Toymaker
Regular Member
imported post
http://video.nbc4.com/player/?id=89448
http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20070406-103240-7202r.htm
WASHINGTON | District of Columbia officials warned a federal appeals court Monday that its rejection of the city’s handgun ban creates a precedent that could severely limit gun control.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 last month that some of the district’s gun-control provisions are unconstitutional.
It was the first time a federal appeals court struck down gun-control regulations on Second Amendment grounds.
Lawyers for the district argued in a motion Monday that the decision contradicts prior rulings.
If the ruling stands, “it will severely limit the authority of both the District government and Congress to legislate in ways that they believe will best protect citizens and law-enforcement officers from gun violence,” the city’s lawyers wrote.
The city is seeking a new hearing before all 11 judges of the appeals court.
Opponents of the ban say it prevents people from taking measures to protect themselves and their families.
http://video.nbc4.com/player/?id=89448
http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20070406-103240-7202r.htm
WASHINGTON | District of Columbia officials warned a federal appeals court Monday that its rejection of the city’s handgun ban creates a precedent that could severely limit gun control.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 last month that some of the district’s gun-control provisions are unconstitutional.
It was the first time a federal appeals court struck down gun-control regulations on Second Amendment grounds.
Lawyers for the district argued in a motion Monday that the decision contradicts prior rulings.
If the ruling stands, “it will severely limit the authority of both the District government and Congress to legislate in ways that they believe will best protect citizens and law-enforcement officers from gun violence,” the city’s lawyers wrote.
The city is seeking a new hearing before all 11 judges of the appeals court.
Opponents of the ban say it prevents people from taking measures to protect themselves and their families.