Dick Anthony Heller, who successfully challenged the District’s handgun ban in a landmark Supreme Court decision, is again suing the District of Columbia, LL has learned.

According to a complaint obtained by LL, Heller, along with co-plaintiffs Absalom M. Jordan Jr., and Amy McVey, are taking particular aim at the effective ban of semiautomatic pistols by the District’s gun regulations, which in essence ban all semiautomatic weapons as “machine guns.”

The lawsuit also takes two other exceptions to the District’s new gun regs. One is that the District’s registration process is unduly “onerous,” citing specifically the legislatively unrestricted fees that can be levied on a gun registrant. The other count holds that the District’s doctrine that a gun can only be loaded in the presence of a “reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm” constitutes a unreasonable infringement of handgun owners’ rights under the Heller decision.

The suit asks the court to issue injunctions that would (a) allow semiautomatic weapons that hold fewer than 12 rounds, (b) order the District to register handguns without a ballistics test, and (c) order the District not to enforce the “reasonably perceived threat” part of the handgun law.

When the new gun regulations were announced earlier this month, acting attorney general Peter Nickles told reporters he was certain that new lawsuits would be filed in response.

More to come.

UPDATE, 4:45 P.M.: Jordan says he attempted to register a .22-caliber Smith & Wesson Model 45 target pistol but was turned away by police. Had he actually brought the gun to police headquarters to register it, he says, “the police officer who was there told me they would have arrested me.”

That weapon is one he had registered in the District until the mid-1970s, when the District’s handgun ban was put into place. Since them he says, he’s kept it and other weapons outside the District in safekeeping. Jordan did successfully submit a revolver for registration.

Like several observers, Jordan compares the District’s perceived reticence to comply with the courts with such tactics during the civil rights movement. “This reminds me of massive resistance. It reminds me of Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox with a baseball bat. It reminds me of George Wallace.”

UPDATE, 4:55 P.M.: Here is the complaint [PDF].

UPDATE, 5:43 P.M.: Nickles says the suit was “no surprise.”

Nickles says there is a “fundamental conflict” between Heller & Co. and the the Supreme Court’s decision. “They don’t like the idea of having any standards of when you can load the gun for self-defense,” Nickles says of the plaintiffs. The decision, he says, “didn’t say you can have a handgun loaded in the home in the event you might have a feeling to use it for whatever.”

The Washington Post’s Shankar Vedantam has a killer angle today on the D.C. handgun ban: An old study found that D.C.’s suicide rate dropped off big time soon as the city enacted the ban in 1976, because handguns make it real convenient for a guy to shoot himself when he gets a suicidal impulse. I highly recommend the article.

Yeah, you’ve heard about the Supreme Court ruling and its fallout. It’s been blogged, re-blogged, hashed and rehashed.

So what do folks on the street think of it all? Watch the video and find out.

Trouble viewing? Try the YouTube version.

A brief perusal of Roget’s suggests a galaxy of promising adjectives for describing one’s reaction to a troubling Supreme Court decision.

For one, there is “troubled.” “Shocked,” “outraged,” and “concerned” come to mind. Further options include “chagrined,” “mortified,” “aggrieved,” “offended,” “incensed,” “riled up,” and “scared shitless.”

In their press releases, however, District politicos have been sticking to one word with alarming regularity:

Disappointed.

First, there is Ward 5 Councilmember Harry “Tommy” Thomas, Jr., who “expressed his extreme disappointment with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the District gun ban, and indicated that the Council must now establish strict standards to regulate the sale of handguns in the District of Columbia.”

Then we have Fenty, Nickles, and Lanier, who weigh in as follows:

Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, Interim Attorney General Peter Nickles, and Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy Lanier announced their disappointment in today’s ruling of the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller…. “I’m disappointed in the Court’s ruling and believe introducing more handguns into the District will mean more handgun violence,” said Mayor Fenty.*

Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray includes the following in his statement:

Although I am disappointed by the court’s decision, working collectively with the Mayor, the Metropolitan Police, legal authorities, and residents, the Council will do all it can to prevent violence from escalating further as a result of today’s un-welcome weakening of our gun laws.

Ward 4 Councilmember Muriel Bowser:

I am disappointed in today’s Supreme Court action which ruled that the DC law banning private handgun possession at home violates the Second Amendment.

At-Large Councilmember Kwame Brown:

My disappointment in the Supreme Courts ruling cannot be merely expressed by words. Every time I hear of another youth, another mother or child gunned down in our communities is yet another reminder of why we need these protective measures in place.

[Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton issued a statement in which the d-word was conspicuously absent, as did Adam Clampitt, Independent Candidate for DC Council At-Large.]

Come on, folks! Disappointed is when your team loses in spring training. Disappointed is when your kid doesn’t crack a B in algebra. Disappointed is when your dog relieves himself under the dining room table.

Whatever happened to “I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna take it anymore!”

*The Post imputes “dismay” to Fenty. Over-editorialize much lately?