Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
http://www.examiner.com/a-1527133~Charles_Repine__D_C__s_de_facto_gun_ban_is_unfair_to_citizens_like_me.html
Commentary - Charles Repine: D.C.’s de facto gun ban is unfair to citizens like me
Article History
This is the latest version.
Aug 8, 2008 3:00 AM (12 hrs ago) by Charles Repine, The Examiner
DC Opinion
WASHINGTON (Map, News) - W hen the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dick Heller in District of Columbia vs. Heller, I — along with many other Second Amendment enthusiasts — celebrated the decision as the righting of a wrong that had disenfranchised citizens of the District for more than three decades. D.C. politicians, however, viewed our celebration with disdain.
Mayor Adrian Fenty said he was “disappointed” in the court’s ruling and believed that “introducing more handguns into the District will mean more handgun violence.” But since the total ban on handguns in D.C. did little, if anything, to stem gun violence, why should I believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens like me would lead to more violence?
In a radio interview, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton bemoaned that the gun ban was overturned “against the will of the people in D.C.” Not to be the bearer of bad news, but the “will of the people” is irrelevant in matters of constitutionality. Public support for a gun ban in the District, such as it is, holds no more legal weight than if the people were clamoring to prohibit women from voting or reinstate slavery.
In the same interview, Norton mentioned a study that supposedly supports the idea that guns in the home are rarely used to thwart attackers.
Even if this dubious claim is true, and Holmes Norton did not cite the study, it’s also irrelevant to the question of whether I have a constitutional right to own a gun. With the Heller decision, the Supreme Court affirmed that I do.
And so, determined to exercise my newly affirmed constitutional right, I recently made my way down to Metropolitan Police Department headquarters and obtained the necessary paperwork.
The process apparently goes like this: I obtain a firearm permit application, fill it out, take it to a licensed firearms dealer, purchase a gun, have the gun dealer fill out the other half of the application, take the filled-out application back to the police department, pay a $10 fee, wait up to 14 days for approval, take the approved application back to the gun dealer, have the gun shipped to a licensed dealer within the District, pick up the gun, take it directly to police headquarters where it will go through a ballistics test while I am fingerprinted and put through a background check for a fee of $35, and then pay a $13 registration fee.
Then, I will be able to take my gun home, where it is to remain unloaded and either disassembled or fitted with a trigger lock unless, of course, I reasonably perceive I am under immediate threat of harm.
In which case, it is perfectly legal for me to retrieve my unloaded, disassembled weapon, assemble it, load it, and hope the intruder has been kind enough to wait patiently before attacking, robbing, and/or killing me.
I also have to hope that none of this happens until my registration is approved — some eight weeks after my application is submitted — as it is apparently unlawful for me to use my gun before the process is complete, even in self-defense.
This needless, unwarranted and frankly laughable complexity involved in legally obtaining a firearm is the modern-day equivalent of a literacy test or poll tax that decades ago prevented minorities from exercising their constitutional right to vote.
The only difference is that government officials now seek to prevent as many people as possible from exercising their Second Amendment right as opposed to the 15th.
Meanwhile, criminals — like the miscreant who killed 13-year-old Alonzo Robinson — continue to possess and use their illegal firearms against us.
Charles Repine is a government employee, freelance writer and gun enthusiast who lives in Washington, D.C.
http://www.examiner.com/a-1527133~Charles_Repine__D_C__s_de_facto_gun_ban_is_unfair_to_citizens_like_me.html
Commentary - Charles Repine: D.C.’s de facto gun ban is unfair to citizens like me
Article History
This is the latest version.
Aug 8, 2008 3:00 AM (12 hrs ago) by Charles Repine, The Examiner
DC Opinion
WASHINGTON (Map, News) - W hen the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dick Heller in District of Columbia vs. Heller, I — along with many other Second Amendment enthusiasts — celebrated the decision as the righting of a wrong that had disenfranchised citizens of the District for more than three decades. D.C. politicians, however, viewed our celebration with disdain.
Mayor Adrian Fenty said he was “disappointed” in the court’s ruling and believed that “introducing more handguns into the District will mean more handgun violence.” But since the total ban on handguns in D.C. did little, if anything, to stem gun violence, why should I believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens like me would lead to more violence?
In a radio interview, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton bemoaned that the gun ban was overturned “against the will of the people in D.C.” Not to be the bearer of bad news, but the “will of the people” is irrelevant in matters of constitutionality. Public support for a gun ban in the District, such as it is, holds no more legal weight than if the people were clamoring to prohibit women from voting or reinstate slavery.
In the same interview, Norton mentioned a study that supposedly supports the idea that guns in the home are rarely used to thwart attackers.
Even if this dubious claim is true, and Holmes Norton did not cite the study, it’s also irrelevant to the question of whether I have a constitutional right to own a gun. With the Heller decision, the Supreme Court affirmed that I do.
And so, determined to exercise my newly affirmed constitutional right, I recently made my way down to Metropolitan Police Department headquarters and obtained the necessary paperwork.
The process apparently goes like this: I obtain a firearm permit application, fill it out, take it to a licensed firearms dealer, purchase a gun, have the gun dealer fill out the other half of the application, take the filled-out application back to the police department, pay a $10 fee, wait up to 14 days for approval, take the approved application back to the gun dealer, have the gun shipped to a licensed dealer within the District, pick up the gun, take it directly to police headquarters where it will go through a ballistics test while I am fingerprinted and put through a background check for a fee of $35, and then pay a $13 registration fee.
Then, I will be able to take my gun home, where it is to remain unloaded and either disassembled or fitted with a trigger lock unless, of course, I reasonably perceive I am under immediate threat of harm.
In which case, it is perfectly legal for me to retrieve my unloaded, disassembled weapon, assemble it, load it, and hope the intruder has been kind enough to wait patiently before attacking, robbing, and/or killing me.
I also have to hope that none of this happens until my registration is approved — some eight weeks after my application is submitted — as it is apparently unlawful for me to use my gun before the process is complete, even in self-defense.
This needless, unwarranted and frankly laughable complexity involved in legally obtaining a firearm is the modern-day equivalent of a literacy test or poll tax that decades ago prevented minorities from exercising their constitutional right to vote.
The only difference is that government officials now seek to prevent as many people as possible from exercising their Second Amendment right as opposed to the 15th.
Meanwhile, criminals — like the miscreant who killed 13-year-old Alonzo Robinson — continue to possess and use their illegal firearms against us.
Charles Repine is a government employee, freelance writer and gun enthusiast who lives in Washington, D.C.
