Last week's decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia continued a longstanding disregard for recent rulings by the Supreme Court. At issue in Hanson v. District of Columbia is Washington, D.C.'s argument that magazines containing more than 10 rounds of ammunition are not covered by the Supreme Court's decisions in Heller, McDonald, Bruen, and Rahimi. Two of the panel's three judges agreed that DC's ban on “extra high capacity magazines” (ELCMs) is constitutional.
mental gymnastics
The mental gymnastics required to reach this conclusion was amazing.
The panel unanimously agreed that ELCMs are “weapons” under the Second Amendment. “Thus, we agree with (plaintiff) Hanson that the ELCM is very likely a 'weapon' within the plain text meaning of the Second Amendment.”
Furthermore, the panel unanimously agreed that they are “commonly used.”
Given that ELCMs are sufficiently widely available and given the fact that the record regarding the role of ELCMs for self-defense is debatable, we assume at this time that ELCMs can be used for self-defense.
Therefore, Mr. Hanson indicates that the ELCM is a “weapon” and is likely commonly used for self-defense today, so the record states that it is “not covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment.” ” and thus presumptively protects ownership of ELCM.
The decision was supposed to end there. An injunction against enforcement of the ban should have been granted.
But that's not the case. There needed to be a way to justify the ban. And two judges, one appointed by President Obama and the other by President Reagan, found public concern about mass shootings.
High-capacity magazines have caused unprecedented public concern over mass shootings. As the First Circuit acknowledged, “[t]he contemporary and growing public concern that[ELCM]has become the preferred method of murderers seeking to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible; There is no direct precedent.”
It added that the law justifies the D.C. cap regulations to combat the increasing use of ECLM to “promote crime and perpetuate mass shootings in particular.”
And, to add to the madness, a majority of two justices held that past restrictions on Bowie knives and pocket pistols from the 19th century (long after the Second Amendment was added) were not relevant. He claimed that there was, and that it had been “certified to be relevant.'' The Supreme Court now requires that as justification for such a ban.
Justice Justin Walker, who was appointed to his current position by then-President Donald Trump in 2019, stated bluntly in his dissent:
In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot categorically ban weapons that are commonly used for lawful purposes.
Magazines containing 10 or more rounds of ammunition are commonly used weapons for lawful purposes.
Therefore, the government cannot ban them.
Walker further expressed his dissatisfaction with the decisions made by his colleagues.
D.C. has given no reason to doubt that throughout its history, Congress or any state legislature has ever enacted a law outright banning guns commonly used for lawful purposes.
Yes, there may be restrictions on gun ownership. Yes, there may be restrictions on where and how you can carry a gun.
And yes, there may be restrictions on owning and carrying exotic firearms.
But Washington, D.C., has failed to identify a clear prohibition on guns that were commonly used for lawful purposes in a century of our nation's history.
And he condemned his colleagues who sided with the district in apparent defiance of the Supreme Court's ruling.
With Heller and McDonald's decisions, the Supreme Court left little doubt about the legitimacy of strict gun control regimes.
However, the Reconstructionist (i.e., revenge-seeking) Congress responded with “rebellion.”
DC led the way. After the prohibition on possession of handguns was determined to be unconstitutional, a “carry ban'' was also enacted.
“And when that was struck down, D.C. limited “carrying a handgun in public to those with a special need for self-defense.''
D.C. then lost again in court, this time arguing that “the core of the Second Amendment does not cover public carrying at all.”
DC Not Alone
Unfortunately, D.C. is not alone in its defiance of the high court. Walker wrote:
There was nothing unusual about DC's apparent disdain for Mr. Heller and Mr. MacDonald. For example, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the Second Amendment does not protect stun guns. This decision was quickly overturned by a unanimous Supreme Court in Caetano v. Massachusetts.
In a brief two-page opinion, the court rejected the state court's flimsy reasoning as clearly “inconsistent” with Heller and McDonald's “clear” holdings.
Cayetano issued a warning to the lower court. The gun rights exception under the Second Amendment relies on a historical tradition of similar regulations, and there is no historical tradition of prohibiting weapons commonly used for lawful purposes.
Many state courts did not have access to the memo. So did some federal circuit courts.
Of course, that would include Walker's DC District Court of Appeals.
SCOTUS dissatisfied with lower court's challenging ruling
The defiance of lower courts has been repeatedly cited by Supreme Court justices, who have expressed dissatisfaction with it. Walker pointed out:
Justice Thomas (with Justice Scalia sitting) lamented that “despite our clear articulation of the Second Amendment's core protection of self-defense, the lower courts…” . . I couldn't keep it. ”
Justice Thomas (again joined by Justice Scalia) criticized the lower court's “biased interpretation of Heller” and “failure to adhere to Second Amendment precedent.”
“Lower courts have resisted Heller and McDonald, and have failed to protect the Second Amendment to the same degree as they protect other constitutional rights,” Justice Thomas wrote.
Justice Alito (with Justice Thomas also sitting) criticized the lower court's “reasoning” that “contradicts our decision in Heller.”
Justice Alito (who was also joined by Justice Gorsuch) expressed “concerns” about “the treatment of Heller in the lower courts.”
Justice Kavanaugh shared similar “concerns that some federal and state courts have not applied Heller and McDonald appropriately.”
Justice Thomas (who was also joined by Justice Kavanaugh) again accused the lower court of “blatant defiance,” saying that the means-ends investigation was “completely inconsistent with Heller's view” and “appears to be a complete fabrication. ” he explained.
The case could be returned to a lower court for further consideration. Alternatively, Hanson and his lawyers could appeal to the Supreme Court for appropriate relief.