Heller suing DC again

Discuss carrying a firearm, whether it's concealed carry (CCW), open carry or other...
Post Reply
User avatar
Suck My Glock
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 8816
Joined: May 25th, 2018, 3:01 pm
Reputation: 8
Location: Peoria

Heller suing DC again

#1

Post by Suck My Glock »

http://zelmanpartisans.com/?p=50350

Over ammunition limits this time. From Heller’s filing:

25. Subsequently on March 6, 2015, the Chief issued a Notice Of Second Emergency And Proposed Rulemaking , N0051986, 62 DCR 2803, which without comment or explanation,doubled the allowable ammunition a concealed pistol licensee could carry on his person. This regulation read, “A person issued a concealed carry license by the Chief, while carrying the pistol,shall not carry more ammunition than is required to fully load the pistol twice, and in no event shall that amount be greater than twenty (20) rounds of ammunition.”

Yes, NYSRPA v. Bruen (seeing lots of these cases now) is cited.

There appears to be nothing in the text, history or tradition of the Second Amendment that supports limiting the amount of ammunition that a person may carry for his or her self-defense.

Upon seeing that, I immediately thought of the Militia Act of 1792, which actually specified a minimum amount of ammunition to be carried, not a maximum. And very much more than a single loading of the firearm (also required).

Sure enough, Heller knows that. As I continued reading, I saw this.

What regulations did exist around the time of the founding of the SecondAmendment required Americans to be armed as detailed above and required militia members to be equipped with aminimum amount of ammunition.

Here’s the relevant section of the Militia Act.

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

So the only historical and traditional precedent is for a minimum of 44 rounds; 2.2 times the arbitrary maximum that DC imposed. Or 22 times the amount needed to “fully load the [musket of the day] twice.”

I rather hope this goes to the Supreme Court, since it provide a nationwide — not just the District of the District of Columbia — judicial precedent to argue against magazine limits (Hey, California…).

The DC District Court is going to hate this. It has generally been very supportive of DC’s rights-infringements, but NYSRPA v. Bruen is very, very clear.

Well done, Mr. Heller.


User avatar
xerts1191
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 12215
Joined: May 28th, 2018, 7:25 pm
Reputation: 5
Location: Arizona

Re: Heller suing DC again

#2

Post by xerts1191 »

Yes, cheers to Mr. Heller
User avatar
BigNate
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 647
Joined: July 5th, 2020, 5:56 pm
Reputation: 4
Location: Phoenix

Re: Heller suing DC again

#3

Post by BigNate »

Good news - let's hope it does not even make it to the SCOTUS. It sure looks like the lower courts are dropping the hammer on anti-gun laws citing NYSRPA v. Bruen and it appears that in some cases the state / local governments are recognizing that their laws won't make it past that decision and are giving up their defense early rather than incur the expense of defending a law that they know won't stand. Let's hope this one goes that way.
Post Reply