Firearms Owners Against Crime
Institute for Legal, Legislative and Educational Action
Institute for Legal, Legislative and Educational Action
Does Heller have teeth? Apparently some, at least:
In a mixed decision, a federal appeals court on Friday struck down as unconstitutional several strict gun registration laws in the nation’s capital, but upheld other restrictions aimed at public safety.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that the city cannot ban gun owners from registering more than one pistol per month or require owners to re-register a gun every three years. The court also invalidated requirements that owners make a personal appearance to register a gun and pass a test about firearms laws.
Not all of the rules were nixed:
. . . the court upheld other parts of the law, such as requiring that so-called long guns — including rifles and shotguns — be registered along with handguns. The ruling also allows gun owners to be fingerprinted and photographed, pay certain fees and complete a firearms safety training course.
This case did not break down on predictable, partisan lines. Per the AP:
. . . writing for the appeals court majority, Judge Douglas Ginsburg said some of the laws did not pass constitutional muster. He rejected, for example, the city’s argument that the one-pistol-per-month rule would reduce illegal trafficking in weapons.
“The suggestion that a gun trafficker would bring fewer guns into the District because he could not register more than one per month there lacks the support of experience and of common sense,” Ginsburg said.
Ginsburg, who was appointed by President Ronald Regan, was joined by Judge Patricia Millett, an appointee of President Barack Obama.
Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, named to the court President George H. W. Bush, dissented in part, saying she would have upheld all the registration laws. She said the majority should have shown more deference to public officials trying to create a workable firearms policy.
On the contrary: There is no need for a court to show “deference” when dealing with the restriction of a fundamental right. More of this please.