Post Heller - DC Police Chief Releases Memo

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?

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

Cite?

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

You have that law?

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

You have that law?

Click to expand...

It was cited in another thread. I'll post it here when I find it.

imported post

Check this crap out....

from:
http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view.asp?a=1237&q=547431&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.
****************

imported post

Yeah, this is what happens when you elect socialist officials. We have this to look forward to from 09-12. YAY!

imported post

If I remember Correctly DC's Law on MG's is that any Firearm Capable of Firing more than 12 rounds without reloading = MG....

Load of BS if you ask me

imported post

OK... So what exactly did [the people of] DC win? They can now have a revolver in their home?

Seems like [the] DC [government] still wants it to be unloaded, locked, stored away, and buried under 6 feet of concretein your home.:lol:

[The] DC [government] will not allow you to carry any gun outside your home so on the streets it is still you unarmed against armed criminals.

This sucks!!

I can see it now.... homeowner shoots intruder and[the DC police]call into question how the homeowner could have unlocked the gun and loaded it in time to actually shoot the intruder.

Those in charge of DC simply do not have a clue......

• The criminals are NOT going to register their guns
• The criminals are going tohave semi auto handguns
• The criminals are going to carry their guns out on the streets of DC
  
  
  

imported post

*

imported post

DC will drag its feet like a little spoiled kid who doesn't want to clean his room or take a bath, but eventually they will comply -- of the DC court will smack them and write out an order if necessary.

Heller will get HIS handgun (I will bet he uses a revolver at work) in 3 weeks or at worst about six months.

He waited years, but DC lost.

And they will eventually need to allow him any firearm that he can bear and the is commonly in use by indviduals, including the police and the military.

Of course, automatic rifles are ok. The "militia phrase" sets the context that requires AT LEAST the protection of those arms normally issued to the individual infrantryman or the (paramilitary) police officer.

It's right there in the opinion too:

Majority Opinion DC v Heller, page 8:

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.

Click to expand...

Prima facie...All bearable arms.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Those in charge of DC simply do not have a clue......

• The criminals are NOT going to register their guns
• The criminals are going tohave semi auto handguns
• The criminals are going to carry their guns out on the streets of DC
  
  
  

Click to expand...

Oh they know it.any one, even arrogantdumbasses like Fenty and Lanier, know that what LEO 229 stated is true. It's not about rights, guns, or crime; it's about control, power.IMHO,Fenty and Lanier dont give a damn about the safety of the public and like the high crime as it gives them a reason to crack down on private gun ownership, to exercise control, power.

Creatureslike them are why the founding fathers created the bill of rights in the first place.

imported post

41 Magnum wrote:

...., just NO black ones.('Cause they look evil):banghead::banghead::banghead:

Click to expand...

That's racist! Oh wait, Gun Control has always been racist. I forgot

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

I can see it now.... homeowner shoots intruder and[the DC police]call into question how the homeowner could have unlocked the gun and loaded it in time to actually shoot the intruder.

Those in charge of DC simply do not have a clue......

• The criminals are NOT going to register their guns
• The criminals are going tohave semi auto handguns
• The criminals are going to carry their guns out on the streets of DC

Click to expand...

+1 LEO229 - Since MPDC is issuing the dreaded "Assault Rifles" to their troops, only MPDC will have the added firepower to confront the BGs. Heaven forbid that the common person will have the means to do likewise.

imported post

swillden wrote:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

You have that law?

Click to expand...

It was cited in another thread. I'll post it here when I find it.

Click to expand...

DC ST § 7-2501.01 (Firearms Control, General Provisions, Definitions)

(10) "Machine gun" means any firearm which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to shoot:
(A) Automatically, more than 1 shot by a single function of the trigger;
(B) Semiautomatically, more than 12 shots without manual reloading.

Click to expand...

So, if it's a pistol or rifle that accepts a detachable mag, and a magazine holding 12 rounds or more is commercially available for that weapon, it is a "machine gun" andremains illegal for a civilian to possess. This is true even if the person owning the handgun or rifle does not possess the necessary magazine or other modification, because the question is not whether the owner is able, but whether it is possible.

Pure bull; the BATFE, though I disagree with their interpretation as in US v Olofson,has a definitionof "machine gun"far closer to what it actually is. The main body and first subclause of the DC definition is the BATFE definition almost word-for-word;the correct challenge would be to rule clause B of this definition as unconstitutional, and hopefully get a judge to verbally or in writing administer the smackdown to DC and Fenty for attempting to circumvent a plain-language decision by the Court. The problem is that this definition was not specifically at issue in Heller, so it will have to be challenged, as will other tenets of DC law that have been in place for years, toensure that Heller is interpreted as the justices wrote it.

imported post

Practically ANY semi auto pistol can accept some kind of 12+ round magazine. So all Glocks, 1911's, heck anything with a detachable mag can accept a 12+ mag are now deamed to be a "machine gun"? Even a pump shotgun can accept 12+ with the proper tube. It is as if they are creating their own dictionary. They say what they want and then call it what they want. Heck, while they are at it they should label the ammunition used by the gun as being part of the gun, and therefore needing registration to own. Or why stop there, any lead that could be made to be part of a bullet would therefore be part of a gun and needs to be registered. I am really wanting to see a federal judge put the smack down on these out of control politicians.

imported post

Bflamante wrote:

Practically ANY semi auto pistol can accept some kind of 12+ round magazine. So all Glocks, 1911's, heck anything with a detachable mag can accept a 12+ mag are now deamed to be a "machine gun"? Even a pump shotgun can accept 12+ with the proper tube. It is as if they are creating their own dictionary. They say what they want and then call it what they want. Heck, while they are at it they should label the ammunition used by the gun as being part of the gun, and therefore needing registration to own. Or why stop there, any lead that could be made to be part of a bullet would therefore be part of a gun and needs to be registered. I am really wanting to see a federal judge put the smack down on these out of control politicians.

Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken I believe you DO need to register Ammo in D.C.

imported post

Sounds like DC residents might have to look into Mauser C-96s for defense. 10 rounds of 9mm in integral box magazine by default.

imported post

One last thing I will comment on is this....

DC has had the ban in place since 1976. That is 32 years for anyone living there who wants to own guns to move to Virginia!! :lol:

City life is not for me but I guess it is so appealing to some or maybe they like being able to walk to work that makes them stay in DC.

We all know the ban did not work.... but 32 years later they want to stick with it.... Sinking ship if you ask me.

I guess what sucks is that even those that DO live in Virginia..... and work in DC have to suffer too.

We all know what they the DC officials are thinking.... you have even heard the citizens on the news say it.... "More gun will only lead to MORE gun violence!"

I submit that this is wrong and being said by people who simply have no clue. Just because criminals use something for a bud purpose does not mean that the rest of the good people fill do the same.

This is what you have to get past.... But I guess it is one step at a time. 30 years apart??

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Just because criminals use something for a bud purpose ...

Click to expand...

Unless it is for medicinal bud purposes and then it's ok some places.

imported post

Anyone get anything back yet from DC Chief?