• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

New restrictions for DC gun owners already announced

RedKnightt

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
336
Location
Herndon, Virginia, USA
imported post

From the DC Wire blog:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dc/2008/06/dc_attorney_general_all_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.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
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.
 

XD Owner

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2006
Messages
377
Location
Arlington, VA
imported post

RedKnightt wrote:
From the DC Wire blog:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dc/2008/06/dc_attorney_general_all_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)!

:monkey
 

timf343

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
1,409
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
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.
 

crotalus01

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
104
Location
Memphis, Tennessee, USA
imported post

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

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



Antis...I will never understand...:banghead::banghead::banghead:
 

timf343

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
1,409
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
imported post

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

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



Antis...I will never understand...:banghead::banghead::banghead:
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 "faggot". Not trying to pick a fight.

Tim
 

HerbM

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
64
Location
, ,
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.
 

pro2A

Regular Member
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
76
Location
Greencastle, Pennsylvania, United States
imported post

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

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



Antis...I will never understand...:banghead::banghead::banghead:
Don't forget Nut-job.... errr Nutter ;)
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
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 :banghead:


Antis...I will never understand...:banghead::banghead::banghead:
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.
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
imported post

crotalus01 wrote:
Because that faggot Fentay will ignore the law and instruct DC Police to ignore it as well, just like the faggot 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"?
 

Dom

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
150
Location
Aurora, Colorado, USA
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."
 

Statkowski

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
1,141
Location
Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
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?
 

Smurfologist

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
536
Location
Springfield by way of Chicago, Virginia, USA
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
 

PavePusher

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,096
Location
Tucson, Arizona, USA
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...
 

OmSigDAVID

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
137
Location
, ,
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
 

OmSigDAVID

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
137
Location
, ,
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
 
Top