DC tightens gun rules after landmark court ruling

imported post

DC tightens gun rules after landmark court ruling

DC tightens gun rules after landmark court ruling

By The Associated Press
Dec 16, 2008
12/16/08 5:41 PM

The District of Columbia Council passed more regulations for gun owners Tuesday, months after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the city's 32-year-old handgun ban.

Among other things, the bill requires gun owners to register their weapons every three years and receive training by a certified firearms instructor.

"This bill will be, I think, one of the most progressive registration laws in the country," Council member Phil Mendelson said.

The National Rifle Association accused the city of forcing residents to jump through unnecessary hurdles, thereby undermining the intent of the Supreme Court's ruling in June that affirmed the right of Americans to keep guns in the home for self defense.

"The D.C. Council continues to try to make it harder and harder for law-abiding citizens to access this freedom," NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said.

In September, the House passed an NRA-backed bill that would have essentially stripped the city of its ability to regulate firearms, but the measure died in the Senate.

D.C. leaders say they are trying to be respectful of the Supreme Court case while doing everything they can to enact strict gun control measures in a city where gun violence is common.

"No constitutional right is absolute, nor is this right to possess a gun in the home for self defense," said councilwoman Mary Cheh, a law professor at George Washington University.

Since the handgun ban was overturned, the council has passed legislation allowing residents to own most semiautomatic pistols while banning magazines capable of firing more than 10 rounds. Registration also is limited to one pistol a month, and gun owners face prosecution if they fail to keep loaded weapons away from children.

Tuesday's bill builds on those regulations. It requires gun owners to spend at least one hour at the firing range and four hours in the classroom with an instructor before registration. The bill also requires a criminal background check for gun owners every six years.

imported post

"No constitutional right is absolute, nor is this right to possess a gun in the home for self defense," said councilwoman Mary Cheh, a law professor at George Washington University.

Click to expand...

:banghead::banghead::banghead::cuss::cuss::cuss::what::what::what:

imported post

See, AWDstylez, this is what people come to mean by "not absolute". And there is good reason to challenge their position. This is why I maintain the position I do.

imported post

"No constitutional right is absolute, nor is this right to possess a gun in the home for self defense," said councilwoman Mary Cheh, a law professor at George Washington University.

Click to expand...

It IS absolute. That's the defining difference between a RIGHT and a PRIVILEGE! Man, where do they grow these people?

imported post

"No constitutional right is absolute, nor is this right to possess a gun in the home for self defense," said councilwoman Mary Cheh, a law professor at George Washington University.

Apparently there is an absolute right to be a complete moron.

So if Ms Cheh is correct then she should explain to us when she believes it is appropriate to have an unreasonable search and seizure-- for she says this is not an absolute right.

Ms Cheh can explain when she believes it is appropriate to have a cruel and unusual punishment-- because she says this is not an absolute right.

Ms Cheh ought to explain when she believes it is appropriate to deny the people the right to petition the for a redress of grievances-- another right that is not absolute in her view.

Ms Cheh ought to explain when she believes it is appropriate for private property to be taken for public use without just compensation-- apparently she believes this is not an absolute right.

Ms Cheh owes it to us to explain why she believe you do not have an absolute right to have the assistance of counsel in one's defense.

Ms Cheh ought to explain under what circumstances she believes it is appropriate for a government to deny the right to vote due to one's sex.

Ms Cheh ought to explain why she believes there is no absolute right to be free from slavery.

Ms Cheh ought to explain why she believes there is an appropriate time to deny one the ability to vote because of their race or color.

I could go on, but I believe I've made my point. I also believe I will contact Ms Cheh and ask her to answer my questions.

imported post

My email to Ms Cheh has been sent. I eagerly await her anticipated non-reply.

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

I eagerly await her anticipated non-reply.

Click to expand...

I strongly recommend against doing it with bated breath. You'll turn colors they don't even have names for.

imported post

Oh, don't worry. The odds that I would get anything more than an automated reply are minuscule. I may not even get the courtesy of an automated reply. She's a ridiculous person who holds ridiculous beliefs-- hence her ridiculous statement.