst of a life threatening encounter.

[slackmaster]

11. Dellinger claimed he could disengage a trigger lock on his gun in 3 seconds

In the dark, therefore anyone could do it.

[HALO141]

14. Maybe he can.

If he's got the thing in his hands when the clock starts running. But, realistically, can he get his hands on the gun, the ammo, remove the trigger lock, load the gun and be ready to deliver in 3 seconds? I hardly think so.

In a home defense situation you're starting out behind the curve. You don't have time for bullshit.



On edit:
And since we're talking about D.C., here, I assume he was thinking about a shotgun. They are NOT quick to load.

[L1A1Rocker]

15. I wish the Parker lawyer was more up on guns

He would have quickly countered on how that was way more time than he needed to cross 12 feet distance and bash his head with a pipe. Then asked him if he thought an test of his assertion was in order.

That mindset is exactly why so many police officers are injured/killed by knives than by guns. They do not consider time and distance. A perp with a knife that in inside 20 feet will kill a cop with the knife before the cop can draw and fire his weapon.

[Indy Lurker]

19. 20 Ft rule

My understanding is that a cop (or I guess anyone for that matter)is considered to be using self-defense (as opposed to aggression) if they shoot an attacker within 20 Ft.


That is to say if someone breaks into your home, and continues to approach you after you tell them not to come any closer, any shots fired within 20 Ft are considered self defense, even if the criminal is unarmed.

[L1A1Rocker]

23. You are correct.

[spin]

41. A trained person with a knife can slash ...

or disarm you before you can react even if you have a gun pointed at him if he's withing 20 feet.

Life comes at you fast.

[L1A1Rocker]

13. Maybe that is why DC replaced their lead lawyer at the last minute.

The original lawyer wouldn't be able to get up in front of SCOTUS and lie like that.

[bossy22]

17. dellinger

though didnt seem that competant- he studdered and stumbled more than clment and gura....he also kept changing his position and almost conceded that Gura was right but it still passes the reasonableness standard.

There was also a clear bias in the court though- the justices drilled Dellinger alot more

Overall i thought the districts case was very weak- and argued even weaker.....Gura didnt put together the greatest argument either but it was still better than Dellinger's.

[L1A1Rocker]

24. Yea it's kinda strange

Dellinger was supposed to be a "ringer" that was going to save DC's ass. He didn't seem to be as good as his resume would indicate. (I'm reminded of the defense attorney in "My Cosine Vinnie")

Regarding the DC appeal that was filed I was floored by how inept it was on its face. I really think that a high school kid could have done better as a semester project in his civics class.

[iverglas]

25. didn't we already have a thread devoted to this sophistry?

Oh yeah. We did.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=163100&mesg_id=163100

...................

... each registrant shall keep any firearm in his possession ...

Interesting word. I wonder whether we've seen it anywhere before.

Oh yeah.

... the right of the people to keep and bear arms ...

"Keep". It seems to have a meaning.

I think it might be this one (my Oxford Concise is in a box right how, so we'll go with that free online one):

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/keep

4. To put customarily; store: Where do you keep your saw?

or maybe these ones:

1. To retain possession of: kept the change; must keep your composure.
2. To have as a supply: keep an ax in the shed.
6. To maintain for use or service: an urbanite who didn't keep a car.

If you're keeping it, you aren't using it.
If you're using it, you aren't keeping it.


Last week it was a crime to keep a loaded gun at home in DC, now it "goes without saying" that it's ok.

Not per Dellinger. Per Dellinger, it goes without saying that

you may load and have a weapon ready when you need to use it for self- defense

Even though something a little more garbled would have been understandable in a transcript of impromptu speech, that isn't actually garbled at all.

He did NOT say it goes without saying that it's okay to keep a loaded gun at home in DC.

He said it goes without saying that it's okay to load and have a weapon ready when you need to use it for self-defence.

And I like to think that anyone who can read those words can understand what they mean, and understands that the two sets of words just don't mean the same thing.

And that this has nothing to do with any amendment to the US Constitution, or what the nature of the right guaranteed in any such amendment would be. Other than the right not to be deprived of life or liberty without due process, which means that self-defence must be available as an excuse/justification for assault or homicide.

Dellinger certainly knew what he was talking about in that regard. I really wonder whether anybody here doesn't get it.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lex Talionis]

30. LOL! Were do I get some of that?n/t

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Indy Lurker]

29. Ok, how about this then

from page 84

MR. DELLINGER: "The District believes that what is important here is the ban on handguns. And it also
believes that you're entitled to have a functional, usable weapon for self-defense in the home."


from page 86

MR. DELLINGER: "...we believe you should have a functional firearm available in the home of law-abiding citizens who wish one..."

[iverglas]

31. how about it?

It you want to claim that "functional" means something specific, go ahead and claim it.

On the other hand, perhaps he was offering the court an out -- by which DC could keep its handgun ban, which apparently is, for excellent reasons, what is most important to it, even if other aspects of the law were struck down.

Allowing the keeping of ready-to-shoot firearms in homes is not wise, but they don't present the threat to public safety that allowing possession of handguns does. So I could understand it if this was what was going on.

[bossy22]

32. hmmm

"Allowing the keeping of ready-to-shoot firearms in homes is not wise, but they don't present the threat to public safety that allowing possession of handguns does. So I could understand it if this was what was going on."

there presentation of that threat was less than satisfactory- i think there entire claim on that subject was "it can be carried onto the metro and into schools and government buildings" Well so can a sawed off rifle and sawed off shotgun

there whole arguement that the handgun ban saved lives is based on the claim that "without it our Murder rate would have been higher"...which in reality may be true but isnt a strong case due to its untestable nature.

[iverglas]

36. well, if the discussion here were about the merits of the law

or the merits of the various practices it governs, that would all be relevant.

My opinion about both was stated simply by way of offering what might be an explanation for one interpretation of something said by DC's counsel, if DC happened to be of the same opinion.

If there was something going on that could result in the possession of sawed-off long guns being permitted, I guess I missed it, or didn't think it was relevant to anything I was saying. The latter, at least.

[Indy Lurker]

33. Sure

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/functional

Capable of performing; operative: a functional set of brakes.

[iverglas]

37. hmmm

Do brakes cease to be functional if the car is on blocks and there is no gas in the tank?

[Indy Lurker]

34. You mean re-instate the laws

The lower court has already ruled:

"...the district court is ordered to grant summary judgment to Heller consistent with the prayer for relief contained in appellants’ complaint."


The complaint covers:

Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4), which generally bars the registration of handguns (with an exception for retired D.C. police officers);

D.C. Code § 22-4504, which prohibits carrying a pistol without a license, insofar as that provision would prevent a registrant from moving a gun from one room to another within his or her home;

D.C. Code § 7-2507.02, requiring that all lawfully owned firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.




I didn't hear 5 justices who seemed to be in favor of re-instating these laws.

[iverglas]

35. no, I really don't

Unless your judicial system is really rather peculiar.

What is being appealed is the order directing the striking down of the laws, is that it?

If the appeal were allowed in part, say, it would uphold the part of the order directing the striking down of one law / part of a law, whatever it is, and quash the part of the order directing the striking down of another law / part of a law.

So it would not be reinstating anything. It would be quashing the order directing the striking of it. Or so it would look to me.

But maybe it's different where you're at.

I fail to see a point, either way.

[gorfle]

42. I agree.

He said it goes without saying that it's okay to load and have a weapon ready when you need to use it for self-defence.

I agree with your assessment of what he said, though I disagree with the requirement, on a few grounds:

1) When can one legally perceive the need for self-defense to be immanent? If I live in a crime-ridden area of town, perhaps I feel endangered from dark to dusk. Can I keep a loaded, assembled firearm ready from dark to dusk? Say someone is knocking on my door. How about then? Say they are beating on my door. How about then? Say they are kicking in the door. How about then?

2) Who is this restriction targeted at, and to prevent what misdeed? They only use I could see for such a law is to prevent accidents, particularly by children. I can't see it having any impact on willful criminal behavior at all - a person willing to commit a crime with a firearm probably isn't too concerned about the legality of how he stores it or carries it.

In 1988, 277 children under the age of 15 were killed (presumably nation wide) by accidental firearms discharges, according to the most recent figures from the National Safety Council.

http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Kopel/kidgun.html

Some more recent data:

"In a single year, 3,012 children and teens were killed by gunfire in the United States, according to the latest national data released in 2002. That is one child every three hours; eight children every day; and more than 50 children every week. And every year, at least 4 to 5 times as many kids and teens suffer from non-fatal firearm injuries. (Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics)"

http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm#children

But it is likely that the later statistic includes "children" engaged in criminal activity (robbery, gang activity) and suicide.

Given the rarity of child firearm accidents (an NRA source I found said the odds are 1 in a million - http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=120 ), is this kind of law really necessary?