Court quashes some District of Columbia gun laws

Litigation Reports

In a mixed decision, a federal appeals court on Friday struck down as unconstitutional several strict gun registration laws in the nation's capital, but upheld other restrictions aimed at public safety.  

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that the city cannot ban gun owners from registering more than one pistol per month or require owners to re-register a gun every three years. The court also invalidated requirements that owners make a personal appearance to register a gun and pass a test about firearms laws.

But the court upheld other parts of the law, such as requiring that so-called long guns — including rifles and shotguns — be registered along with handguns. The ruling also allows gun owners to be fingerprinted and photographed, pay certain fees and complete a firearms safety training course.

In all, the court upheld six gun laws and struck down four.

The District of Columbia put the registration laws in place after a landmark 2008 Supreme Court decision that struck down a 32-year-old handgun ban in the District of Columbia. The high court ruled in that case the Second Amendment protects handgun possession for self-defense in the home.

A federal judge had previously upheld all the new registration laws, considered among the strictest in the nation.

District of Columbia officials argued that the laws were aimed at preserving gun owners' constitutional rights while also protecting the community from gun violence.

But writing for the appeals court majority, Judge Douglas Ginsburg said some of the laws did not pass constitutional muster. He rejected, for example, the city's argument that the one-pistol-per-month rule would reduce illegal trafficking in weapons.

Related listings

  • NYC sues roll-your-own cigarette shops over taxes

    NYC sues roll-your-own cigarette shops over taxes

    Litigation Reports 11/21/2011

    There is no place in the U.S. more expensive to smoke than New York City, where the taxes alone will set you back $5.85 per pack. Yet, addicts who visit Island Smokes, a "roll-your-own" cigarette shop in Chinatown, can walk out with an entire 10-pack...

  • Charges In $140 Million NY Brokerage Fraud

    Charges In $140 Million NY Brokerage Fraud

    Litigation Reports 07/08/2009

    According to Court Watch, six employees of Sky Capital Holdings Ltd turned themselves into the FBI today on charges of $140 million stock manipulation and investment fraud in the United States and Great Britain. Those in custody include the firm's fo...

  • IRS Procedures that May Save you Money

    IRS Procedures that May Save you Money

    Litigation Reports 02/03/2009

    Many companies are experiencing a downturn in business because of the deepening economic crisis. Corporations suffering in today’s difficult business environment may have an immediate need for funds for various purposes, including continued operation...

Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC

A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party

Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party

However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.

Business News

West Hartford, Connecticut Special Education Lawyer Forte Law Group focuses on special education law and empowering parents to advocate for their child’s rights. >> read