Started writing this post earlier. I had it set to publish tomorrow but in this blog game you’ve got to be quick. People started talking about it before me and now it is basically a Seegars round up:

Matt notes that the DC Circuit Court opinion on Seegars v. Ashcroft did not go well. Here’s a link to the opinion.

Eugene Volokh notes:

D.C. Circuit Ducks Second Amendment Issue in the challenge to the D.C. gun ban, holding that citizens can’t challenge the ban unless they’re being prosecuted for violating it, or at least have shown some serious threat of imminent prosecution.

So, I would have to actually break the law to challenge it? That seems a bit odd to me as the gun control system is set up to prevent things. For example, say I wanted to challenge the 1986 Hughes Amendment which prohibits the transfer of new machine guns to citizens (pre-1986 machine guns are still A-OK). Short of building my own, I can’t violate the law to challenge it. I can’t fill out a Form 4, pay my NFA tax, send it to the ATF, and get a manufacturer to ship me a new machine gun. The reason is because the ATF would not approve my Form 4. Ever.

The other thing is challenge of a law is quite risky. Say I challenge the machine gun law by building one and walking over to my ATF office to turn myself in. I’ll be arrested. Post bail and begin my challenge. If I lose my challenge, I’m looking at 10 years in club fed and thousands of dollars in fines. This is in addition to the lawyers fees. So, I am in a system where I can’t challenge a gun law without violating it and I don’t want to run the risk because said risk is way too high.

Volokh also notes that neither the majority nor the dissent express a view on the Second Amendment.

Matt of Triggerfinger, in addition to pointing out that the judges are splitting legal hairs and don’t want to address the second amendment issue, notes:

This decision is a mixed blessing for gun owners. It does not support a 2nd Amendment right, but it also does not deny one, and it explicitly reverses the lower court’s decision for the one plaintiff in Seegars who could claim standing. As such, the lower court’s decision on the merits of the 2nd Amendment (a very unfavorable decision) is expunged, and we’re back to asking how, exactly, a challenge to the law can be brought. Most gun owners aren’t willing to deliberately put themselves at risk of a felony conviction to challenge this law; and that appears to be exactly what the Appellate Court here is saying we need to do.

Clayton Cramer notes how to challenge the law:

Someone–and preferably, someone squeaky clean–has to violate the law without violating any other law. You can’t lawfully buy a pistol in DC, and a DC resident can’t lawfully purchase a pistol outside of DC. A DC resident who already owns a pistol (as one of the plaintiffs does) needs to bring the pistol into the District, or someone who lives outside DC with a pistol needs to move into the District.

Or, as Countertop says: . . . this is pure and utter bullshit . . .

I personally think that’s an insult to bullshit.

Update: Reader Robert emails:

Who is the perfect perp for the DC gun case?

He has recently, repeatedly, and publicly displayed an unregistered handgun IN Washington, DC. There are many witnesses, all public officials. Not only THAT but the provenance of the firearm in question makes it extremely probable that it was NOT imported through proper channels. He’s a white male with only one possible old DWI on his record. He’s rich, a sharp dresser, presents himself well in public, and is defended by the heaviest lawyers available in America.

He’s George W. Bush and he’s got Saddam’s Browning Highpower 9 mm in his office!

Heh.

Posted in uncategorized on February 8th, 2005 by SayUncle | RSS 2.0 |