bcr229
Regular Member
imported post
I was sent a copy of the proposed regulations up for a vote on Dec 16. They are much worse than is being reported. The regulations themselves are too long to post here, so I just put up the summary. I bolded the more egregious provisions. PM me your email address if you want a copy of the complete regulation document.
A BILL
17-843 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
To amend the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 to revise the definitions of the terms firearm, machine gun, pistol, and sawed-off shotgun, to add definitions for the terms assault weapon, intrafamily offense, magazine, and place of business, to provide a self-defense exemption for temporary possession of a firearm registered to another person within the registrant's home.
To provide for the registration of pistols for use in self-defense within the home, to prohibit the registration of assault weapons and certain designated unsafe firearms, to increase the time period for which convictions for drug offenses and certain assaults disqualify a person from registering a firearm from 5 years prior to the application to 10 years prior to the application.
To provide that a person who has been convicted of an intrafamily offense within 10 years of application shall be ineligible to register a firearm, to provide that a person with multiple alcohol-related offenses within 5 years of application shall be ineligible to register a firearm.
To provide that a person who has suffered from a mental disorder within 5 years of application and has a history of violence shall be ineligible to register a firearm, to clarify that the Chief of Police may require an applicant for registration to receive training and pass testing on the use, handling, and storage of firearms.
To provide that applicants who have had civil protection or foreign protection orders entered against them shall be ineligible to register a firearm while the order is still in effect, to establish a registration limit of one pistol per registrant per 30 days.
To require a ballistics identification procedure as part of the registration process and to authorize the Chief of Police to assess a reasonable fee for the procedure, to clarify the process of revocation of a registration certificate.
To authorize the Chief of Police to discount registration fees for applicants who successfully complete safety and proficiency courses, to provide a process for the renewal of registration certificates, to prohibit large capacity ammunition feeding devices, to provide that firearms dealers must notify the Chief of the theft or loss of any firearms or ammunition from their inventory, to add an additional reason for revocation of a dealers license.
To provide that semiautomatic pistols manufactured and sold in the District be microstamped, to prohibit the sale, transfer, ownership, or possession of designated unsafe firearms, to clarify the firearms storage policy, to establish penalties for the reckless storage of a firearm accessible by a minor, and to provide that the District of Columbia and private persons may prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on their property;
To amend the Assault Weapon Manufacturing Strict Liability Act of 1990 to change the definition of the term assault weapon to conform it with the definition used in the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975; to provide a savings clause for actions, proceedings, and prosecutions commenced before amendments made by this act.
----------
Here are some notes I madefrom the text of the regulations:
- to prohibit the registration of assault weapons and certain designated unsafe firearms...
This is the 1994 AWB with the Chief of Police having the authority to further define "assault weapons" in the future, plus...
- "Unsafe firearms" = complete ban on new registrations of any pistol that is not on the CA DoJ list of approved pistols. If you own one now you can keep it, but if you want to sell it it can only go to an FFL, who can only sell it to another FFL, not to an individual.
- Complete ban on any .50BMG rifles; I don't know if they're currently banned in DC or not. These paragraphs were described as "new" in the regulation document.
- to prohibit large capacity ammunition feeding devices... = 10-round limit.
- On that one-pistol every 30 days, check out this little gem for people moving into the city, copied directly from the regulations:
The Chief shall register no more than one pistol per registrant during any 30-day period; provided that the Chief may permit a person first becoming a District resident to register more than one pistol if those pistols were lawfully owned in another jurisdiction for a period of six months prior to the date of the application.
- to provide that semiautomatic pistols manufactured and sold in the District be microstamped, to prohibit the sale, transfer, ownership, or possession of designated unsafe firearms...
Starting Jan 1, 2011 all semi-auto pistols sold in DC that were manufactured after Jan 1, 2011 must contain microstamping technology. The stamp must be placed in two locations on the casing. I have not seen this mentioned anywhere in the news.
I was sent a copy of the proposed regulations up for a vote on Dec 16. They are much worse than is being reported. The regulations themselves are too long to post here, so I just put up the summary. I bolded the more egregious provisions. PM me your email address if you want a copy of the complete regulation document.
A BILL
17-843 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
To amend the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 to revise the definitions of the terms firearm, machine gun, pistol, and sawed-off shotgun, to add definitions for the terms assault weapon, intrafamily offense, magazine, and place of business, to provide a self-defense exemption for temporary possession of a firearm registered to another person within the registrant's home.
To provide for the registration of pistols for use in self-defense within the home, to prohibit the registration of assault weapons and certain designated unsafe firearms, to increase the time period for which convictions for drug offenses and certain assaults disqualify a person from registering a firearm from 5 years prior to the application to 10 years prior to the application.
To provide that a person who has been convicted of an intrafamily offense within 10 years of application shall be ineligible to register a firearm, to provide that a person with multiple alcohol-related offenses within 5 years of application shall be ineligible to register a firearm.
To provide that a person who has suffered from a mental disorder within 5 years of application and has a history of violence shall be ineligible to register a firearm, to clarify that the Chief of Police may require an applicant for registration to receive training and pass testing on the use, handling, and storage of firearms.
To provide that applicants who have had civil protection or foreign protection orders entered against them shall be ineligible to register a firearm while the order is still in effect, to establish a registration limit of one pistol per registrant per 30 days.
To require a ballistics identification procedure as part of the registration process and to authorize the Chief of Police to assess a reasonable fee for the procedure, to clarify the process of revocation of a registration certificate.
To authorize the Chief of Police to discount registration fees for applicants who successfully complete safety and proficiency courses, to provide a process for the renewal of registration certificates, to prohibit large capacity ammunition feeding devices, to provide that firearms dealers must notify the Chief of the theft or loss of any firearms or ammunition from their inventory, to add an additional reason for revocation of a dealers license.
To provide that semiautomatic pistols manufactured and sold in the District be microstamped, to prohibit the sale, transfer, ownership, or possession of designated unsafe firearms, to clarify the firearms storage policy, to establish penalties for the reckless storage of a firearm accessible by a minor, and to provide that the District of Columbia and private persons may prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on their property;
To amend the Assault Weapon Manufacturing Strict Liability Act of 1990 to change the definition of the term assault weapon to conform it with the definition used in the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975; to provide a savings clause for actions, proceedings, and prosecutions commenced before amendments made by this act.
----------
Here are some notes I madefrom the text of the regulations:
- to prohibit the registration of assault weapons and certain designated unsafe firearms...
This is the 1994 AWB with the Chief of Police having the authority to further define "assault weapons" in the future, plus...
- "Unsafe firearms" = complete ban on new registrations of any pistol that is not on the CA DoJ list of approved pistols. If you own one now you can keep it, but if you want to sell it it can only go to an FFL, who can only sell it to another FFL, not to an individual.
- Complete ban on any .50BMG rifles; I don't know if they're currently banned in DC or not. These paragraphs were described as "new" in the regulation document.
- to prohibit large capacity ammunition feeding devices... = 10-round limit.
- On that one-pistol every 30 days, check out this little gem for people moving into the city, copied directly from the regulations:
The Chief shall register no more than one pistol per registrant during any 30-day period; provided that the Chief may permit a person first becoming a District resident to register more than one pistol if those pistols were lawfully owned in another jurisdiction for a period of six months prior to the date of the application.
- to provide that semiautomatic pistols manufactured and sold in the District be microstamped, to prohibit the sale, transfer, ownership, or possession of designated unsafe firearms...
Starting Jan 1, 2011 all semi-auto pistols sold in DC that were manufactured after Jan 1, 2011 must contain microstamping technology. The stamp must be placed in two locations on the casing. I have not seen this mentioned anywhere in the news.
