Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 42

Thread: Post Heller - DC Police Chief Releases Memo

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Orem, Utah, USA
    Posts
    385

    Post imported post

    The memo from DC Police Chief to DC Residents:

    Action Alert: Washington DC Already Planning To Restrict Law-Abiding Citizens 2nd Amendment Rights
    The following is a memo sent to Washington, DC residents by Cathy Lanier, Washington, DC Chief of Police:
    From: Lanier, Cathy (MPD)
    Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 6:35 PM
    Subject: Supreme Court Update
    Residents,
    Unfortunately, the Supreme Court today struck down part of the District of Columbia's handgun ban. I wanted to drop you a note to let you know the immediate impact of this decision.
    The Supreme Court's ruling is limited and leaves intact various other laws that apply to private residents who would purchase handguns or other firearms for home possession. It is important that everyone know that:
    • a.. First, all firearms must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department's Firearms Registration Section before they may be lawfully possessed.
      a.. Second, automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal and may not be registered.
      a.. Third, the Supreme Court's ruling is limited to handguns in the home and does not entitle anyone to carry firearms outside his or her own home.
    Lastly, although the Court struck the safe storage provision on the ground that it was too broadly written, in my opinion firearms in the home should be kept either unloaded and disassembled or locked.
    I will comply with the Court's reading of the Second Amendment in its letter and spirit. At the same time, I will continue to vigorously enforce the District's other gun-related laws. I will also continue to find additional ways to protect the District's residents against the scourge of gun violence.
    Residents who want additional information can visit the Metropolitan Police Website at www.mpdc.dc.gov/gunregistration. Residents with questions are encouraged to contact the Firearms Registration Section at 202-727-9490.
    Sncerely,
    Cathy Lanier
    Chief of Police
    Memo Source: WashingtonPost.com
    ================================================== =====

    From Top Glock:
    Action Needed:
    Although Ms. Lanier and those in charge of the District of Columbia residents safety are entitled to their opinions, I firmly believe that they are dead wrong in their interpretation of the Supreme Court's ruling and the spirit of the ruling. I supposed that I could understand things from their point of view if they had one of the cleaner and safer cities in the nation, but we all know that is not true. I ask you all to call the Chief's office, write a letter or email and let her know just how you feel about her memo.
    Washington, DC Chief of Police Contact Info:
    Email: Cathy.Lanier@dc.gov
    Phone: 202 727.4218
    Fax: 202 727.9524
    Mailing Address:
    Chief of Police
    Cathy Lanier
    300 Indiana Ave., NW
    Room 5080
    Washington, DC 20001
    ================================================== =====

    Just FYI!
    Charles A. Hall, self-proclaimed Lone Eagle || Carry: Kahr CW40
    Lone Eagle Observer (http://www.charlesahall.us)
    Facebook Page || http://twitter.com/CharlesAHall

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Orem, Utah, USA
    Posts
    385

    Post imported post

    I just e-mailed her and not going to share my e-mail because I got a little heavy on my wording (nothing too bad, but still). I'm just not happy with this memo.
    Charles A. Hall, self-proclaimed Lone Eagle || Carry: Kahr CW40
    Lone Eagle Observer (http://www.charlesahall.us)
    Facebook Page || http://twitter.com/CharlesAHall

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manhattan, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    309

    Post imported post

    a.. Second, automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal and may not be registered.
    Someone slap them in court again, please.

  4. #4
    Regular Member MetalChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    1,215

    Post imported post

    They are enemies of liberty and need to be stopped. Permanently.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Orem, Utah, USA
    Posts
    385

    Post imported post

    Walleye wrote:
    a.. Second, automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal and may not be registered.
    Someone slap them in court again, please.
    No doubt! I don't want a revolver, I want a semi-auto handgun!
    Charles A. Hall, self-proclaimed Lone Eagle || Carry: Kahr CW40
    Lone Eagle Observer (http://www.charlesahall.us)
    Facebook Page || http://twitter.com/CharlesAHall

  6. #6
    Regular Member MetalChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    1,215

    Post imported post

    Outsider wrote:
    No doubt! I don't want a revolver, I want a semi-auto handgun!
    Where in the opinion did they mention that semi-auto handguns could be restricted? Semi-auto handguns are an entire class of weapons that no reasonable person could deem "unusually dangerous" so to me this would violate the SCOTUS ruling.

    But then again, since when did homeboy Fenty care about the law?

  7. #7
    Regular Member IanB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,896

    Post imported post

    Does DC realize they are only permitting the most powerful type of handgun (revolver), one which does NOT expel brass (evidence) when fired? What doofs.

    I suggest the citizens of DC acquire S&W 500's. LOL!!!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    uTAH-life member: NRA, GOA, CCRKBA, ,
    Posts
    291

    Post imported post

    No semi-autos? Good grief, what in hell are we going to have to do? Sue them on every little nuance?



    I mean what next..

    Ok, we'll allow semi-autos, just NO black ones.('Cause they look evil)


  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    37

    Post imported post

    41 Magnum wrote:
    No semi-autos? Good grief, what in hell are we going to have to do? Sue them on every little nuance?



    I mean what next..

    Ok, we'll allow semi-autos, just NO black ones.('Cause they look evil)
    Texas tried this with the prison system and wound up with William Wayne Justice (fed judge) running the Texas dept of corrections for a few years until Austin figured out you cant buck the judges. (Short of a Revolution, that is.)

    We can only hope the dc govt is just as hard headed.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran Dutch Uncle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,715

    Post imported post

    Leftists typically have a tyrannical streak in them. The entrenched leftists in the DC government have had their way so long, they will not easily give up their power over their subjects, and can be expected to obstruct the court at every turn....at least initially. We will have to hammer them down relentlessly and without mercy. There will be numerous lawsuits to force compliance, and ultimately DC may have to be put back under the aegis of Congress. Even a Dem-controlled congress isn't as likely to be in comtempt of the Supreme Court as the petty tyrants in City Hall.

    No matter. In the long run, we will have our way with them, and the law abiding people of the district will be able to at least defend their homes against the criminal scum. Street crime rates may not change much in the near future, but watch for home invasions to start declining soon. We'll have to rub this in the noses of the DC hierarchy, but eventually the point will become obvious.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    She's self-evidently a toad - no need to elaborate.

    -ljp

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Orem, Utah, USA
    Posts
    385

    Post imported post

    nakedshoplifter wrote:
    Does DC realize they are only permitting the most powerful type of handgun (revolver), one which does NOT expel brass (evidence) when fired? What doofs.

    I suggest the citizens of DC acquire S&W 500's. LOL!!!
    I see Dirty Hairy!!! And very good points, shoplifter.
    Charles A. Hall, self-proclaimed Lone Eagle || Carry: Kahr CW40
    Lone Eagle Observer (http://www.charlesahall.us)
    Facebook Page || http://twitter.com/CharlesAHall

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Graham, Texas
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    Here is the letter I wrote to here.

    Ms. Lanier,

    I write you today to express my contempt for your reaction to the Supreme Court decision in the Heller Case. In a Written email to the residents of DC, you expressed three views as to what the decision meant to the laws in DC.

    First you say that the District of Columbia will still require a registration for all firearms. While I realize that, because Heller did not challenge this directly, the Court did not rule on it, I say with great disdain that any registry of weapons is a Constitutional infringement on the right that was written not to be infringed.

    Second, you state that semiautomatic handguns will remain illegal, suggesting that the only legal type of handgun legally available to the public will be the revolver class. This is wrong on a few levels. Firstly, The ruling in the Heller case prohibits banning of an entire classification of weapons, rendering your statement unconstitutional. Secondly, The Court says that weapons cannot be banned if they are in common use at the time. There is no more commonly used weapon for lawful purpose than the semiautomatic firearm, therefore you're in contempt of the courts ruling. Thirdly, permitting strictly revolvers is silly because revolvers do not expend their casings, a major evidence factor in criminal investigations. This, to me, suggests what many Gun-Rights activists have feared for years: That the people who would heavily regulate firearms would do so strictly on the principle of doing so; that Gun-control advocates are such even without any statistical, historical, or really and empirical evidence of any kind and operate solely on emotional arguments. I come to this conclusion because were you, or any other Gun-Control advocate very seriously concerned about crime, you would want to capture and prosecute those commit them, as that is truly the best way to stop it, instead of regulating those who do not.

    Third, you say that the Court's decision scope was only in view of firearms of the home, which is true, but make no mistake that they did mention an individual right to bear those arms as well, in the house and in public places. I can almost assuredly claim to you that there will be Civil Suits in the future to challenge this, because your regulations are indeed unconstitutional.

    It is no surprise to me that you have instated these rules as a reaction to the Heller case. Washington D.C. has long since been as bastion for Gun-Control, and also crime and murder. What does surprise me is that despite the Historical and even Concurrent events around the world in relation to firearms, one can still cling to ones baseless, superfluous, and dangerous Gun-Control laws when Study after Study proves that they have no bearing on the elimination of crime, and even the exact opposite!


    Phillip P.

  14. #14
    Regular Member AZkopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    673

    Post imported post

    Sent my comments in. Lets flood her mailbox.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    NW Indiana, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    248

    Post imported post

    I'm trying to figure out why they allow revolvers? ANY handgun would work.. why not just derringers? Or maybe black powder handguns?

    Our country is totally f'ed. If it isn't evident by the lip service ruling the USSC gave out nothing is.

    Basically the USSC said "it's an individual right.. but you can license, register guns, gun owners, ban certain features like hi-caps, assault weapons, full auto ect. ect..."

    Someone please explain to me WHY some gun owners are so giddy?

    As to the police chief, who cares, he's a tyrant part of a tyrannical government. nothing new there.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Dutch Uncle wrote:
    SNIP[DC government has] a tyrannical streak in them. The entrenched leftists in the DC government have had their way so long, they will not easily give up their power over their subjects, and can be expected to obstruct the court at every turn....at least initially.
    Excerpted from Patrick Henry's speech to the VA Ratifying Convention for the Constitution:

    "...Will the oppressor let go the oppressed? Was there ever an instance? Can the annals of mankind exhibit one single example where rulers overcharged with power willingly let go the oppressed, though solicited and requested most earnestly?..."

    http://tinyurl.com/3f69l6
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    779

    Post imported post

    Outsider wrote:
    I see Dirty Hairy!!! And very good points, shoplifter.
    Oh come now, comments about Ms Laniers grooming and hygiene habits shouldn't come into play here.....:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    VA Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    558

    Post imported post

    Prometheus wrote:
    I'm trying to figure out why they allow revolvers? ANY handgun would work.. why not just derringers? Or maybe black powder handguns?

    Our country is totally f'ed. If it isn't evident by the lip service ruling the USSC gave out nothing is.

    Basically the USSC said "it's an individual right.. but you can license, register guns, gun owners, ban certain features like hi-caps, assault weapons, full auto ect. ect..."

    Someone please explain to me WHY some gun owners are so giddy?

    As to the police chief, who cares, he's a tyrant part of a tyrannical government. nothing new there.
    +1 They left a lot of room for over regulation. Probably the way way they could get Kennedy to go along with it. My prediction today 28 June 08 is your going to see them go after ammo and make it almost impossible to get. "In order to pay for higher health care costs due to more gun ownership we are raing the tax on firearms and firearm accesories".

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Bountiful, Utah, USA
    Posts
    119

    Post imported post

    This blatant level of tyranny is the pure original intent of the founders for the people to keep and bear arms.

  20. #20
    Regular Member MetalChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    1,215

    Post imported post

    Sent an email to Ms police chief.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    Prometheus wrote:
    I'm trying to figure out why they allow revolvers? ANY handgun would work.. why not just derringers? Or maybe black powder handguns?
    It's because they have a law in place already that they think can be used to justify disallowing semi-automatics. Apparently there's an anti-MG statute that is worded broadly enough that semi-automatics (handguns or rifles) can be included.

    They figure that since SCOTUS didn't specifically address that law, they can go ahead and enforce it.

  22. #22
    Regular Member IanB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,896

    Post imported post

    Cite?

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Orem, Utah, USA
    Posts
    385

    Post imported post

    swillden wrote:
    Prometheus wrote:
    I'm trying to figure out why they allow revolvers? ANY handgun would work.. why not just derringers? Or maybe black powder handguns?
    It's because they have a law in place already that they think can be used to justify disallowing semi-automatics. Apparently there's an anti-MG statute that is worded broadly enough that semi-automatics (handguns or rifles) can be included.

    They figure that since SCOTUS didn't specifically address that law, they can go ahead and enforce it.
    You have that law?
    Charles A. Hall, self-proclaimed Lone Eagle || Carry: Kahr CW40
    Lone Eagle Observer (http://www.charlesahall.us)
    Facebook Page || http://twitter.com/CharlesAHall

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    Outsider wrote:
    swillden wrote:
    Prometheus wrote:
    I'm trying to figure out why they allow revolvers? ANY handgun would work.. why not just derringers? Or maybe black powder handguns?
    It's because they have a law in place already that they think can be used to justify disallowing semi-automatics. Apparently there's an anti-MG statute that is worded broadly enough that semi-automatics (handguns or rifles) can be included.

    They figure that since SCOTUS didn't specifically address that law, they can go ahead and enforce it.
    You have that law?
    It was cited in another thread. I'll post it here when I find it.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Near The Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    454

    Post imported post

    Check this crap out....

    from:
    http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view.asp...47431&pm=1


    **************
    Can people register as many handguns as they like?
    The forthcoming regulations to be issued by the Metropolitan Police Department will answer questions such as how many weapons residents can register, and will likely limit registrants at least initially to one handgun each.
    ****************


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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