I read through the entire decision and I think it is brilliantly written to the extent that if appealed to the Supreme Court, it would likely not even be heard. Thus, this decision would be the defacto law of the land and will lead to suits being filed anywhere private ownership of handguns (or rifles) is restricted. This decision places New York's Sullivan law on extremely thin ice as NY can deny residents the right to purchase and keep a handgun in their home by denying a permit for virtually any reason.
From the decision, final paragraphs:
Finally, there is the District’s requirement under D.C. Code
§ 7-2507.02 that a registered firearm be kept “unloaded and
disassembled or bound by trigger lock or similar device, unless
such firearm is kept at [a] place of business, or while being used
for lawful recreational purposes within the District of
Columbia.” This provision bars Heller from lawfully using a
handgun for self protection in the home because the statute
allows only for use of a firearm during recreational activities.
As appellants accurately point out, § 7-2507.02 would reduce a
pistol to a useless hunk of “metal and springs.” Heller does not
appear to challenge the requirement that a gun ordinarily be kept
unloaded or even that a trigger lock be attached under some
circumstances. He simply contends that he is entitled to the
possession of a “functional” firearm to be employed in case of
a threat to life or limb. The District responds that,
notwithstanding the broad language of the Code, a judge would
likely give the statute a narrowing construction when confronted
with a self-defense justification. That might be so, but judicial
lenity cannot make up for the unreasonable restriction of a
constitutional right. Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying
a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on
the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold
it unconstitutional.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court
is reversed and the case is remanded. Since there are no
material questions of fact in dispute, the district court is ordered
to grant summary judgment to Heller consistent with the prayer
for relief contained in appellants’ complaint.
My regards,
Widewing
