Summary of the Bill

"District of Columbia Personal Protection Act - Amends specified law prohibiting the killing of wild birds and wild animals in the District of Columbia to declare that nothing in it or any other provision of law shall authorize or be construed to permit the Council, the Mayor, or any governmental or regulatory authority of the District to prohibit, constructively prohibit, or unduly burden the ability of persons otherwise not prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law from acquiring, possessing in their homes or businesses, or using for sporting, self-protection or other lawful purposes, any firearm neither prohibited by federal law nor subject to the National Firearms Act. Denies the District any authority to enact laws or regulations that discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms.

Amends the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 to repeal the definition of a machine gun as any firearm which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to shoot semiautomatically, more than 12 shots without manual reloading. (Thus repeals the ban on semiautomatic weapons.)

Redefines "machine gun" to include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

Repeals the District's: (1) registration requirement for possession of firearms; (2) prohibition on possession of handgun restricted pistol bullets; and (3) requirement that, under certain conditions, firearms in the possession of certain individuals must be kept unloaded, disassembled, or with the trigger locked.

Repeals the definition of restricted pistol bullet as any bullet designed for use in a pistol which, when fired from a pistol with a barrel of five inches or less in length, is capable of penetrating commercially available body armor with a penetration resistance equal to or greater than that of 18 layers of kevlar.

Maintains the current ban on the possession and control of a sawed-off shotgun, machine gun, or short-barreled rifle.

Eliminates criminal penalties for possessing an unregistered firearm.
Amends federal law to eliminate criminal penalties for carrying a pistol whether loaded or unloaded in one's dwelling house, place of business, or on land possessed by such person.

Amends the District of Columbia Code to extend to firearms generally (currently, only to pistols) the prohibition against carrying such a weapon either openly or concealed within the District without a license issued pursuant to D.C. law.

Specifies exceptions to the prohibition against carrying concealed weapons in the District"

An NRA email I received said they had put this bill on hold until after Heller was decided.

Quoted: Quoted: Why now? Why is this legislation only being presented after Heller has been accepted by the SCOTUS? To protect the NRAs relevence and funding.

This was introduced back in March.

And has been introduced in past sessions of Congress.

Quoted: An NRA email I received said they had put this bill on hold until after Heller was decided.

Shhh.

The tards want to believe its a conspiracy to keep Heller from being heard!

Quoted: This was introduced back in March.

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right was published on March 9th.  The bill was introduced just a few weeks later, on March 27th.

And has been introduced in past sessions of Congress.

True, but the NRA did not back it as forcefully in past years.

Quoted: Quoted: This was introduced back in March. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right was published on March 9th.  The bill was introduced just a few weeks later, on March 27th. And has been introduced in past sessions of Congress. True, but the NRA did not back it as forcefully in past years.

So what you're saying is... they (NRA) knew that the District was going to appeal it, they knew that the Supreme Court was going to take it, so they introduced the same bill they've introduced a half dozen times in an attempt to subvert a positive court ruling on the 2nd because they're afraid people won't renew their memberships?

Quoted: Its my understanding that once the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case, its cannot be pulled off the docket.

Not true; except in unusual circumstances a case will not be decided if it becomes moot.  When it is shown that a case brought from a lower federal court is moot, the Supreme Court usually reverses or vacates the judgment with directions to dismiss the original complaint.

Quoted: Well good news is good news. Things are starting to look up for us.

Damnit Killswitch, now you've jinxed us.

Quoted: Quoted: Its my understanding that once the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case, its cannot be pulled off the docket. Not true; except in unusual circumstances a case will not be decided if it becomes moot.  When it is shown that a case brought from a lower federal court is moot, the Supreme Court usually reverses or vacates the judgment with directions to dismiss the original complaint.

Nip it in the Bud..?

Quoted: Quoted: An NRA email I received said they had put this bill on hold until after Heller was decided. Shhh. The tards want to believe its a conspiracy to keep Heller from being heard!

As if the SCOTUS would say "OH, they're gonna do something, let's not hear this case..

PUH-Leeze



GR

Looks like the bill in question still prohibits all NFA possession.  

Quoted: Quoted: An NRA email I received said they had put this bill on hold until after Heller was decided. Shhh. The tards want to believe its a conspiracy to keep Heller from being heard!

You haven't been paying attention, have you?  The NRA tried to scuttle this case from the start.

Quoted: Rep Musgrave, Marilyn N. [CO-4] - 4/17/2007 This surprised me. She is all about taking our guns away in CO.

?
That is news to me.  Care to substantiate that?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: An NRA email I received said they had put this bill on hold until after Heller was decided. Shhh. The tards want to believe its a conspiracy to keep Heller from being heard! You haven't been paying attention, have you?  The NRA tried to scuttle this case from the start.

+ 1


The NRA "IS" trying to help the anti-gunners, because as long as they have a fight, they can rant and rave on how much they need your money. As far as I see it, the NRA has become a "fight" organization, instead of a "fix" organization. I'd love to support the NRA with more money than I have given in the past, however, I've seen them become more of a help to the anti-gunners, so they can ask for more money.

I hope the Heller case goes through and our Rights are rightfully restored. And if it goes the other way, I am pretty sure you'll see some blood in the streets or at least see some assasination. And I DO NOT want to see that happen, I want to see our system work correctly for once. However, I believe the line in the sand has been drawn and if justice isn't served correctly, a lot of people will see what our government has become and take matters to heart and in their own hands.

Quoted: If this law as passed, would the Supreme Court then reject hearing the Heller case? If so, this would actually be "anti-gun" legislation, as it would make the actual SCOTUS opinion of the 2nd Amendment go away. Meaning we lose again. So would this make the Heller case go away in the SCOTUS?

The Heller case would be moot.  The Court could decide to hear Heller anyway, but most likely would not.

Quoted: So what you're saying is... they (NRA) knew that the District was going to appeal it, they knew that the Supreme Court was going to take it, so they introduced the same bill they've introduced a half dozen times in an attempt to subvert a positive court ruling on the 2nd because they're afraid people won't renew their memberships?

DC Mayor Fenty announced minutes after the appeals court publisheded the decision that the city would appeal the case.  In fact, he did so before talking to the city's attorneys, many of whom wanted to let sleeping dogs lie... and yes, beltway insiders knew that the USSC was going to grant cert; this was "the case" they'd been waiting for.

Remember, the vote to grant cert was 6-2-1.  That is, the "four conservatives" and two of the liberals voted in favor of granting cert.  Two of the liberals voted against cert, so they were ok with the appeals court's ruling.  Heller is going to win, and there's nothing the anti's can do about it.

Full Text: From Here

Bill Status Introduced: Mar 8, 2007 Sponsor: Rep. Mike Ross [D-AR] Status: Introduced Go to Bill Status Page You are viewing the following version of this bill: Introduced in House: This is the original text of the bill as it was written by its sponsor and submitted to the House for consideration. Text of Legislation HR 1399 IH 110th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 1399 To restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES March 8, 2007 Mr. ROSS (for himself and Mr. SOUDER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A BILL To restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `District of Columbia Personal Protection Act'. SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS. Congress finds the following: (1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms. (3) The law-abiding citizens of the District of Columbia are deprived by local laws of handguns, rifles, and shotguns that are commonly kept by law-abiding persons throughout the United States for sporting use and for lawful defense of their persons, homes, businesses, and families. (4) The District of Columbia has the highest per capita murder rate in the Nation, which may be attributed in part to local laws prohibiting possession of firearms by law-abiding persons who would otherwise be able to defend themselves and their loved ones in their own homes and businesses. (5) The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended by the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986, and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, provide comprehensive Federal regulations applicable in the District of Columbia as elsewhere. In addition, existing District of Columbia criminal laws punish possession and illegal use of firearms by violent criminals and felons. Consequently, there is no need for local laws which only affect and disarm law-abiding citizens. (6) Legislation is required to correct the District of Columbia's law in order to restore the fundamental rights of its citizens under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and thereby enhance public safety. SEC. 3. REFORM D.C. COUNCIL'S AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT FIREARMS. Section 4 of the Act entitled `An Act to prohibit the killing of wild birds and wild animals in the District of Columbia', approved June 30, 1906 (34 Stat. 809; sec. 1-303.43, D.C. Official Code) is amended by adding at the end the following: `Nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall authorize, or shall be construed to permit, the Council, the Mayor, or any governmental or regulatory authority of the District of Columbia to prohibit, constructively prohibit, or unduly burden the ability of persons not prohibited from possessing firearms under Federal law from acquiring, possessing in their homes or businesses, or using for sporting, self-protection or other lawful purposes, any firearm neither prohibited by Federal law nor subject to the National Firearms Act. The District of Columbia shall not have authority to enact laws or regulations that discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms.'. SEC. 4. REPEAL D.C. SEMIAUTOMATIC BAN. (a) In General- Section 101(10) of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2501.01(10), D.C. Official Code) is amended to read as follows: `(10) `Machine gun' means any firearm which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to shoot automatically, more than 1 shot by a single function of the trigger, and includes the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.'. (b) Conforming Amendment to Provisions Setting Forth Criminal Penalties- Section 1(c) of the Act of July 8, 1932 (47 Stat. 651; sec. 22-4501(c), D.C. Official Code) is amended to read as follows: `(c) `Machine gun', as used in this Act, has the meaning given such term in section 101(10) of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975.'. SEC. 5. REPEAL REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT. (a) Repeal of Requirement- (1) IN GENERAL- Section 201(a) of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2502.01(a), D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking `any firearm, unless' and all that follows through paragraph (3) and inserting the following: `any firearm described in subsection (c).'. (2) DESCRIPTION OF FIREARMS REMAINING ILLEGAL- Section 201 of such Act (sec. 7-2502.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: `(c) A firearm described in this subsection is any of the following: `(1) A sawed-off shotgun. `(2) A machine gun. `(3) A short-barreled rifle.'. (3) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- The heading of section 201 of such Act (sec. 7-2502.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking `Registration requirements' and inserting `Firearm Possession'. (b) Conforming Amendments to Firearms Control Regulations Act- The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 is amended as follows: (1) Sections 202 through 211 (secs. 7-2502.02 through 7-2502.11, D.C. Official Code) are repealed. (2) Section 101 (sec. 7-2501.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking paragraph (13). (3) Section 401 (sec. 7-2504.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended-- (A) in subsection (a), by striking `the District;' and all that follows and inserting the following: `the District, except that a person may engage in hand loading, reloading, or custom loading of ammunition for firearms lawfully possessed under this Act.'; and (B) in subsection (b), by striking `which are unregisterable under section 202' and inserting `which are prohibited under section 201'. (4) Section 402 (sec. 7-2504.02, D.C. Official Code) is amended-- (A) in subsection (a), by striking `Any person eligible to register a firearm' and all that follows through `such business,' and inserting the following: `Any person not otherwise prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal of District law, or from being licensed under section 923 of title 18, United States Code,'; and (B) in subsection (b), by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows: `(1) The applicant's name;'. (5) Section 403(b) (sec. 7-2504.03(b), D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking `registration certificate' and inserting `dealer's license'. (6) Section 404(a)(3) (sec. 7-2504.04(a)(3)), D.C. Official Code) is amended-- (A) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking `registration certificate number (if any) of the firearm,'; (B) in subparagraph (B)(iv), by striking `holding the registration certificate' and inserting `from whom it was received for repair'; (C) in subparagraph (C)(i), by striking `and registration certificate number (if any) of the firearm'; (D) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by striking `registration certificate number or'; (E) in subparagraph (D)(ii), by striking `or registration number'; and (F) in subparagraph (E), by striking clause (iii) and redesignating clauses (iv) and (v) as clauses (iii) and (iv). (7) Section 406(c) (sec. 7-2504.06(c), D.C. Official Code) is amended to read as follows: `(c) Within 45 days of a decision becoming effective which is unfavorable to a licensee or to an applicant for a dealer's license, the licensee or application shall-- `(1) lawfully remove from the District all destructive devices in his inventory, or peaceably surrender to the Chief all destructive devices in his inventory in the manner provided in section 705; and `(2) lawfully dispose, to himself or to another, any firearms and ammunition in his inventory.'. (8) Section 407(b) (sec. 7-2504.07(b), D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking `would not be eligible' and all that follows and inserting `is prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal or District law.'. (9) Section 502 (sec. 7-2505.02, D.C. Official Code) is amended-- (A) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows: `(a) Any person or organization not prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal or District law may sell or otherwise transfer ammunition or any firearm, except those which are prohibited under section 201, to a licensed dealer.'; (B) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows: `(c) Any licensed dealer may sell or otherwise transfer a firearm to any person or organization not otherwise prohibited from possessing or receiving such firearm under Federal or District law.'; (C) in subsection (d), by striking paragraphs (2) and (3); and (D) by striking subsection (e). (10) Section 704 (sec. 7-2507.04, D.C. Official Code) is amended-- (A) in subsection (a), by striking `any registration certificate or' and inserting `a'; and (B) in subsection (b), by striking `registration certificate,'. (c) Other Conforming Amendments- Section 2(4) of the Illegal Firearm Sale and Distribution Strict Liability Act of 1992 (sec. 7-2531.01(2)(4), D.C. Official Code) is amended-- (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking `or ignoring proof of the purchaser's residence in the District of Columbia'; and (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking `registration and'. SEC. 6. REPEAL HANDGUN AMMUNITION BAN. (a) Definition of Restricted Pistol Bullet- Section 101(13a) of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2501.01(13a)) is amended to read as follows: `(13a)(A) `Restricted pistol bullet' means-- `(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or `(ii) a full-jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile. `(B) The term `restricted pistol bullet' does not include shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed for target shooting, a projectile which the Attorney General of the United States (pursuant to section 921(a)(17) of title 18, United States Code) finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any other projectile or projectile core which the Attorney General finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an oil and gas well perforating device.'. (b) Repeal of Ban- Section 601 of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2506.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended-- (1) by striking `ammunition' each place it appears (other than paragraph (4)) and inserting `restricted pistol bullets'; and (2) by striking paragraph (3) and redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3). SEC. 7. RESTORE RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE IN THE HOME. Section 702 of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2507.02, D.C. Official Code) is repealed. SEC. 8. REMOVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR POSSESSION OF UNREGISTERED FIREARMS. (a) In General- Section 706 of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2507.06, D.C. Official Code) is amended-- (1) by striking `that:' and all that follows through `(1) A' and inserting `that a'; and (2) by striking paragraph (2). (b) Effective Date- The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to violations occurring after the 60-day period which begins on the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 9. REMOVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR CARRYING A FIREARM IN ONE'S DWELLING OR OTHER PREMISES. (a) In General- Section 4(a) of the Act of July 8, 1932 (47 Stat. 651; sec. 22-4504(a), D.C. Official Code) is amended-- (1) in the matter before paragraph (1), by striking `a pistol,' and inserting the following: `except in his dwelling house or place of business or on other land possessed by that person, whether loaded or unloaded, a firearm,'; and (2) by striking `except that:' and all that follows through `(2) If the violation' and inserting `except that if the violation'. (b) Treatment of Certain Exceptions- Section 5(a) of such Act (47 Stat. 651; sec. 22-4505(a), D.C. Official Code) is amended-- (1) by striking `pistol' each place it appears and inserting `firearm'; and (2) by striking the period at the end and inserting the following: `, or to any person while carrying or transporting a firearm used in connection with an organized military activity, a target shoot, formal or informal target practice, sport shooting event, hunting, a firearms or hunter safety class, trapping, or a dog obedience training class or show, or the moving by a bona fide gun collector of part or all of the collector's gun collection from place to place for public or private exhibition while the person is engaged in, on the way to, or returning from that activity if each firearm is unloaded and carried in an enclosed case or an enclosed holster, or to any person carrying or transporting a firearm in compliance with sections 926A, 926B or 926C of title 18, United States Code.'. (c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to violations occurring after the 60-day period which begins on the date of the enactment of this Act.

All of you people that think your so called "pro-gun" legislators are on our side, are kidding yourselves. Either these representatives don't have a clue what they just did and think they are helping pro-gun, or they just circled the wagons to keep the power on their side. That's all they have done, screwed us once again.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: An NRA email I received said they had put this bill on hold until after Heller was decided. Shhh. The tards want to believe its a conspiracy to keep Heller from being heard! As if the SCOTUS would say "OH, they're gonna do something, let's not hear this case.. PUH-Leeze GR

Actually, the case would be mooted if this bill is passed.

Guys, The Supreme Court answers to no one.

They have decided to hear Heller. They will rule. This bill will not affect their judgement at all.

The ONLY thing that could overturn a Supreme Court ruling is the repeal of the Second Amendment. That won't happen.

IF Congress tried to outlaw the Heller ruling (which this bill is not doing, but rather supports it) or IF the Executive branch tried to issue an Executive Order countermanding the Supreme Court decision, it would be struck down again with force by the Judiciary. IF the Executive Branch tried to enforce it anyway we would officially be in a dictatorship...which, ironically, is what the Second Amendment is there to protect against, in which case we should then use it... fire away!

Quoted: Guys, The Supreme Court answers to no one. They have decided to hear Heller. They will rule. This bill will not affect their judgement at all.

You are 100% sure that the Heller case will be heard if this bill passes? 100% sure?

Quoted: Guys, The Supreme Court answers to no one. They have decided to hear Heller. They will rule. This bill will not affect their judgement at all. The ONLY thing that could overturn a Supreme Court ruling is the repeal of the Second Amendment. That won't happen. IF Congress tried to outlaw the Heller ruling (which this bill is not doing, but rather supports it) or IF the Executive branch tried to issue an Executive Order countermanding the Supreme Court decision, it would be struck down again with force by the Judiciary. IF the Executive Branch tried to enforce it anyway we would officially be in a dictatorship...which, ironically, is what the Second Amendment is there to protect against, in which case we should then use it... fire away!

No.  If this law passed Heller would be moot.  Basically, the Court would say "You want us to strike down a law which has now been repealed by Congress.  Since this law is no longer in effect there is nothing for us to decide."

Quoted: Quoted: This has been coming up ever since 'Heller' was 'Parker'... It was initiated because many on the pro-gun side do not want to take the chance of an anti-gun ruling... So the NRA decided to see about getting relief for the DC folks through legislation. and mooting the Parker precedent.

POKER: If you're holding a 3 of a kind, and you think it's likely your opponent might have a flush... What do you do?

That's how NRA sees this case... They are not confident that it can be won, and would rather DC citizens get their rights back without risking a LOSS in the USSC...

It's not about the NRA wanting to get rid of Heller for conspiracy reasons... They honestly think we are going to LOSE....

Quoted: Quoted: Guys, The Supreme Court answers to no one. They have decided to hear Heller. They will rule. This bill will not affect their judgement at all. The ONLY thing that could overturn a Supreme Court ruling is the repeal of the Second Amendment. That won't happen. IF Congress tried to outlaw the Heller ruling (which this bill is not doing, but rather supports it) or IF the Executive branch tried to issue an Executive Order countermanding the Supreme Court decision, it would be struck down again with force by the Judiciary. IF the Executive Branch tried to enforce it anyway we would officially be in a dictatorship...which, ironically, is what the Second Amendment is there to protect against, in which case we should then use it... fire away! No.  If this law passed Heller would be moot.  Basically, the Court would say "You want us to strike down a law which has now been repealed by Congress.  Since this law is no longer in effect there is nothing for us to decide."

Has a case EVER been removed from the Supreme Court docket because of a law being repealed? Miller was dead and the Supreme Court still heard his case...

I was under the impression that the Supreme Court hears cases in order to decide conflicting rulings from the lower Federal courts. The DC Circuit Court's ruling would still be in direct conflict with the 9th Circuit Court's ruling even if Congress repealed the DC law.

Quoted: Quoted: Guys, The Supreme Court answers to no one. They have decided to hear Heller. They will rule. This bill will not affect their judgement at all. The ONLY thing that could overturn a Supreme Court ruling is the repeal of the Second Amendment. That won't happen. IF Congress tried to outlaw the Heller ruling (which this bill is not doing, but rather supports it) or IF the Executive branch tried to issue an Executive Order countermanding the Supreme Court decision, it would be struck down again with force by the Judiciary. IF the Executive Branch tried to enforce it anyway we would officially be in a dictatorship...which, ironically, is what the Second Amendment is there to protect against, in which case we should then use it... fire away! No.  If this law passed Heller would be moot.  Basically, the Court would say "You want us to strike down a law which has now been repealed by Congress.  Since this law is no longer in effect there is nothing for us to decide."

I have a nice crisp $50 bill that says they would still hear it and rule on it.  You game?

Quoted: Guys, The Supreme Court answers to no one. They have decided to hear Heller. They will rule. This bill will not affect their judgement at all.

Wrong.

The Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or federal law.  If the bill is passed there will no longer be any controversy and the Court will have no jurisdiction.

See Wikipedia for a good layman's overview of mootness.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Guys, The Supreme Court answers to no one. They have decided to hear Heller. They will rule. This bill will not affect their judgement at all. The ONLY thing that could overturn a Supreme Court ruling is the repeal of the Second Amendment. That won't happen. IF Congress tried to outlaw the Heller ruling (which this bill is not doing, but rather supports it) or IF the Executive branch tried to issue an Executive Order countermanding the Supreme Court decision, it would be struck down again with force by the Judiciary. IF the Executive Branch tried to enforce it anyway we would officially be in a dictatorship...which, ironically, is what the Second Amendment is there to protect against, in which case we should then use it... fire away! No.  If this law passed Heller would be moot.  Basically, the Court would say "You want us to strike down a law which has now been repealed by Congress.  Since this law is no longer in effect there is nothing for us to decide." I have a nice crisp $50 bill that says they would still hear it and rule on it.  You game?

I am.  This case does not satisfy any of the 3 major exceptions to the mootness rule.

If they decide to hear it anyway for some unprecedented reason, I will gladly pay the $50.

Quoted: Quoted: Guys, The Supreme Court answers to no one. They have decided to hear Heller. They will rule. This bill will not affect their judgement at all. Wrong. The Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or federal law.  If the bill is passed there will no longer be any controversy and the Court will have no jurisdiction. See Wikipedia for a good layman's overview of mootness.

There is still controversy between lower courts on the issue of the RKBA.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Guys, The Supreme Court answers to no one. They have decided to hear Heller. They will rule. This bill will not affect their judgement at all. Wrong. The Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or federal law.  If the bill is passed there will no longer be any controversy and the Court will have no jurisdiction. See Wikipedia for a good layman's overview of mootness. There is still controversy between lower courts on the issue of the RKBA.

That's not what "controversy" means in this context.

ETA: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cases_and_controversies

ETA2: I'm a lawyer.  This doctrine is all very clear and well established.

Hopefully this goes our way.

Quoted: Quoted: Guys, The Supreme Court answers to no one. They have decided to hear Heller. They will rule. This bill will not affect their judgement at all. Wrong. The Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or federal law.  If the bill is passed there will no longer be any controversy and the Court will have no jurisdiction. See Wikipedia for a good layman's overview of mootness.

From your link:

[edit]

Voluntary cessation Where a defendant is acting wrongfully, but ceases to engage in such conduct once a litigation has been threatened or commenced, the court will still not deem this correction to moot the case. Obviously, a party could stop acting improperly just long enough for the case to be dismissed and then resume the improper conduct. For example, in Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000), the Supreme Court held that an industrial polluter, against whom various deterrent civil penalties were being pursued, could not claim that the case was moot, even though the polluter had ceased polluting and had closed the factory responsible for the pollution. The court noted that so long as the polluter still retained its license to operate such a factory, it could open similar operations elsewhere if not deterred by the penalties sought.

If the Supreme Court does not hear the DC case becasue the DC law is repealed, then DC could pass the same law, or a nearly identical law again. It looks to me that the Supreme Court will not consider this case moot via this argument.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Guys, The Supreme Court answers to no one. They have decided to hear Heller. They will rule. This bill will not affect their judgement at all. Wrong. The Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or federal law.  If the bill is passed there will no longer be any controversy and the Court will have no jurisdiction. See Wikipedia for a good layman's overview of mootness. From your link: [edit] Voluntary cessation Where a defendant is acting wrongfully, but ceases to engage in such conduct once a litigation has been threatened or commenced, the court will still not deem this correction to moot the case. Obviously, a party could stop acting improperly just long enough for the case to be dismissed and then resume the improper conduct. For example, in Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000), the Supreme Court held that an industrial polluter, against whom various deterrent civil penalties were being pursued, could not claim that the case was moot, even though the polluter had ceased polluting and had closed the factory responsible for the pollution. The court noted that so long as the polluter still retained its license to operate such a factory, it could open similar operations elsewhere if not deterred by the penalties sought. If the Supreme Court does not hear the DC case becasue the DC law is repealed, then DC could pass the same law, or a nearly identical law again. It looks to me that the Supreme Court will not consider this case moot via this argument.

This is not a repeal of the DC law.  This is a bill in Congress that overrides locally passed DC law.  Since DC is a federal district, Congress retains ultimate control over it.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Guys, The Supreme Court answers to no one. They have decided to hear Heller. They will rule. This bill will not affect their judgement at all. The ONLY thing that could overturn a Supreme Court ruling is the repeal of the Second Amendment. That won't happen. IF Congress tried to outlaw the Heller ruling (which this bill is not doing, but rather supports it) or IF the Executive branch tried to issue an Executive Order countermanding the Supreme Court decision, it would be struck down again with force by the Judiciary. IF the Executive Branch tried to enforce it anyway we would officially be in a dictatorship...which, ironically, is what the Second Amendment is there to protect against, in which case we should then use it... fire away! No.  If this law passed Heller would be moot.  Basically, the Court would say "You want us to strike down a law which has now been repealed by Congress.  Since this law is no longer in effect there is nothing for us to decide." I have a nice crisp $50 bill that says they would still hear it and rule on it.  You game?

I'm a lawyer.  Save your money.  Once a law is repealed there is zero chance it would be struck down unless one of the plaintiffs was facing some kind of criminal sanction for violating the old law - which I don't believe is the case here.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Guys, The Supreme Court answers to no one. They have decided to hear Heller. They will rule. This bill will not affect their judgement at all. Wrong. The Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or federal law.  If the bill is passed there will no longer be any controversy and the Court will have no jurisdiction. See Wikipedia for a good layman's overview of mootness. From your link: [edit] Voluntary cessation Where a defendant is acting wrongfully, but ceases to engage in such conduct once a litigation has been threatened or commenced, the court will still not deem this correction to moot the case. Obviously, a party could stop acting improperly just long enough for the case to be dismissed and then resume the improper conduct. For example, in Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000), the Supreme Court held that an industrial polluter, against whom various deterrent civil penalties were being pursued, could not claim that the case was moot, even though the polluter had ceased polluting and had closed the factory responsible for the pollution. The court noted that so long as the polluter still retained its license to operate such a factory, it could open similar operations elsewhere if not deterred by the penalties sought. If the Supreme Court does not hear the DC case becasue the DC law is repealed, then DC could pass the same law, or a nearly identical law again. It looks to me that the Supreme Court will not consider this case moot via this argument. This is not a repeal of the DC law.  This is a bill in Congress that overrides locally passed DC law.  Since DC is a federal district, Congress retains ultimate control over it.

Ok, so without a Supreme Court ruling couldn't Congress "un-override" it? Congress has the authority to go both ways...

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Guys, The Supreme Court answers to no one. They have decided to hear Heller. They will rule. This bill will not affect their judgement at all. Wrong. The Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or federal law.  If the bill is passed there will no longer be any controversy and the Court will have no jurisdiction. See Wikipedia for a good layman's overview of mootness. From your link: [edit] Voluntary cessation Where a defendant is acting wrongfully, but ceases to engage in such conduct once a litigation has been threatened or commenced, the court will still not deem this correction to moot the case. Obviously, a party could stop acting improperly just long enough for the case to be dismissed and then resume the improper conduct. For example, in Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000), the Supreme Court held that an industrial polluter, against whom various deterrent civil penalties were being pursued, could not claim that the case was moot, even though the polluter had ceased polluting and had closed the factory responsible for the pollution. The court noted that so long as the polluter still retained its license to operate such a factory, it could open similar operations elsewhere if not deterred by the penalties sought. If the Supreme Court does not hear the DC case becasue the DC law is repealed, then DC could pass the same law, or a nearly identical law again. It looks to me that the Supreme Court will not consider this case moot via this argument. This is not a repeal of the DC law.  This is a bill in Congress that overrides locally passed DC law.  Since DC is a federal district, Congress retains ultimate control over it. Ok, so without a Supreme Court ruling couldn't Congress "un-override" it? Congress has the authority to go both ways...

In theory yes, but that is not the kind of voluntary cessation that the exception refers to anyway.  That exception applies to parties that simply stop doing whatever it was they were doing, not long and cumbersome legislation.  Read the example in the section you quoted above and compare it to a government passing a statute.  They are not analogous.

Quoted: Looks like the bill in question still prohibits all NFA possession.

It appears to me that AOW would pass muster.

Any Other Weapon to all you NFA

I didn't see anything about suppressors.  Are they still big no-no's?

Hmmmm..


The traitor Murtha seems to be on our side.  I'll take that as a good omen.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Guys, The Supreme Court answers to no one. They have decided to hear Heller. They will rule. This bill will not affect their judgement at all. Wrong. The Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or federal law.  If the bill is passed there will no longer be any controversy and the Court will have no jurisdiction. See Wikipedia for a good layman's overview of mootness. From your link: [edit] Voluntary cessation Where a defendant is acting wrongfully, but ceases to engage in such conduct once a litigation has been threatened or commenced, the court will still not deem this correction to moot the case. Obviously, a party could stop acting improperly just long enough for the case to be dismissed and then resume the improper conduct. For example, in Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000), the Supreme Court held that an industrial polluter, against whom various deterrent civil penalties were being pursued, could not claim that the case was moot, even though the polluter had ceased polluting and had closed the factory responsible for the pollution. The court noted that so long as the polluter still retained its license to operate such a factory, it could open similar operations elsewhere if not deterred by the penalties sought. If the Supreme Court does not hear the DC case becasue the DC law is repealed, then DC could pass the same law, or a nearly identical law again. It looks to me that the Supreme Court will not consider this case moot via this argument. This is not a repeal of the DC law.  This is a bill in Congress that overrides locally passed DC law.  Since DC is a federal district, Congress retains ultimate control over it. Ok, so without a Supreme Court ruling couldn't Congress "un-override" it? Congress has the authority to go both ways... In theory yes, but that is not the kind of voluntary cessation that the exception refers to anyway.  That exception applies to parties that simply stop doing whatever it was they were doing, not long and cumbersome legislation.  Read the example in the section you quoted above and compare it to a government passing a statute.  They are not analogous.

It seems to me that the anaology does hold. Just like the factory, Congress has a "license" to resume infraction of the lower court's ruling once the Supreme Court agrees to dismiss the case.

I am not trying to argue for arguements sake, I just think that this case is not moot by this definition, and that it is indeed likely for other municipalites to continue to violate people's Second Amendment rights if the Supreme Court does not hear the case.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Guys, The Supreme Court answers to no one. They have decided to hear Heller. They will rule. This bill will not affect their judgement at all. The ONLY thing that could overturn a Supreme Court ruling is the repeal of the Second Amendment. That won't happen. IF Congress tried to outlaw the Heller ruling (which this bill is not doing, but rather supports it) or IF the Executive branch tried to issue an Executive Order countermanding the Supreme Court decision, it would be struck down again with force by the Judiciary. IF the Executive Branch tried to enforce it anyway we would officially be in a dictatorship...which, ironically, is what the Second Amendment is there to protect against, in which case we should then use it... fire away! No.  If this law passed Heller would be moot.  Basically, the Court would say "You want us to strike down a law which has now been repealed by Congress.  Since this law is no longer in effect there is nothing for us to decide." I have a nice crisp $50 bill that says they would still hear it and rule on it.  You game? I'm a lawyer.  Save your money.  Once a law is repealed there is zero chance it would be struck down unless one of the plaintiffs was facing some kind of criminal sanction for violating the old law - which I don't believe is the case here.

I thought the case arose because of a Security Guard to attempted to take his duty pistol home with him for protection, and got in trouble for it. Am I wrong?

Quoted: Any dems on there want to make Heller v DC moot.

+1

Quoted: I thought the case arose because of a Security Guard to attempted to take his duty pistol home with him for protection, and got in trouble for it. Am I wrong?

He applied for a permit and was denied.  From the D.C. Circuit decision:

Appellants, six residents of the District, challenge D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4), which generally bars the registration of handguns (with an exception for retired D.C. police officers); D.C. Code § 22-4504, which prohibits carrying a pistol without a license, insofar as that provision would prevent a registrant from moving a gun from one room to another within his or her home; and D.C. Code § 7-2507.02, requiring that all lawfully owned firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Shelly Parker, Tracey Ambeau, Tom G. Palmer, and George Lyon want to possess handguns in their respective homes for self-defense. Gillian St. Lawrence owns a registered shotgun, but wishes to keep it assembled and unhindered by a trigger lock or similar device. Finally, Dick Heller, who is a District of Columbia special police officer permitted to carry a handgun on duty as a guard at the Federal Judicial Center, wishes to possess one at his home. Heller applied for and was denied a registration certificate to own a handgun. The District, in refusing his request, explicitly relied on D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4).

Parker v. D.C.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Guys, The Supreme Court answers to no one. They have decided to hear Heller. They will rule. This bill will not affect their judgement at all. Wrong. The Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or federal law.  If the bill is passed there will no longer be any controversy and the Court will have no jurisdiction. See Wikipedia for a good layman's overview of mootness. There is still controversy between lower courts on the issue of the RKBA.   That's not what "controversy" means in this context. ETA: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cases_and_controversies ETA2: I'm a lawyer.  This doctrine is all very clear and well established.

I see.  You are correct.  I thought that they could still hear it since there were lower court decisions conflicting on the issue.  

I guess I had better just hope that this bill doesn't pass.

Quoted: It seems to me that the anaology does hold. Just like the factory, Congress has a "license" to resume infraction of the lower court's ruling once the Supreme Court agrees to dismiss the case. I am not trying to argue for arguements sake, I just think that this case is not moot by this definition, and that it is indeed likely for other municipalites to continue to violate people's Second Amendment rights if the Supreme Court does not hear the case.

It does not hold.  Legislation is inherently different from the actions of an individual or entity.  

In any case you are forgetting that if SCOTUS does not hear Heller, the lower court's ruling is upheld, invalidating the challenged statutes.  

A case being "mooted" does not mean that it is dismissed.  It's the court saying: there is no adverse action between the Parties anymore, so as a result there is nothing for us to decide.  

Quoted: Quoted: It seems to me that the anaology does hold. Just like the factory, Congress has a "license" to resume infraction of the lower court's ruling once the Supreme Court agrees to dismiss the case. I am not trying to argue for arguements sake, I just think that this case is not moot by this definition, and that it is indeed likely for other municipalites to continue to violate people's Second Amendment rights if the Supreme Court does not hear the case. It does not hold.  Legislation is inherently different from the actions of an individual or entity.   In any case you are forgetting that if SCOTUS does not hear Heller, the lower court's ruling is upheld, invalidating the challenged statutes.   A case being "mooted" does not mean that it is dismissed.  It's the court saying: there is no adverse action between the Parties anymore, so as a result there is nothing for us to decide.

But doesn't the Supreme Court also consider others that may be affected by such law, not just the specific parties? For example, the Supreme Court heard U.S. v Miller even though Miller was dead.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It seems to me that the anaology does hold. Just like the factory, Congress has a "license" to resume infraction of the lower court's ruling once the Supreme Court agrees to dismiss the case. I am not trying to argue for arguements sake, I just think that this case is not moot by this definition, and that it is indeed likely for other municipalites to continue to violate people's Second Amendment rights if the Supreme Court does not hear the case. It does not hold.  Legislation is inherently different from the actions of an individual or entity.   In any case you are forgetting that if SCOTUS does not hear Heller, the lower court's ruling is upheld, invalidating the challenged statutes.   A case being "mooted" does not mean that it is dismissed.  It's the court saying: there is no adverse action between the Parties anymore, so as a result there is nothing for us to decide.   But doesn't the Supreme Court also consider others that may be affected by such law, not just the specific parties? For example, the Supreme Court heard U.S. v Miller even though Miller was dead.

Generally, no.  As explained above, the federal courts do not have jurisdiction unless there is an actual case or controversy, unless a rare and well-justified exception occurs.

My understanding is that SCOTUS heard Miller under intense pressure from FDR's administration, which was eager for a pro-NFA ruling.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It seems to me that the anaology does hold. Just like the factory, Congress has a "license" to resume infraction of the lower court's ruling once the Supreme Court agrees to dismiss the case. I am not trying to argue for arguements sake, I just think that this case is not moot by this definition, and that it is indeed likely for other municipalites to continue to violate people's Second Amendment rights if the Supreme Court does not hear the case. It does not hold.  Legislation is inherently different from the actions of an individual or entity.   In any case you are forgetting that if SCOTUS does not hear Heller, the lower court's ruling is upheld, invalidating the challenged statutes.   A case being "mooted" does not mean that it is dismissed.  It's the court saying: there is no adverse action between the Parties anymore, so as a result there is nothing for us to decide.   But doesn't the Supreme Court also consider others that may be affected by such law, not just the specific parties? For example, the Supreme Court heard U.S. v Miller even though Miller was dead. Generally, no.  As explained above, the federal courts do not have jurisdiction unless there is an actual case or controversy, unless a rare and well-justified exception occurs. My understanding is that SCOTUS heard Miller under intense pressure from FDR's administration, which was eager for a pro-NFA ruling.

You are correct.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It seems to me that the anaology does hold. Just like the factory, Congress has a "license" to resume infraction of the lower court's ruling once the Supreme Court agrees to dismiss the case. I am not trying to argue for arguements sake, I just think that this case is not moot by this definition, and that it is indeed likely for other municipalites to continue to violate people's Second Amendment rights if the Supreme Court does not hear the case. It does not hold.  Legislation is inherently different from the actions of an individual or entity.   In any case you are forgetting that if SCOTUS does not hear Heller, the lower court's ruling is upheld, invalidating the challenged statutes.   A case being "mooted" does not mean that it is dismissed.  It's the court saying: there is no adverse action between the Parties anymore, so as a result there is nothing for us to decide.   But doesn't the Supreme Court also consider others that may be affected by such law, not just the specific parties? For example, the Supreme Court heard U.S. v Miller even though Miller was dead. Generally, no.  As explained above, the federal courts do not have jurisdiction unless there is an actual case or controversy, unless a rare and well-justified exception occurs. My understanding is that SCOTUS heard Miller under intense pressure from FDR's administration, which was eager for a pro-NFA ruling.

So if the FDR administration wanted the Supreme Court to hear the Miller case even though Miller was dead becasue they wanted a pro-NFA ruling, they must have been pretty confident that the Supreme Court would indeed rule their way and not unravel their NFA law. Otherwise, it would have been to their benefit to claim mootness.

How could they be so confident they would win?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It seems to me that the anaology does hold. Just like the factory, Congress has a "license" to resume infraction of the lower court's ruling once the Supreme Court agrees to dismiss the case. I am not trying to argue for arguements sake, I just think that this case is not moot by this definition, and that it is indeed likely for other municipalites to continue to violate people's Second Amendment rights if the Supreme Court does not hear the case. It does not hold.  Legislation is inherently different from the actions of an individual or entity.   In any case you are forgetting that if SCOTUS does not hear Heller, the lower court's ruling is upheld, invalidating the challenged statutes.   A case being "mooted" does not mean that it is dismissed.  It's the court saying: there is no adverse action between the Parties anymore, so as a result there is nothing for us to decide.   But doesn't the Supreme Court also consider others that may be affected by such law, not just the specific parties? For example, the Supreme Court heard U.S. v Miller even though Miller was dead. Generally, no.  As explained above, the federal courts do not have jurisdiction unless there is an actual case or controversy, unless a rare and well-justified exception occurs. My understanding is that SCOTUS heard Miller under intense pressure from FDR's administration, which was eager for a pro-NFA ruling. So if the FDR administration wanted the Supreme Court to hear the Miller case even though Miller was dead becasue they wanted a pro-NFA ruling, they must have been pretty confident that the Supreme Court would indeed rule their way and not unravel their NFA law. Otherwise, it would have been to their benefit to claim mootness. How could they be so confident they would win?

To be honest, I don't know.  As it turns out, the government didn't really win, but the way things turned out for Mr. Miller and the case, they might as well have.