Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: The DC reaction to Heller

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    236

    Post imported post

    They are going to restrict the registration to revolvers only and will enforce an updated safe storage requirement....

    Watching on live feed from wusa9.com...


    ETA: there will be no carry, only home posession!

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    333

    Post imported post

    A rather hollow victory, isn't it.

    I'm sure they're going to argue that auto pistols, contra revolvers, are especially "dangerous." And a single revolver is enough to not infringe "self-defense."

    This was part of my point in this thread: Heller Result Poll

  3. #3
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    coltcarrier wrote:
    They are going to restrict the registration to revolvers only and will enforce an updated safe storage requirement....

    Watching on live feed from wusa9.com...
    Hmmm. that's not gonna work either. Revolvers or semi-autos are common use items and are in themselves, a class of weapons. I realize that the antis will try to find any loophole they possibly can, but this is going to take many more court cases to figure out and our fight will never be over...
    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    236

    Post imported post

    they have repeatedly stated that over the next 21 days they will revise the statues to be the most restrictive allowed by the decision...

  5. #5
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    coltcarrier wrote:
    they have repeatedly stated that over the next 21 days they will revise the statues to be the most restrictive allowed by the decision...
    Sounds like responsible government, doesn't it?...

    After thinking about this some more, I think that the intent of the opinion would be violated if they start picking and choosing which types ofhandguns can be kept and which ones can't. This is another one of their "interpretations" that is obviously not constitutional under the 2nd amendment , nor this ruling.
    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    Well, I would not call it a hollow victory...

    From the majority opinion:

    JUSTICE BREYER chides us for leaving so many applications
    of the right to keep and bear arms in doubt, and for
    not providing extensive historical justification for those
    regulations of the right that we describe as permissible.
    See post, at 42–43. But since this case represents this
    Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment,
    one should not expect it to clarify the entire field,
    any more than Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145
    (1879), our first in-depth Free Exercise Clause case, left
    that area in a state of utter certainty. And there will be
    time enough to expound upon the historical justifications
    for the exceptions we have mentioned if and when those
    exceptions come before us.


    All through the opinion, the Court stated that this case was of very limited scope, and that the Court was not ruling on many other aspects of gun rights. This case was about a very specific issue, namely the right to own a handgun to be used for home defense, and the court ruled clearly that application is definitely within the INDIVIDUAL RIGHT guaranteed by the Constitution.

    That is the largest victory of this case... The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, like the other nine that from the "Bill of Rights", guarantees a INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to "keep and bear arms."

    The Court did state that the Second Amendment does have limitations, just as the First Amendment does not allow one to sell state secrets.

    But the Majority Opinion most definitely has subtle clues that the court will not allow the right to bear arms to be infringed, unless a strong, substantiated, and compelling reason exists.

    Will there continue to be disagreements and setbacks? Yes.

    Does this Majority seem to have the idea; that individual liberty is the core to a strong Union? I sure hope so.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, VA, ,
    Posts
    689

    Post imported post

    My question is this, From where is a DC resident going to purchase a hadgun -revolver or pistol? First there's no gun shop in DC. Second there is only one FFL in DC and that one is owned by Josh Sugarmann, head of Violence Policy Center.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Gary, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    518

    Post imported post

    Actually, it surprises me that they would only allow revolvers to be registered. After all, revolvers do noteject their shell casings, therefore a criminal who uses one could get away scott free. Now, the Supreme Court ruled that the banon handguns isunconstitutional; this to me does not mean that some handguns are okay and others are not. It means that all legally owned handguns must be allowed.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    293

    Post imported post

    tattedupboy wrote:
    Actually, it surprises me that they would only allow revolvers to be registered.* After all, revolvers do not*eject their shell casings, therefore a criminal who uses one could get away scott free.
    The D.C. government seems to be more concerned about limiting capacity and reloading speed than anything else.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Washington, DC USA
    Posts
    175

    Post imported post

    coltcarrier wrote:
    They are going to restrict the registration to revolvers only and will enforce an updated safe storage requirement....

    Watching on live feed from wusa9.com...


    ETA: there will be no carry, only home posession!



    http://www.nbc4.com/news/16716017/de...l?dl=mainclick

    "It is important to both respect the court's authority and then to act quickly," Fenty said.

    Fenty said the Metropolitan Police Department has 21 days to develop a system for citizens to register lawful handguns in their homes. Interim Attorney General Peter Nickles said that rules on who can apply for gun licenses will not change. Applicants will be required to be mentally competent adults, and they'll be fingerprinted.

    In the meantime, D.C.'s gun ban will remain in effect. Automatic and semi-automatic guns remain illegal, Fenty said. Citizens still can't carry guns outside the home in D.C.





    I thinkFenty misspoke.What he should have said wasthat "in the meantime, until they get a new law in place, D.C.'s gun ban will remain in effect, therefore automatic [firearms] and semi-automatic [hand]guns remain illegal."

    DC residents can register a semi-automatic shotgun or long gun even before the Supreme Court ruling.

    Fenty isn't exactly a firearms expert, he's an anti. I doubt that he knows very many details about his own gun laws and how they'll be affected by the ruling.





  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    I expect DC to do as much as they think they can get away with and more to try and save face on the registration and permits. It iwll probably take another Federal judge to calm them down but will eventually. The reasonable restrictions is open to interpretations but the arbritrary is not. When they start charging $1,000 for a background check and a one year waiting period it will go back to court. Also the .22 six shooter is called a Saturday Night Special in some parts of the country.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    DoubleR wrote:
    My question is this, From where is a DC resident going to purchase a hadgun -revolver or pistol? First there's no gun shop in DC. Second there is only one FFL in DC and that one is owned by Josh Sugarmann, head of Violence Policy Center.
    I would expect them to do the same thing as the criminals have been doing: going across the border. It's not like a lack of gun shops has put a damper on the number of guns so far.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Washington, DC USA
    Posts
    175

    Post imported post

    tattedupboy wrote:
    Actually, it surprises me that they would only allow revolvers to be registered. After all, revolvers do noteject their shell casings, therefore a criminal who uses one could get away scott free. Now, the Supreme Court ruled that the banon handguns isunconstitutional; this to me does not mean that some handguns are okay and others are not. It means that all legally owned handguns must be allowed.
    I'd like to think that any one of the 'expert' lawyers that they consult with within the next 21 days would point that out to them. Under the strictest interpretation of the ruling, they could probably get away with banning automatic handguns (Glock 18, etc.) and limiting capacity (no more than 10/12 rounds, etc.) but they won't get away with banning semi-auto handguns altogether. Semi-auto handguns are the most commonly possesed of the handgun class.

    If they take this ruling lightly they willrisk having the court overturn their gun laws altogether.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member OC-Glock19's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    561

    Post imported post

    like_the_roman wrote:
    The D.C. government seems to be more concerned about limiting capacity and reloading speed than anything else.

    With a lot of practice even this is no issue, although I doubt that criminals will ever expend this much effort.

    [flash=320,256]http://www.youtube.com/v/Gk7LPklNFRw&hl[/flash]

  15. #15
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964

    Post imported post

    If a D.C. resident had a Federal Firearms License III - Curio and Relics, (collectors license) the resident would not need an FFL I - Dealer. The collector would be limited to firearms at least 50 years old, or on the ATF collectors list, but there are many great firearms in that category. With theC&R license the firearms can be shipped directly from an out of state FFL I or III (dealer or out of state collector) directly to the D.C. collectors home.

    This is why I have advocated since the D.C. Circuit Court ruling that D.C. residents obtain a FFL III license.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitableand let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come . PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

Posting Permissions

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