The court defined handguns as arms within the meaning of the Second Amendment and held that the Amendment extends to rights beyond participating in the militia. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal, finding that Heller had standing. While their case was dismissed by the federal district court, the D.C. The six plaintiffs sought an injunction against the enforcement of this provision, as well as another provision of the law that required any guns to be kept unloaded and disassembled. The District of Columbia had enacted the Firearms Control Regulations Act in 1975, which prohibited individual ownership of handguns in most cases except those possessed by current or former law enforcement officers. They dropped out of the case in the early stages. This meant that he had standing to sue, whereas the others did not. The critical difference between Heller and the other plaintiffs was that he had applied for a handgun permit and been refused. Like the other plaintiffs, he lived in an area with high drug use and crime activity. The named plaintiff, Dick Heller, was a licensed special police officer for the District of Columbia who was not allowed to have a gun at home despite being able to use it at work. The group included a range of age groups, an even balance in genders, and two African-Americans. In a rather artificially generated lawsuit, Robert Levy at the Cato Institute selected six plaintiffs for a claim that would test the individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |