10. Imagine were the District to ban the act of publishing one’s own words. Would this court not see such a law as utterly invalid under any standard of review? Can there be any justification for an outright prohibition on the manufacture of a firearm, a Constitutionally protected item? Indeed, how can there be a right to keep and bear arms, if there’s no right to make an arm in the first place? This case presents that issue for this court’s consideration.
11. The District, knowing full well where the battle lines lay, recently supplemented its ban on making a gun, by prohibiting even the import and possession of parts necessary for the Case 1:21-cv-02376 Document 1 Filed 09/08/21 Page 5 of 41 6 manufacture of a firearm by outlawing what it pejoratively calls “Ghost Guns.” Never missing an opportunity for erroneously defining firearms terminology, the District legislation in question is so poorly thought out and written that the City Council has managed to criminalize the possession of a vast array of popular, common handguns that it regularly allows residents to register, including the very handgun it issues to its police officers. Accordingly, this so-called “Ghost Gun” prohibition is hopelessly flawed and must be found invalid under the Second and Fifth Amendments.
www.beliefnet.com
