• 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.

Post Heller - DC Police Chief Releases Memo

O

Outsider

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
385
Location
Orem, Utah, USA
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!
 
O

Outsider

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
385
Location
Orem, Utah, USA
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.
 
MetalChris

MetalChris

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
1,215
Location
SW Ohio
imported post

Outsider wrote:
No doubt! I don't want a revolver, I want a semi-auto handgun!
Click to expand...
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?
 
IanB

IanB

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
1,896
Location
Northern VA
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!!!
 
4

41 Magnum

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2008
Messages
291
Location
uTAH-life member: NRA, GOA, CCRKBA, ,
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):banghead::banghead::banghead:
 
H

hamourkiller

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
37
Location
, Texas, USA
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):banghead::banghead::banghead:
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dutch Uncle

Dutch Uncle

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
1,715
Location
Virginia, USA
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.
 
L

Legba

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
1,881
Location
, ,
imported post

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

-ljp
 
O

Outsider

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
385
Location
Orem, Utah, USA
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!!!
Click to expand...
I see Dirty Hairy!!! And very good points, shoplifter.
 
D

DopaVash

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2008
Messages
313
Location
Graham, Texas
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.
Click to expand...
 
P

Prometheus

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
248
Location
NW Indiana, Indiana, USA
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.
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
G

GLENGLOCKER

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
558
Location
VA Beach, Virginia, USA
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.
Click to expand...
+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".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top