Constitutional Law

DC court equivocates on right to arms and ammunition

Discussion over at The Volokh Conspiracy. It's Herrington v. United States, a conviction under the DC Code section that outlaws possession of ammunition unless the possessor has a registered arm in the same "gauge or caliber" (so might a person with a .25 auto own .25-06 and .257 Roberts ammo?)

The court holds that the 2nd Amendment would allow a ban on ammo not suited for a registered gun (assuming, it notes, that the registration requirement were lawfully designed) but that a government cannot put the burden of proving registration of a gun on the defendant ... it can't be illegal to possess unless defendant shows he has a registered firearm in that bore, it must be illegal to possess if the government proves possession and lack of registration beyond a reasonable doubt.

A minor advance (unless you happen to be the defendant here), but every journal proceeds one step at a time. A few years ago a hope that a D.C. court might even suggest that registration might be have constitutional problems would have been unthinkable.

Full post as published by Of Arms and the Law on November 04, 2010 (boomark / email).