The Supreme Court today released an orders list in which it agreed to hear the DC gun control case, District of Columbia v. Heller. It narrowed the questions presented to the following:

Whether the following provisions – D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 – violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

I’m surprised by the directness of the question presented. Here are the sections of DC Code in question:

7-2502.02(a)(4):

A registration certificate shall not be issued for a …Pistol not validly registered to the current registrant in the District prior to September 24, 1976, except that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any organization that employs at least 1 commissioned special police officer or other employee licensed to carry a firearm and that arms the employee with a firearm during the employee’s duty hours or to a police officer who has retired from the Metropolitan Police Department.

22-4504(a):

No person shall carry within the District of Columbia either openly or concealed on or about their person, a pistol, without a license issued pursuant to District of Columbia law, or any deadly or dangerous weapon capable of being so concealed. Whoever violates this section shall be punished as provided in § 22-4515, except that:

(1) A person who violates this section by carrying a pistol, without a license issued pursuant to District of Columbia law, or any deadly or dangerous weapon, in a place other than the person’s dwelling place, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both; or

(2) If the violation of this section occurs after a person has been convicted in the District of Columbia of a violation of this section or of a felony, either in the District of Columbia or another jurisdiction, the person shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.

7-2507.02:

Except for law enforcement personnel described in § 7-2502.01(b)(1), each registrant shall keep any firearm in his possession unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless such firearm is kept at his place of business, or while being used for lawful recreational purposes within the District of Columbia.

Other than Baze and this case, the Court hasn’t accepted too many high-profile cases. More analysis on this case to come.


2 Responses to “Supreme Court Agrees To Hear DC Gun Case”

  1. 1 BCR229

    Interesting that the USSC included DC Code 22-4504(a) since that addresses open and concealed carry of a handgun in public without a permit. This is an expansion on the original questions posed by the appellants, since they dealt only with keeping guns in the home. It would be hysterical to watch the Court declare that a license to carry is unconstitutional, giving the US “Vertmont-style” carry overnight.

  2. 2 Lawsuit Loans

    Hmm… I don’t think our Founding Father would find that “hysterical”.


    Jason


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Categories

Random Posts

  • Updated Term Charts: Starting this week, I'll be posting my updated charts on SCOTUSblog. You can find the first SB version of my charts here. More spec...
  • Likelihood of a Petition Being Granted: There are a lot of numbers thrown out about the likelihood of a cert. petition being granted. The number I've always heard is 1%, but I some...
  • Advocate Scorecard for OT00-Present: This weekend, I went through all the oral argument transcripts from OT00 through OTO8 and I counted how many times each of the major advocat...
  • Change is Fun But...: I'm sad to see Justice Stevens leave the Court for a variety of reasons that have been well documented by people smarter than me. I'm also e...
  • New Opinions and Updated Statistics: The Supreme Court released three new opinions today and dismissed one hotly-anticipated case as improvidently granted. Graham v. Florida-...