Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m3d22-DC-Councilmember-Mendelsons-defense-of-DC-gun-registration-stretches-truth-beyond-breaking-point
SNIP
But today Councilmember Phil Mendelson insists in a Washington Post commentarythat Congress must allow DC gun registration scheme to continue. Let's consider Mendelson's arguments in detail.
First, Mendelson said that the Supreme Court "upheld the constitutionality of gun registration."
Um, wrong. In DC v. Heller the Supreme Court said that
"Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not 'have a problem with ... licensing' and that the District's law is permissible so long as it is 'not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.' Tr. of Oral Arg. 74-75. We therefore assume that petitioners' issuance of a license will satisfy respondent's prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement."
In other words, the issue of registration per se was not before the Court.
http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m3d22-DC-Councilmember-Mendelsons-defense-of-DC-gun-registration-stretches-truth-beyond-breaking-point
SNIP
But today Councilmember Phil Mendelson insists in a Washington Post commentarythat Congress must allow DC gun registration scheme to continue. Let's consider Mendelson's arguments in detail.
First, Mendelson said that the Supreme Court "upheld the constitutionality of gun registration."
Um, wrong. In DC v. Heller the Supreme Court said that
"Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not 'have a problem with ... licensing' and that the District's law is permissible so long as it is 'not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.' Tr. of Oral Arg. 74-75. We therefore assume that petitioners' issuance of a license will satisfy respondent's prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement."
In other words, the issue of registration per se was not before the Court.