Judge Urbina (Photo Dan Rosenthal)
Yesterday, federal district court judge Ricardo Urbina ruled that a DC ordinance banning pistols holding more than ten rounds was constitutional and did not violate the right to bear arms.
After the Supreme Court in 2008 struck down DC's categorical ban on functional firearms in the home, the city reacted by passing a series of ordinances that it called "Reasonable Regulations." Basically, in DC, it is currently legal to have a pistol not capable of holding more than ten rounds, in the home, unloaded and either disassembled or with a trigger lock.
Dick Heller, the only plaintiff to make it to the United States Supreme Court in the landmark Heller case, sued the city of DC again over its new regulations, challenging the registration and licensing scheme and the ban on weapons holding more than ten rounds. It is not known why Heller failed to challenge the ordinance requiring weapons to be unloaded and disassembled or locked away.
Judge Urbina, a Clinton appointee, upheld the DC regulations as protecting DC's "compelling" governmental interest in public safety. He reached this result by refusing to apply a "strict scrutiny" standard of review to the right to keep arms, and instead applying an intermediate standard of review. The difference between the two is significant. A strict scrutiny standard of review is almost always fatal to a government regulation, as the government must prove that the regulation is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest. Failing such a showing, the law will be held unconstitutional. Intermediate review, on the other hand requires only a showing that the regulation is substantially related to an important governmental interest for the regulation to be upheld. As one might expect, this is a much lighter burden for the government. In the words of Judge Urbina, the lower standard of review permits the government to "paint with a broader brush" when imposing restrictions upon a civil right.
The Supreme Court, in its Heller opinion, left the standard of review open for future cases to decide.
Judge Urbina then explicitly held that the Second Amendment right is not "fundamental."
the Supreme Court did not explicitly hold that the Second Amendment right is a fundamental right, despite the fact that it stated that "[b]y the timeof the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects" and noted that Blackstone "cited the arms provision of the Bill of Rights as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen." Id. at 2798. If the Supreme Court had wanted to declare the Second Amendment right a fundamental right, it would have done so explicitly. The court will not infer such a significant holding based only on the Heller majority’s oblique references to the gun ownership rights of eighteenth-century English subjects.
In other words, the right to keep arms in the home may have been fundamental in the eighteenth century, but the courts are not inclined to hold that it is fundamental today. They reserve that important category for "rights" not mentioned in the constitution, like sodomy and abortion.
The DC laws upheld by Judge Urbina include registration, licensing, a ban on any pistol that holds more than 10 rounds. As noted above, Heller did not challenge the requirement that the weapon be kept unloaded and either dissasembled or secured by either a trigger lock, gun safe, or some other device.
The decision not to challenge the last requirement is extremely puzzling, since the Supreme Court struck down DC's prior law requiring that the a weapon be kept unloaded and locked. The Supreme court held that this requirement to unload, disassemble or lock up the weapon:
makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.
That is pretty clear language.
The opinion holds that any weapon capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition is "dangerous and unusual" and therefore not protected by the Second Amendment.
You may read Judge Urbina's 30 page opinion for yourself by clicking here.
You may read the DC ordinances on guns by clicking here.
Also, please be sure to read David Codrea's Examiner article, in which he calls this decision "nothing less than subversive" and notes that gun control activists are publicly celebrating.
Comments
What kind of commonsense ruling do you expect from a DC judge. Wouldn't want the home invaders being treatened by more that a piece of steel (or plastic) you can throw at them, cuz you can't find the key, when you need it and, seconds count. I guess one could argue, possibly successfully, that in some parts of DC, if not most, the residents are always in immediate fear of their lives. I also wonder how many rounds are in the DC LEO's weapons magazines?
Just another liberal judge doing his part to make sure that the citizens are kept at a dissadvantage in defending themselves against a potential oppressive government.
HE NEEDS TO BE REPLACED......
Another mongrel in D. C. doing what damage he can.
There IS a time for civil disobedience.
Just another GARBAGE ruling in a string of rulings designed to remove all civil rights from law abiding citizens. We are close to the point where only criminals have civil rights. They already have more than we do, in many cases.
Someone needs to form a WashingtonDCCarry.Org, if there are enough people in DC who actually care about their rights. If citizens are not willing to stand up to this kind of junk decision, our time as a free people is drawing nigh!
"It is not known why Heller failed to challenge the ordinance requiring weapons to be unloaded and disassembled or locked away..."
Stephen Halbrook is no dummy, so I am going to suggest (speculation only) that those issues are intended to be addressed in later right "to bear"-focused cases, following these current right "to keep"-focused cases. Good lawyers don't put too many issues in one case.
The facts are: The crime rate went down in DC when citizens were allowed to arm themselves. This means persons legally carrying handguns strike fear in the hearts of criminals who are cowards when attacking prey that can fight back. They want only helpless prey, which is what this treasonous judge is trying to produce. The lying Federals always use the pretext "It is to protect the women, children and citizens". They want us unarmed so as many citizens as possible can be murdered and reduce the population.
Will Heller appeal this?
eeyore, you may very well be correct, but I have not spoken to Mr. Heller recently, and I have not spoken to Mr. Halbrook, so I did not want to speculate.
Sounds like another one of those liberal judges who legislate.
What would Jesus Christ say about guns?
Do any of the opponents of this ruling believe that the government has NO right to make certain weapons illegal in the possession of it's citizens?
If not the issue here is one of 'where' to draw the line. Let's stop all of the ugly talk about the domination of the governement and come to terms with the simple fact that we can remove/change the entire legislature every four years. In other words the laws in place are by and large the will of the people - not the will of some evil government.
Jesus would say, "Thou shalt not murder. But if you have to defend yourself, and I fully expect you to do so, a gun sure beats a sling shot". As far as Judge Urbina, he should be replaced post haste.
This "Judge" should be executed on sight :(
A perfectly sound judgement in my mind!
<i>"What would Jesus Christ say about guns? "</i>
I think he was pretty clear. Luke 22-36: Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
The sword being the personal defense weapon of the day, I think the message is unambiguous.
While something as silly as a ban on hi-cap mags is really no surprise coming from a Clinton-era judge, the phrase "dangerous and unusual" is downright laughable, considering the vast majority of modern auto's are capable of holding 10+ rounds, even the subcompacts like Glocks and Springfield XD's in 9mm or even .40 cal. However, let us not forget that the M1911A1 is STILL the preferred sidearm for many professionals despite reaching it's design centennial this year, and it falls withing the "10 or less" bracket with room to spare! :-D
It must be too much to ask that an educated man be able to tell the difference between "compelling" governmental interest in public safety and the "compelling" individual interest in private safety.
Judge Urbina, you are a liberal activist judge, that simply cannot understand the words, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." You have over-reached your bounds, and are not worthy of the high position that you have reached. You are a tyrant enabler, and your rulings prove this. You are infringing on an inalienable human right, just who do you think you are? Your arrogance is astounding. You, Sir, need to be removed from your high position. You do not deserve it.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!