• 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.

Canadian Free Press Calls Fenty-Council Plan "Law Suit Bait"

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3980

District of Columbia’s newly proposed handgun law

Lawsuit Bait: New D.C. Handgun LegislationBy Capital Research CenterWednesday, July 16, 2008
By Matthew Vadum

We may be able to measure the life of the District of Columbia’s newly proposed handgun law with a stopwatch. Unveiled today by Mayor Adrian Fenty and D.C. Council members, this measure is lawsuit bait that makes a mockery of the Supreme Court’s landmark District of Columbia v. Heller (PDF file) on June 26 by imposing maximum inconvenience on law-abiding D.C. residents who want to own firearms.

In striking down the District’s previous handgun ban, the Court ruled that “the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.” (District of Columbia v. Heller, p. 64)

So what does the District do? It thumbs its nose at the high court and then brags about it to appease liberal pro-gun control voters. According to a statement provided by the mayor’s office, “the handgun ban remains in effect, except for use in self-defense within the home.”

The statement continues, asserting that the bill


“Clarifies the safe-storage and trigger-lock requirements. The legislation modifies existing law to clarify that firearms in the home must be stored unloaded and either disassembled secured with a trigger lock, gun safe, or similar device. An exception is made for a firearm while it is being used against reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm to a person within a registered gun owner’s home. The bill also includes provisions on the transportation of firearms for legal purposes.”
This means that a gun owner must keep his gun in an inoperable condition right up until the moment he realizes there is an actual threat. At that moment and at that moment only may he load, reassemble, unlock, or take out of a safe his gun.

Violent criminals aren’t going to sit around and wait while residents race to load/reassemble/unlock their guns in order to comply with these onerous requirements that have the effect of preventing handguns from being used for “immediate self-defense.”

The legislation would also impose incredible burdens on lawful would-be gun owners, forcing an owner to have his weapon subjected to ballistics testing “to determine if it is stolen or has been used in a crime.” This means the law would presume all would-be gun owners to be criminals. Clearly this is calculated to slow the gun-registration process to a crawl.

It includes other bizarre requirements that treat potential gun owners as violent felons. Read the summary here.

Mayor Fenty patted himself on the back at a press conference today. “We think we have struck the delicate legal balance,” he said. “While we will have lawsuits, we think we stand on solid legal ground.”

If it passes, we’ll see how long it lasts before a judge strikes it down.


Capital Research Center (CRC) was established in 1984 to study non-profit organizations, with a special focus on reviving the American traditions of charity, philanthropy, and voluntarism.
 

massltca

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
407
Location
Maryville, Tennessee, USA
imported post

This new law is a joke, it seems that a lot of work remains to be done to win real freedom for the residents of the district. :banghead::banghead: I see more lawsuits in the future before his highness Mayor Fenty gets the message that he can't infringe on constitutionally protected freedoms.
 

Phssthpok

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
1,026
Location
, ,
imported post

[devil's advocate]

I can't help but wonder if thier 'solid legal ground' is going to be that a gun in 'storage' isn't being 'kept for immediate self defence purposes' .

To whit: I have several side arms, not all of which are suited to a self defence scenario, ergo I keep them 'stored' (in a gun safe). However my Kimber ultra compact, my Llama 1911 clone, my Daewoo .40S&W, and my colt .380 Govt. are all kept in various locations at home in a 'ready' state for defence purposes. I would not concider these arms to be 'stored', but rather 'staged'. Ergo, I would be in compliance with their *coughbllshtcough* 'new' laws.

[/devil's advocate]
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
imported post

Phssthpok wrote:
[devil's advocate]

I can't help but wonder if thier 'solid legal ground' is going to be that a gun in 'storage' isn't being 'kept for immediate self defence purposes' .

To whit: I have several side arms, not all of which are suited to a self defence scenario, ergo I keep them 'stored' (in a gun safe). However my Kimber ultra compact, my Llama 1911 clone, my Daewoo .40S&W, and my colt .380 Govt. are all kept in various locations at home in a 'ready' state for defence purposes. I would not concider these arms to be 'stored', but rather 'staged'. Ergo, I would be in compliance with their *coughbllshtcough* 'new' laws.

[/devil's advocate]
Are they disassembled or trigger locked AND unloaded? If not, youare a criminal. Assume the position!
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
imported post

I find the OP to be a cogent analysis of the steaming pile of excrement being passed off as a SCOTUS compliant DC gun law revision. Perhaps another lawsuit against these violations will further diminish the infringement on our rights.
 

massltca

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
407
Location
Maryville, Tennessee, USA
imported post

Phssthpok wrote:
[devil's advocate]

I can't help but wonder if thier 'solid legal ground' is going to be that a gun in 'storage' isn't being 'kept for immediate self defence purposes' .

To whit: I have several side arms, not all of which are suited to a self defence scenario, ergo I keep them 'stored' (in a gun safe). However my Kimber ultra compact, my Llama 1911 clone, my Daewoo .40S&W, and my colt .380 Govt. are all kept in various locations at home in a 'ready' state for defence purposes. I would not concider these arms to be 'stored', but rather 'staged'. Ergo, I would be in compliance with their *coughbllshtcough* 'new' laws.

[/devil's advocate]
I think their "solid legal ground" is going to turn to quicksand in a hurry, their bulls***t new law doesn't adhere to the letter or spirit of the Supreme Court decision. I don't see how requiring a license to possess a handgun is constitutional because licensing is an exception to an otherwise illegal act, ie possession of a firearm is a felony in Massachusetts unless one has a license which the authorities don't have to give you even if you qualify for one. Plus this new law has so many restrictions as to make handgun ownership all but imposible.
 

911Boss

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2007
Messages
753
Location
Gone... Nutty as squirrel **** around here
imported post

Well, it seems Mr. Heller himself was denied a permit today.

I would expect he starts the process again, he already knows what to do. The sad thing is it is people's tax money being wasted with the court process. No accountability for the the politicians. I think damages/awards/fines should be levied against them PERSONALLY and not be paid out of public coffers.

Bet they would change their tune quick if the lawsuits were on their dime and not the public's...
 
Top