Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: New restrictions for DC gun owners already announced

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Herndon, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    336

    Post imported post

    From the DC Wire blog:

    http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dc/20...ll_guns_m.html

    D.C. Attorney General: All Guns Must Be Registered The Supreme Court has struck down D.C.'s longtime ban on handguns, with a 5-4 ruling. Ruling can be read here. The question for city officials is: What now? In a recent interview (before the court ruled), Interim D.C. Attorney General Peter J. Nickles was asked what would happen if the city lost the case.
    He said that residents will not be able to buy a handgun and bring it to the city immediately following the high court's ruling. There will be a period of continued legal arguments before a lower court judge to hash out specifics around the high court's opinion, Nickles said.
    In the meantime, Nickles said, Mayor Adrian M. Fenty's administration will instruct the police department to issue new regulations within 30 days detailing the process for registering handguns. (The city has gun regulations already on the books, which have been largely moot because of the gun ban, but those rules likely would be updated and revised, he said.)
    "All handguns have to be registered," Nickles said.
    Among the likely regulations: Gun owners would have to be 18 or older and could not have been convicted of a felony or any weapon-related charge or have been in a mental hospital for the past five years. Registrants also will be finger-printed and required to pass a written test to be sure they understand the city's gun laws, Nickles said.
    At least initially, he added, residents would be limited to one handgun apiece. The city will set up a hotline for firearm registrations.
    Nickles said he did not expect the court to undo the ban on automatic weapons.
    One major question, he said, was whether the court would undo the city's trigger lock requirement that all shotguns in homes remain unloaded with locks on the triggers. If the court overturns that provision, Nickles said, the mayor's office likely would propose new legislation to the D.C. Council that would require that guns remain unloaded in the home expect in the case of self-defense.
    Handguns would only be allowed in the home, Nickles added, with residents banned from carrying them on the streets or into other buildings.
    For those folks who already own guns--against current law--Nickles said the city would offer an amnesty program in which they could come forward and register the gun, assuming it had not been used in a crime.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Walton County, Georgia, ,
    Posts
    475

    Post imported post

    A step in the right direction from the court but the mayor and his bunch are still defiant. Unloaded is better than disassembled and locked up.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    One major question, he said, was whether the court would undo the city's trigger lock requirement that all shotguns in homes remain unloaded with locks on the triggers. If the court overturns that provision.



    No 'if' involved. The law was declared unconstitutional and is now void. No locks, no dissassembly, no restrictions on how the homeowner keeps his firearms. The SC has spoken. This guy evidently can't read or is simply a moron.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    377

    Post imported post

    RedKnightt wrote:
    From the DC Wire blog:

    http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dc/20...ll_guns_m.html

    required to pass a written test to be sure they understand the city's gun laws, [JUST LIKE THEY NEED TO PASS A TEST TO VOTE OR TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES OR TO PRAY IN A PLACE OF WORSHIP] Nickles said.
    At least initially, he added, residents would be limited to one handgun apiece. [SINCE YOU ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ONCE, OR PRAY ONCE OR VOTE ONE TIME]...
    Nickles said he did not expect the court to undo the ban on automatic weapons.
    One major question, he said, was whether the court would undo the city's trigger lock requirement that all shotguns in homes remain unloaded with locks on the triggers. If the court overturns that provision [THEY DID OVERTURN THAT PROVISION,YOU IDIOT!!], Nickles said, the mayor's office likely would propose new legislation to the D.C. Council that would require that guns remain unloaded [EVEN THOUGHSCOTUS ALREADY SAID THISIT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO REQUIRE FIREARMS TO BE UNLOADED] in the home expect in the case of self-defense.
    Handguns would only be allowed in the home, Nickles added, with residents banned from carrying them on the streets or into other buildings [SO THERE WILL BE NO WAY TO TAKE YOUR HANDGUN FROM THE GUN DEALER TO YOUR HOME].
    For those folks who already own guns--against current law--[which was just STRUCK DOWN, IDIOT!!] Nickles said the city would offer an amnesty program in which they could come forward and register the gun, assuming it had not been used in a crime.

    WHAT AN IDIOT!!

    NEED TO PASS A TEST TO OWN A GUN? You don't even need a test to own a car!! You don't need a test to vote. You don't need to passa test to enjoy the other parts of the Bill of Rights, but you need a test to own a gun? That does not pass the constitutionality test!!

    ONLY ONE GUN? I wrote letters to the editor more than once a year, but I can have only one handgun IF I lived in DC? Give me a BREAK!

    REQUIRE GUNS TO BE UNLOADED? That was just struck down by the Supreme Court, idiot!

    BANNED FROM MOVING THEM FROM ONE BUILDING, like a gun dealer or armorer's shop, TO ANOTHER BUILDING (like your home)?? So how will a person be able to legally move a gun from the place of sale to the purchaser's home? Maybe it can just go via the Internet, right?

    CURRENT LAW WAS JUST STRUCK DOWN, so how can it be against the law??

    I think the next case needs to demand punitive damages for infringement of civil rights. Make Fenty Pay (MFP)!




  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    Takes balls to publicly announce your intent to IGNORE the US Supreme Court! What a hypocrite.... Obey the law or ELSE you can become a DC Police official.

    Tim

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    On page 11 of the court's opinion there is the following paragraph, emphasis added:

    Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous,
    that only those arms in existence in the 18th century
    are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret
    constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
    Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
    e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,
    849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
    forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,
    35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima
    facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
    even those that were not in existence at the time of the
    founding.
    So I am puzzled how, with this clear text, DC feels it may still ban semiautomatic handguns.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Memphis, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    104

    Post imported post

    Because that ****** Fentay will ignore the law and instruct DC Police to ignore it as well, just like the ****** Naggin in N'Orleans has done

    Heres some irony for you - Naggin, Daley, Fentay and Bloomberg should all be SHOT as traitors



    Antis...I will never understand...

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    crotalus01 wrote:
    Because that ****** Fentay will ignore the law and instruct DC Police to ignore it as well, just like the ****** Naggin in N'Orleans has done

    Heres some irony for you - Naggin, Daley, Fentay and Bloomberg should all be SHOT as traitors



    Antis...I will never understand...
    Trying to be objective, I understand antis to a point. They want the same thing I want. To be safe and free to live my life. I think the best way to do that is to be armed. They think the best way to do that is to outlaw guns. Both sides make valid points....

    It is the blatant disregard for law that bothers me. If you don't like the 2nd amendment, that's OK, there is always Title V. Get enough support for a constitutional convention and repeal the 2nd amendment. But until you do, agree with it or not, you must OBEY it. To that end, if you are successful in repealing the 2nd amendment, like it or not, I will fearfully obey it.

    As for having offenders shot, that may be overkill. I'd settle for prosecution under 18 USC sec 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law).

    Finally, with all due respect, I think you can get your point across without the use of offensive terms such as "******". Not trying to pick a fight.

    Tim

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    trying to be objective, I understand antis to a point. They want the same thing I want. To be safe and free to live my life. I think the best way to do that is to be armed. They think the best way to do that is to outlaw guns. Both sides make valid points....
    No, they do not have "valid points" -- they have an understandable desire based on ignorance and lies -- whether their own lies because they knowingly repeat what is untrue or the lies of others they repeat through ignorance of the facts.

    None of the CDC, the National Academy of Sciences, nor DoJ were able to find that ANY gun control reduces VIOLENT CRIME, MURDER, SUICIDE or ACCIDENTS in any significant manner.

    None. Not one.

    Not even NICS/Brady background checks which aren't even enforced on crimianls.


    Less than 100 criminals are prosecuted each year for Brady/NICS violations -- and the vast majority of these are because the authorities needed to arrest or prosecute a criminal but can't make the real charge stick, or needs a "predicate felony" for a conspiracy or RICO charge.


  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hinesville, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    187

    Post imported post

    timf343 wrote:
    They want the same thing I want.
    Except that they think they know more than we on how we need to lead our lives.

  11. #11
    Regular Member pro2A's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Greencastle, Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    76

    Post imported post

    crotalus01 wrote:
    Because that ****** Fentay will ignore the law and instruct DC Police to ignore it as well, just like the ****** Naggin in N'Orleans has done

    Heres some irony for you - Naggin, Daley, Fentay and Bloomberg should all be SHOT as traitors



    Antis...I will never understand...
    Don't forget Nut-job.... errr Nutter

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    crotalus01 wrote:
    Because that f***** Fentay will ignore the law and instruct DC Police to ignore it as well, just like the f***** Naggin in N'Orleans has done


    Antis...I will never understand...
    You should watch your language and your tone. First off, some of our greatest leaders in the OpenCarry movement are gays and lesbians.

    Take me for example: Some people up here in the Pacific Northwest think of me as a "leader" in the movement. I do my best to present myself to members of "my particular community" in that armed self defense, especially open carry, would be helpful to our gun rights cause, as well as general civil rights, as a whole. This is why I open carry at places like Pride Parades and Festivals.

    Words like what you used make it that much more difficult to convince them that us gun owners aren't actually trying to round them up and exterminate them (No joke, some Seattle members of the GLBT community actually believe that).

    You do no one in the gun rights movement any favors with those slurs.

  13. #13
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887

    Post imported post

    crotalus01 wrote:
    Because that ****** Fentay will ignore the law and instruct DC Police to ignore it as well, just like the ****** Naggin in N'Orleans has done
    You should take your ignorance and bias elsewhere, or stay here and leave both out of your posts until you become enlightened. You'll be better for it.

    Whatever sexual tendencies or proclivities NAGIN or FENTY (not Naggin or Fentay) have I couldn't care less, nor do I think do most people here. Besides, I can be thoroughly disgusted with them for MANYmore substantial reasons.

    Your apparentlevel of ignorance and bias seems to only be equalled by members of the GLBT community who seem to have similar feelings againstthosein their midst who support the right to keep and bear arms.

    Finally, a person'ssexual identity does not define their views. Maybe you should Google "Pink Pistols"?

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    150

    Post imported post

    You should take your ignorance and bias elsewhere, or stay here and leave both out of your posts until you become enlightened. You'll be better for it. Whatever sexual tendencies or proclivities NAGIN or FENTY (not Naggin or Fentay) have I couldn't care less, nor do I think do most people here. Besides, I can be thoroughly disgusted with them for MANY more substantial reasons. Your apparent level of ignorance and bias seems to only be equalled by members of the GLBT community who seem to have similar feelings against those in their midst who support the right to keep and bear arms. Finally, a person's sexual identity does not define their views. Maybe you should Google "Pink Pistols"?
    +1. The 2nd Ammendment and homosexual issues are orthogonal. Whichever way you believe on each issue, mixing them does neither justice. Since this board is essentially about gun rights, it would be nice to confine comments to the issue at hand and not muddy the waters with other controversies. To do so invites hyperbolic attacks from the anti lobby: "Look at these guys, they are haters and carry guns."



  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155

    Post imported post

    Getting back on track, the District wants to register all new firearms yet they can't seem to find the ones supposedly already in the system, some 36,000 of them according to another news report.

    Do those elected officials and their minions actually know what they're doing?

  16. #16
    Regular Member Smurfologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Springfield by way of Chicago, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    Any "rules" D.C. come up with must comply with the law of the land. I could of swore I heard something about "reasonable" restrictions. It would not be reasonable for it to be against the law to have handguns outside of the home (i.e. transporting a handgun from a gun store to one's home), and reasonable for it to be legal to have a gun in one's home. How will the gun get toone's home?!? Just like it's not reasonable for me to be put in jail if I have a gun in my car for protection (i.e. in SE D.C.). Remember everyone......First we walk, then, we jog!!

    2nd Amendment.......Use it........Or, lose it!!:X
    The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1791!!

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,098

    Post imported post

    This stuff makes me wonder: What's the penalty for Contempt-of-Court at the USSC level? Methinks the DC ruling elite are trying to find out... Silly me...

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155

    Post imported post

    What's the penalty for Contempt-of-Court at the USSC level?
    Well, for the District of Columbia, they get re-elected.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    N00blet45 wrote:
    A step in the right direction from the court but the mayor and his bunch are still defiant. Unloaded is better than disassembled and locked up.
    Defiant can be GOOD.

    I 'd LIKE to see the federal judiciary get the idea of this defiance, in an ego contest.

    We 've seen this happen before, and we know who wins.

    David

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    Gunslinger wrote:
    One major question, he said, was whether the court would undo the city's trigger lock requirement that all shotguns in homes remain unloaded with locks on the triggers. If the court overturns that provision.



    No 'if' involved. The law was declared unconstitutional and is now void. No locks, no dissassembly, no restrictions on how the homeowner keeps his firearms. The SC has spoken. This guy evidently can't read or is simply a moron.
    This is true.

    Your points are well taken.

    David

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    XD Owner wrote:
    RedKnightt wrote:
    From the DC Wire blog:

    http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dc/20...ll_guns_m.html

    required to pass a written test to be sure they understand the city's gun laws, [JUST LIKE THEY NEED TO PASS A TEST TO VOTE OR TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES OR TO PRAY IN A PLACE OF WORSHIP] Nickles said.
    At least initially, he added, residents would be limited to one handgun apiece. [SINCE YOU ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ONCE, OR PRAY ONCE OR VOTE ONE TIME]...
    Nickles said he did not expect the court to undo the ban on automatic weapons.
    One major question, he said, was whether the court would undo the city's trigger lock requirement that all shotguns in homes remain unloaded with locks on the triggers. If the court overturns that provision [THEY DID OVERTURN THAT PROVISION,YOU IDIOT!!], Nickles said, the mayor's office likely would propose new legislation to the D.C. Council that would require that guns remain unloaded [EVEN THOUGHSCOTUS ALREADY SAID THISIT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO REQUIRE FIREARMS TO BE UNLOADED] in the home expect in the case of self-defense.
    Handguns would only be allowed in the home, Nickles added, with residents banned from carrying them on the streets or into other buildings [SO THERE WILL BE NO WAY TO TAKE YOUR HANDGUN FROM THE GUN DEALER TO YOUR HOME].
    For those folks who already own guns--against current law--[which was just STRUCK DOWN, IDIOT!!] Nickles said the city would offer an amnesty program in which they could come forward and register the gun, assuming it had not been used in a crime.

    WHAT AN IDIOT!!

    NEED TO PASS A TEST TO OWN A GUN? You don't even need a test to own a car!! You don't need a test to vote. You don't need to passa test to enjoy the other parts of the Bill of Rights, but you need a test to own a gun? That does not pass the constitutionality test!!

    ONLY ONE GUN? I wrote letters to the editor more than once a year, but I can have only one handgun IF I lived in DC? Give me a BREAK!

    REQUIRE GUNS TO BE UNLOADED? That was just struck down by the Supreme Court, idiot!

    BANNED FROM MOVING THEM FROM ONE BUILDING, like a gun dealer or armorer's shop, TO ANOTHER BUILDING (like your home)?? So how will a person be able to legally move a gun from the place of sale to the purchaser's home? Maybe it can just go via the Internet, right?

    CURRENT LAW WAS JUST STRUCK DOWN, so how can it be against the law??

    I think the next case needs to demand punitive damages for infringement of civil rights. Make Fenty Pay (MFP)!


    When conflict with our enemies becomes necessary, is it better to have wise, sly and crafty enemies against us? or is it better to fight against idiots ?

    David


  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    timf343 wrote:
    On page 11 of the court's opinion there is the following paragraph, emphasis added:

    Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous,
    that only those arms in existence in the 18th century
    are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret
    constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
    Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
    e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,
    849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
    forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,
    35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima
    facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
    even those that were not in existence at the time of the
    founding.
    So I am puzzled how, with this clear text, DC feels it may still ban semiautomatic handguns.
    The more stupid the suppressionists are, the more intransigent the suppressionists are, the more contumacious, the more recalcitrant the suppressionists arethe more defiant the suppressionists are, the better it will be for the side of personal freedom. Let them do their worst.

    Let 's see what happens.

    David


  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    timf343 wrote:
    crotalus01 wrote:
    Because that ****** Fentay will ignore the law and instruct DC Police to ignore it as well, just like the ****** Naggin in N'Orleans has done

    Heres some irony for you - Naggin, Daley, Fentay and Bloomberg should all be SHOT as traitors



    Antis...I will never understand...
    Trying to be objective, I understand antis to a point. They want the same thing I want. To be safe and free to live my life. Tim
    I must respectfully dissent, insofar as u attribute to the suppressionists the desire to propagate personal freedom.

    My observation of them leads me to believe that thay prefer to subordinate freedom of the individual to dominance by the collective, because of their deeply inherent faith in the collective, as a whole; their position is the ESSENCE OF ANTI-AMERICANISM. Toward that end, thay wish to weaken the individual, rendering him ever more progressivelydependent upon the collective, and uponits henchmen, the police.

    Their ideal anwere to every problem is deprivation of some freedom -- the adding of another iron chain upon the body politic, until it falls from the weight and is fully immobile. The issue of freedom of personal defense is pivotal; it is a fork in the road leading to freedom and individualism or to politically correct, docile, subservience.

    David




Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •