Judge affirms DC’s assault weapons ban

Gun demostrators in front of Supreme Court (AFP)

In a setback to the powerful National Rife Association (NRA) and gun advocates,  a federal judge Friday upheld the  Washington, DC’s ban on assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition clips enacted last year after the Supreme Court struck down an earlier ban on all handguns in the city.

U. S. District Court Judge Ricardo Urbina ruled against three challengers to the July 2009 law, including Dick Anthony Heller, who took the city’s 1976 ban on handguns all the way to the Supreme Court, which struck it down in 2008.

The Supremes ruled that the handgun  ban violated the US Constitution’s second amendment on the “right to bear arms,” and said Washington residents had the right to own handguns for self-defense.

But Judge Urbina told Heller and his felow gun advocates when Urbina the people of Washington had no Constitutional Right to own semi-automatic weapons, “assault-style” weapons.

“Assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices fall outside the scope of the core Second Amendment right,” Urbina said in his decision.

“Today’s ruling affirms our efforts to ensure the highest possible standards of safety for District residents,” Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty responded in a written statement.

“Once again, the courts have rejected the gun lobby’s attempt to transform the core right to guns in the home for self-defense into a mandate for their ‘any gun, anywhere’ agenda,” said the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

Heller and the NRA are expected to appeal.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

12 Responses to "Judge affirms DC’s assault weapons ban"

  1. Almandine  March 27, 2010 at 1:34 pm

    Kinda funny how the meaning of the Constitution applies only to single shots, pumps, or wheel guns, but not semi-automatics.

    Where did Urbina come up with that?

    • griff  March 28, 2010 at 3:48 am

      Nazification for Dummies, I believe.

    • Ray  March 28, 2010 at 10:09 am

      I suppose if one were to be a strict interpreter of the Constitution then it would only apply to flintlocks … rifles or pistols

  2. Carl Nemo  March 27, 2010 at 1:52 pm

    It’s just another superfluous ruling that will dissed by scofflaws. Only a handful of foolish law abiding citizens will adhere to such nonsense in these seeming end times for the Republic.

    Yep, it’s alright for the police and military to have such including “full auto” in order to mow the citizenry down on command from above in the event martial law is declared by our less than honorable leadership we now have at the helm.

    Carl Nemo **==

    • silentSCREAM  March 27, 2010 at 8:11 pm

      “seeming end times for the Republic”

      “less than honorable leadership we now have at the helm”

      Appears you’ve bought the hard sell, Carl.

      The end times are closer than most understand, but most who believe do so for the wrong reasons. Unless one is of an age likely to live well into the latter days of this century, they won’t see the republic fall… or even splinter. Conditions are far from what they need to be. Granted, the scenarios are now in play, but we’ve got a ways to go till the final act.

      So far as less than honorable leadership at the helm. Other than our modern era of MSM disinformation, there’s no great political difference from past times.

  3. Carl Nemo  March 27, 2010 at 9:58 pm

    Hi SilentSCREAM,

    “Appears you’ve bought the hard sell, Carl.” ….extract from post

    I don’t buy anyone’s line of reasoning or facts. I’m an inveterate data miner, reader of books and periodicals and one that is capable of synthesis of my own ideas from gleaning varied sources.

    If you honestly believe there’s no difference in our current leadership from the past then there’s no reason to dispute your claim predicated on your belief system. We simply have a difference of opinion…no?

    All I can say as to whether anything happens or not; ie., the “balloon goes up”, hopefully you and yours are prepared for the worst possible scenario. : |

    “To be forewarned is to be forearmed”…Cervantes

    Carl Nemo **==

    • silentSCREAM  March 28, 2010 at 10:25 am

      If the thin thread that binds [American] civilization snaps, when the dust settles, life won’t be much worth living anyway.

      Newsflash. Popular survivalist schemes fall far short of actual proliferation requirements. The ‘winners’ on the other side will ultimately rise from the ranks of the well-organized and operable underground societies who currently sustain themselves beyond the rule of law. The well established social hierarchy present in today’s predatory criminal class will provide them with an insurmountable advantage. Nationwide they already number in the millions. They don’t work day jobs. Never have. They don’t know what it means to earn an honest living. They live amongst us in virtually every community. Their existence is already determined by conflict and violence on a daily basis.

      Loosely organized survivalist groups or individuals may fare better than the general population… for a time. The only exception would be for those survivalist types who enjoy a postion of extreme isolation and an ability to gather sustenance while maintaining absolut stealth. Those numbers would be few. If you can count yourself as one of those few, I wish you well… should the day be upon us.

  4. woody188  March 27, 2010 at 11:45 pm

    Whenever a product is prohibited by law it always seems to remain readily available. Prohibition merely takes away any chance of controlling a product as black markets will form to meet the demand.

  5. Bopper  March 29, 2010 at 8:23 pm

    Don’t you know, fully auto, weapons of mas destruction are a guaranteed right under the constitution. These goobers are bound to turn us into Guatemala, if they have their way.

    • griff  March 30, 2010 at 6:28 am

      In Guatemala the only people with arms are the military, police, and the druglords. The people are held hostage, so you’re correct, in a way.

  6. questioner  April 2, 2010 at 3:43 pm

    To those who believe this ruling is wrong, I have a question.

    Unless you believe we all have the right to own an atomic bomb (remember, there are those who would really like to get their hands on one,) where DO we draw the line on “arms” that the Constitution protects.

    This question is not snide or snarky. I would really like to know where people, especially “pro-arms” people, think the line should be drawn.

  7. Dan  April 9, 2010 at 9:46 am

    The heller decision stated that the 2nd amendmend protects the right of the people to own guns “in common use at the time”.
    Since semi-automatic handguns outsell revolvers by a large margin, and many, many semi-automatic pistols have magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, how can it be argued that ownership of an 11-round magazine, or a semi-automatic pistol is not protected? Millions of AR-15 rifles have been sold to civilians. How is that not “in common use”?
    This decision should be overturned.

Comments are closed.