Guns & Ammo Network

Collapse bottom bar
Politics Second Amendment

Heller II: Defeating Red Tape & Second Amendment Infringements

by Frank Miniter   |  December 23rd, 2013 20

AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana

Dick Anthony Heller is still fighting for his Second Amendment rights. In a case known as “Heller II,” he is one of five plaintiffs who want a court to ultimately declare Washington D.C.’s gun registry and other gun-control regulations unconstitutional.

In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court heard District of Columbia v. Heller and ruled 5-to-4 that the Second Amendment is indeed an individual right. This decision struck down D.C.’s outright ban on handguns as well as regulations requiring all firearms be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock.”

These laws made it impossible for a homeowner to use a firearm in defense of their life. They also put Dick Anthony Heller in a twisted dilemma. As a special police officer in D.C., he carried a handgun in federal office buildings to protect government personnel, but he was not allowed to have a handgun or a viable long-gun for his own protection in his D.C. home.

After the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision to “give” D.C. residents their Second Amendment rights, D.C. government created a gauntlet of thorny regulations, and now very few D.C. residents have the ability to utilize their Second Amendment rights.

Almost 5 years later, Heller still can’t protect himself as he goes to and from work in D.C.

Now, “Heller II” asks and attempts to answer what is surely the biggest question plaguing the Second Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights: When does government red tape unconstitutionally infringe upon the people’s right to bear arms?

In a recent interview, Heller told me, “I’m just an ordinary guy who decided to make a stand because my constitutional rights have been infringed. I carry a gun when protecting people in a federal building, but then I check in the gun when I leave.” He went on to say, “I often get off work at midnight. So I have to make my way home disarmed through D.C. I’ve been approached by bad guys, but at least I’m a guy. If I were a woman, I wouldn’t be able to keep this job. It would be too risky. It’s these basic rights of life and liberty we’re trying to win back with Heller II.”

This challenge to D.C.’s gun laws has been working its way through the courts for a number of years. In October 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld what it called a “basic” registration of handguns, but questioned whether any registration of rifles and shotguns is constitutional. The court remanded the case to the district court to gather further evidence on whether D.C.’s gun laws are reasonable.

As Heller explained, “D.C. obviously grabbed every gun-control restriction they could find from the 50 states and included almost all of them in its gun-control ordinances. This is how they created a system so burdensome to the Second Amendment, we still don’t have our right to bear arms here in D.C.”

The plaintiffs’ attorneys, Stephen Halbrook and Dan Peterson, have deposed D.C.’s witnesses and filed a motion in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, asking Judge James Boasberg for summary judgment on whether D.C.’s gun registration and other laws are “reasonable” based on the evidence.

The plaintiff’s briefing shows D.C. gun regulations are clearly unconstitutional, for three major reasons:

1. A Gun Registry for Good Guys?
Starting Jan. 1, 2014, every gun owner in D.C. who has registered a firearm since 1976 must be fingerprinted and photographed at police headquarters.

Halbrook believes, “If D.C. gets its way, gun owners will have to do this every three years. Even those who have the time and money to make it through this difficult process will find they’ll never be done, as D.C. is still trying to burden them with expiration and re-registration deadlines that, if missed, would turn them into criminals.”

Halbrook also pointed out that long guns are rarely used in crimes, and this clearly shows the laws are only designed to impede people from legally owning guns.

The facts back him up. According to data provided by D.C. to the FBI for 2009, only two out of 144 murders in D.C. were known to have been committed with a long gun. In 2010, out of 131 murders in D.C., not one is reported to have been committed with a rifle or shotgun. In 2011, only one murder in D.C. was reported to have been committed with a long gun (a shotgun), out of 108 total murders.

Given that less than one percent of murders are being committed with long guns, how can D.C. justify the onerous need for fingerprinting residents every three years? For context, realize that for the same time period—2009-2011—96 homicides were reportedly committed with knives and weapons other than guns and fists.

When questioned about the need for these laws, D.C.’s witnesses weren’t able to cite a single study indicating that its firearm registration prevents illegal possession of firearms. Actually, studies show that registration laws haven’t had a measurable affect on crime rates or gun violence.

During deposition, D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier even conceded: “It is not clear how firearms’ registration records could be used to ‘prevent’ a crime.” Other than possession offenses, Lanier could not “recall any specific instance where registration records were used to determine who committed a crime.”

Lanier couldn’t even provide a single example of a registration record being used to solve a crime committed with a long gun.

2. Residents Must Apply to the Government for Their Rights?
Washington D.C. is essentially forcing residents to seek permission above and beyond a federal background check for owning any firearm. According to D.C. laws, “no person or organization in the District shall possess or control any firearm, unless the person or organization holds a valid registration certificate for the firearm.”

Possession of an unregistered firearm is punishable by imprisonment for one year and a $1,000 fine, and a second offense yields up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

D.C. doubles down on its red-tape infringements by requiring residents—they deem them “applicants”—to appear in-person at the police for fingerprinting and photographing. There are also fees to register each firearm.

To find a legal precedent for using a registry for long guns, D.C. cites an 1896 law from the Republic of Hawaii that required a license to possess a firearm—1896 Hawaii was of course an independent and undemocratic country.

D.C. argues that “laws requiring the registration of certain types of long guns at the federal level has [sic] proven ‘highly successful’ in reducing the use of such long-guns in crime.” D.C. naturally doesn’t cite any data or study to back this claim up.

D.C. also cites an 1893 Florida statute that empowered officials to grant a license for individuals to carry a pistol or repeating rifle. However, this law didn’t require a license to possess a firearm, and according to background dug up by Halbrook, was only passed “for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers,” according to one of the justices at the time.

Those outdated case laws beg the question: Why, after the Supreme Court decided Heller in 2008, has D.C. decided to float a re-registration scheme?

Halbrook noted, “[D.C.’s] own witnesses cite no studies showing that periodic registration renewal or reporting requirements reduce crime or protect police officers.”

3. Is D.C. Really Doing this for “Officer Safety”?
Police Chief Lanier and the officers who oversee D.C.’s Firearms Registration Section are quoted in the brief from the plaintiffs’ attorneys, noting there were only two handgun applications denied by D.C. in 2011 and 2012. During this period, not a single rifle or shotgun application was refused. This, of course, isn’t surprising. Rather than having themselves voluntarily fingerprinted and photographed, criminals are just packing guns when and where they see fit.

The numbers illustrate the realities. From 2007 to 2013, the police seized 12,000 unregistered firearms. Meanwhile, only 36 registered guns were seized during this same period. Of those 36 guns, only 17 were involved in charges against a registered firearm owner. Of those 17 cases, only two resulted in convictions for a violent crime. Clearly, the good guys with the guns—the ones burdened by gun-control regulations—are not the problem.

In actuality, this case has shown that officers responding to calls are not even being informed if there is a registered firearm at a location. Police cars aren’t equipped with a computer that can access the firearms registry, and dispatchers can’t check the registration database. Right now, the whole system is simply a gauntlet designed to prevent law-abiding citizens from utilizing their Second Amendment rights.

Halbrook believes this case will likely be decided the spring of 2014. This decision will surely be used as a precedent in other cases where citizens are challenging burdensome restrictions to their Second Amendment rights. We’ll keep you informed as this case is adjucated.


  • Svigor

    In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court heard District of Columbia v. Heller and ruled 5-to-4 that the Second Amendment is indeed an individual right.

    Am I the only one alarmed that there were 4 rats on the supreme bench who voted against finding that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right? What am I missing, here?

    • Jimbo

      Very alarmed! Clinton, and now Obama stocked the court with leftists. The situation is a reflection of what is being taught our kids these days. They are totally ignorant of or brainwashed about the Constitution..

  • Barry Hirsh

    “After the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision to give D.C. residents their Second Amendment rights…”

    It is worrisome that a respected organ of the gun-owning community lets a glaring misstatement like this to slip by in one of its articles.

    The USSC did no such thing. It officially RECOGNIZED the people’s Second Amendment rights as fundamental and individual.

    No man or group of men “gives” us fundamental rights. They are our birthright as sentient human beings.

  • Francis W. Porretto

    The whole sorry mess is unConstitutional. Imagine being required to be fingerprinted, undergo a background check, and pay the government a fee — in some places, a very large fee — before being permitted to start a newspaper, or to join some particular church. Imagine having cops come to your door, without a warrant, and demand to search your premises — and when you object, to say, “Just give us $100 and we’ll go away.”

    There will be a reckoning. I pray that I live long enough to see it.

  • JMD

    As a New York State resident, I’m interested to see how this case is decided. It seems that just about every issue with the DC gun control ordinances applies to NY as well. One can’t legally own _or even handle) a handgun in NY without a permit. The permitting process is a nightmare of red tape. It cost me $200 and took ten months for me to get my permit (without so much as an overdue parking ticket to my name). I had to get fingerprinted, get my photo taken, and show up at the Sheriff’s office at least twice. If I want to buy a handgun, I have to pay for it, get a receipt, go to the Sheriff’s office during normal business hours, have it added to my permit ($3 fee), then return to the gun store to pick up my new gun.

    Now with the SAFE Act, permits must be renewed every 5 years and “assault weapons” need to be registered, despite the fact that they’re almost never used in crimes. I’d really like to see a firm decision that lifts some of the restrictions on our second amendment rights that serve no purpose other than to harass law-abiding citizens.

    • Captain Bob

      This is why I left NY in 1980. It was bad then but is a WHOLE LOT worse now. I still hve my Carry license from NY (As a souvenier) but 3 years ago a NY State Police officer called my home in Ohio wanting me to send it in….

    • Thomas F. McDonald

      I retired from NY state law enforcement and moved to Texas. I discovered that while on duty I was trusted to poses a .45 acp handgun, a 12 ga. shotgun with 14 in barrel, and an M-4 with 3 shot burst. Upon retirement, in one minute from cop to citizen I was no longer trusted to posses the guns I possessed one minute ago. Texas trusts me. Good luck all you new yorkers. PS, every cop I worked with upon retirement, left the state. Some left the country. good luck.

    • Jimbo

      I’m a New Yorker too. Born and raised. Most screwed up state ever. I joined the Air Force, and was stationed in Florida. New York was the only state in the union that assessed income taxes on servicemen living on out of state government bases. And all those years they never once sent me an absentee voting ballot! When I returned home, I had to give up my 9mm Beretta, because the judge in my home town had never issued a pistol permit in the 20 years he was on the bench.

      After I arrived, I wanted to buy a AR rifle to shoot metallic silhouette. But the old assault weapons bill was so vaguely worded, I tried to get written authorization from the state. I was bounced around from one state office to another over a one year period, and was finally turned down.

      I finally set my sights on an M1 Carbine or M1 Garand. But Cuomo put an end to that with his moronic “Safe Act”. A Garand, for anyone who doesn’t know it, is a very long WWII era rifle with a wood stock. They have been used for memorial day parades and veterans burials for decades. According to our dear Governor, I can bring this specific model into the state by paying someone to grind the bayonet lug off first, and declaring it an “assault weapon”. I told him to forget it. I’m not going to deface a piece of history. Cuomo said this was all about protecting the children. When is the last time you heard of anyone putting a bayonet on a rifle and killing a bunch of kids?

      I’d have been out of here a long time ago, were it not that I am taking care of elderly family.

  • Daniel Lewis

    I really think the NRA needs to push very hard on the fact that most of these gun control laws started with the KKK and Democrats trying to keep the black man down, Its 100% true and is super embarrassing to the gun grabbers.

    • tincankilla

      yes, in the south during reconstruction. the most recent era of gun control began under Reagan in California after an FBI informant supplied guns to the black panthers.

  • needful a huge toleit ,just look at all the turds floating around down there!!!

  • al

    Any “right” that you have to have permission to exercise is no “right” at all. Rights become privilege and privileges become regulated. If there is a “right” to “keep and BEAR arms”, then any non-felon can carry anywhere in the US that is not private property. We only have the “rights” that the government allows us to have at any particular point in time. I agree with others here that the time is probably going to be cast upon us that will either cause us to wimpishly slink off into total subjection or, well, you know the alternative. My blood was shed for this country once…I guess the rest of it is expendable because I am so old now it doesn’t matter. I can still pop a cap.

    • Captain Bob

      Well said and I agree with you completely.

    • Jimbo

      Maybe we should all strap on our guns (whatever you still have), in plain visible sight, converge on Washington, and protest at the national mall. We could make the demand that we are not leaving until our rights are fully restored and re-affirmed.

  • jib quinn

    There are no restrictions in D.C.
    If you re a tall liberal extremist who plays a journalist on TV.

  • Ghost

    My rights were given to me, by my creator, not by any government.
    I have carried, since long before most of the country went ‘Right to Carry’ and made permits available. It was always illegal, but I’d rather be tried by twelve, than carried by six.
    No government has the right to tell me I can’t own or carry firearms. If a law is unjust, I disregard it.
    If “they” decide that “we” do not have the right to protect or defend ourselves, I will continue to wear the title of “Outlaw” as a badge of honor.

  • Thomas F. McDonald

    I was a Police officer for 25 years, during that time I was entrusted with the lives and safety of the people in my community including a federal district judge. Now upon retirement I find I am no longer trustworthy with a firearm, It has been suggested that Military veterans and police are crazy and should be banned from owning firearms completely. and ya know I must have been crazy to work in 20 degrees below zero, to search for criminals in a dark and empty warehouse at 3am, alone. Crazy to to give CPR to someone with aids or TB. But no more, DON’T CALL ME for help, those days are over. Good luck

    • Jimbo

      Thank you for your service. Sorry some people do not appreciate it!

      • Thomas F. McDonald

        your welcome.

  • Les Morgan

    Just a quote from Thomas Jefferson “The strongest reason for the people to retain the rights to keep and bare arms is as a last resort to protect themselfs against tyraney

back to top