EckerNet.Com

The ink on the Heller vs DC decision is barely dry, but it appears we\’re going to be right back at it.

The plaintiff in the Supreme Court case that struck down Washington\’s 32-year-old handgun ban filed a new federal lawsuit Monday, alleging the city\’s new gun regulations still violate an individual\’s right to own a gun for self-defense.

Dick Heller and two other plaintiffs argue that the city\’s regulations are \”highly unusual and unreasonable\” in the complaint filed in U.S. District Court.

The lawsuit claims the District of Columbia continues to violate the intent of the Supreme Court\’s June 26 decision by prohibiting the ownership of most semiautomatic weapons, requiring an \”arbitrary\” fee to register a firearm and establishing rules that make it all but impossible for residents to keep a gun in the home for immediate self-defense.

Ok I\’ll try to give DC credit, because as I wrote at the time

My one major disagreement with the decision, and part of the focus of Breyer’s dissent, is that the majority doesn’t really indicate what degree of regulation states can use on the use of firearms. It would be nice to have some sort of guideline or I fear that we’ll be right back in this same spot in the future.

on the other hand (you have different fingers)….

However, on the plus side the majority did state unequivocally that any law that impeded the ability for law-abiding responsible citizens to use weapons, in common use at the time, for the use of self-defense of home and hearth, would be unconstitutional.

End result is that while DC isn\’t really given a whole lot of guidelines, the one guideline they are given isn\’t that difficult to follow. Weapons that are in common use are completely protected for self-defense use by law-abiding responsible citizens. Apparently DC has problems following that simple guidance.

Just to give you an idea of the intellect we\’re working with…..I kid you not….

The regulations maintain the city\’s ban of machine guns, defined in the law as weapons that shoot more than 12 rounds without reloading. That definition applies to most semiautomatic firearms.

Well let\’s for kicks compare that to US Code (26 U.S.C. § 5845(b))

The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

Seems to be an awfully big disconnect there.  Clearly we\’re not dealing with a high thinking individuals here.  OR apparently I\’m just not understanding the big city learning going on here.

But considering DC\’s inability to follow the law, I have to start wondering how many times the Supreme Court is gonna have to smack DC down before Scalia\’s opinions start looking like this….

Heh A-hole!! Knock that crap off. Are you French or retarded? How can you possibly misinterpret what I just said?? I even had my grandson proof read it for me so I knew it made sense to your tiny intellect.

I said let them have the damn firearms, but do you do it?!? Nooooooooo, you got your head too far up your ass, to be able to understand a damn thing.

Now look, don\’t make me tell you again.  If I have to write another opinion, I swear to God that I\’ll pull this court over and really give you something to cry about.