• 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.

DC tightens gun rules after landmark court ruling

Pamiam

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
240
Location
Upstate, South Carolina, USA
imported post

DC tightens gun rules after landmark court ruling

WASHINGTON (AP) — 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. (excuse me?)

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.
 

DreQo

State Researcher
Joined
Jan 8, 2007
Messages
2,350
Location
Minnesota
imported post

...while banning magazines capable of firing more than 10 rounds.

Those sound pretty kool. My magazines aren't capable of firing ANY rounds :(. I still have to use the rest of the gun for that. I'm so behind the times. Where do we get these magazines that can fire rounds???
"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.
Remind me never to take someone educated at George Washington University serious ever, ever again.
 

eyesopened

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
731
Location
NOVA, Virginia, USA
imported post

DreQo wrote:
...while banning magazines capable of firing more than 10 rounds.

Those sound pretty kool. My magazines aren't capable of firing ANY rounds :(. I still have to use the rest of the gun for that. I'm so behind the times. Where do we get these magazines that can fire rounds???
"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.
Remind me never to take someone educated at George Washington University serious ever, ever again.

LOL +1

Also where do they sell those plastic handguns that defeat metal detectors? I've been meaning to buy one as a paper weight...
 

Dom

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
150
Location
Aurora, Colorado, USA
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.

A former member of the ACLU Board and current Vice-Chair of the ACLU Screening Committee, Mary Cheh is an avid defender of civil liberties.
http://www.marycheh.com/marycheh.htm


Avid defender of civil liberties my a$$.
 

darthmord

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
998
Location
Norfolk, Virginia, USA
imported post

Dom wrote:
"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.

A former member of the ACLU Board and current Vice-Chair of the ACLU Screening Committee, Mary Cheh is an avid defender of civil liberties.
http://www.marycheh.com/marycheh.htm


Avid defender of civil liberties my a$$.

Avid defender of civil liberties she likes.

She would be livid & apoplectic if one were to apply gun control restrictions on free speech. Too many people don't realize that free speech is just as dangerous and powerful as the RKBA. With speech one can accomplish most if not all of what one can with firearms.

Yet they want to limit firearms and let speech run unfettered. :shock:

How about they can take away my 2nd Amendment rights when they have to surrender under equal terms THEIR 1st Amendment rights? Somehow, I don't think they would buy into that deal. As such, why should I buy into their deal?
 

ProShooter

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,663
Location
www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
imported post

I see where it says.....

[align=left]“(13)(A) Has completed a firearms training or safety course or class conducted by 8[/align]
[align=left]a state certified firearms instructor or a certified military firearms instructor that provides, at a 9[/align]
[align=left]minimum, a total of at least one hour of firing training at a firing range and a total of at least four 10[/align]
[align=left]hours of classroom instruction.[/align]
[align=left][/align]
[align=left]First, what "state" is Washington DC in?[/align]
[align=left]Secondly, does an NRA certified instructor count?[/align]
[align=left][/align]
 

deepdiver

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

We used to have somewhat similar requirements in MO for handguns but finally got it repealed a few years ago. Now it is so much more convenient to buy a handgun. Gangbangers in St. Louis are still killing gangbangers, the liberals in Columbia, MO still won't buy guns and so have the highest home invasion rate in the state, people in Kansas City are sick of it and started buying a lot of guns and almost 20% of all homicides in the city this year have been ruled justifiable self-defense. We in the rural areas have always had lots of guns and we continue to have them and carry them. There is crime in the more rural areas too, primariliy against young and old women, fellow felons, and hippy men who make it publicly known that they have not the means or will to defend themselves.

So yeah. I don't think the training or registration is helping much in the real world. It could inhibit survival if someone needs a gun right away because of threats against their person. But I seriously doubt it has saved any lives. People who want to get training and/or practice are going to do so. Those who don't will take only as much away from the required training as they have to and promptly forget it and do whatever the hell they want anyway. Human nature plain and simple. And this from someone who is a very strong supporter and encourager of getting as much training and practice as often as money and time allow.
 

compmanio365

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
2,013
Location
Pierce County, Washington, USA
imported post

Uh, big difference there Chief. Your life and liberty can be deprived AFTER you've committed a crime. So you're saying all gun owners are criminals, and therefore it's okay to infringe on their rights? Go ahead, keep digging that hole you're standing in....I'll wait.

Sarah Brady said:
And, on a side note, there is a right to life and liberty, but the law can take those away.
 

Blkwdw86

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
40
Location
Gladewater, Texas, USA
imported post

darthmord wrote:
Avid defender of civil liberties she likes.

She would be livid & apoplectic if one were to apply gun control restrictions on free speech. Too many people don't realize that free speech is just as dangerous and powerful as the RKBA. With speech one can accomplish most if not all of what one can with firearms.

Yet they want to limit firearms and let speech run unfettered. :shock:


They can have my words when they pry them from my cold, dead mouth!
 

TechnoWeenie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
2,084
Location
, ,
imported post

DC wants you to be taught by a 'state certified' instructor.

DC is not a state, although it doesn't say WHAT state.... So presumably you can get a training certificate from any state. They could equally deny it saying that its not 'the' state they wanted.
 

Hawkflyer

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
3,309
Location
Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

While I agree with those who are taking the position that licencing and training requirements will never produce the results desired, and it is actually unconstitutional to impose these as a precursor to exercise of a RIGHT. this discussion might be settled by a quick look at the context of these new requirements. That will reveal the actual intent of the progenitors.

If you will recall, (or perhaps this is new) the DC council and the major all went nuts when the Supremes tipped over the proverbial apple cart by ruling firearms ownership is a protected right. There have been A LOT of speeches and a lot of press conferences where these people have stated very clearly that they do not intend to allow the "gains" in gun control to be lost by this ruling. And they have no intention of being told by a court what they will or won't do.

So what we actually have here is a training requirement that must be periodically renewed (for a fee) and requires range time in a city that has NO RANGES. Do you actually think DC will recognize training from Virginia? How about transporting firearms into and out of the city for the training? The registrations have to be renewed (for a fee), and you might note, this is just to have the weapon n your house. You are still not allowed to have it on the street. How are you supposed to get the thing to you class if you can't take it out of your house. There is of course the manufacture date sunrise provision designed to dry up the supply of firearms available until there are none. Oh yes and there are no gun shops in DC any more that I am aware of.

It goes on and on, but the DC city council is not interested in safety, or education or anything else. They are interested in making it impossible or so expensive to comply with the law that nobody will try or they will give up after a few passes through the system.

Regards
 

mobeewan

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2007
Messages
652
Location
Hampton, Va, ,
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. (excuse me?)
Then she should shut her first amendment pie hole.
 

Pamiam

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
240
Location
Upstate, South Carolina, USA
imported post

compmanio365 wrote:
Sarah Brady said:
...there is a right to life and liberty, but the law can take those away.
flagwave.gif
The rights to life and liberty are inalienable (click) rights, not legal rights.

Please note the differences. Thanks.
 

Slayer of Paper

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Messages
460
Location
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
imported post

Well, it's for SAFETY, think of the children, for God's Sakes!

What you are proposing is a nothing more than gun registration. It's a proven historical FACT that gun registration leads to gun confiscation. There are dozens of examples of it.

I could be mistaken, but I swear I saw where you said you listen to Dr. Paul. Well, you may have heard Dr. Paul speak, but you obviously don't LISTEN to Dr. Paul.
 

Hawkflyer

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
3,309
Location
Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
I also never said open carry makes anyone an anarchist. I my newest pet catch phrase is "OC extremist" which describes the people on this site that ARE anarchists (whether they admit it or not), and there are quite a few.

Well I guess I was confused by your repeated mention of people who OC and your connection of them with advocacy of anarchy in most of your more recent posts.

You correctly zeroed in onyour use of the term "OC extremist" as the reference I am pointing out. It is not extremism to simply exercise a lawful right.Nor is it extremism to advocate for that right in is unfettered form, when that is precisely the way the law says that right should exist. What I have noticed in this discussion is a consistent refusal to take at face value the words "... Shall not be infringed." That is where you and the unfettered carry people part ways.Since you stated that we should look at the world the way it is,I suggest we look at that for a moment.

Just because the court has said that reasonable restrictions may be imposed on ownership and carry of firearms, does not meant that they are correct in that view of the meaning of those words. The fact is that those words are rather clear and resolute. Because of that people view the court as legislating from the bench in this area. Most people familiar with the correct use of the English language can see this is the case. Depending on your views on firearms and your ability to read, you either agree with the court or you do not.

The supreme court is suppose to gather the meaning of the law from the words used to draft it in context and rule accordingly. Lower courts are supposed to follow that guidance. If the wording of TSA were something like "... Shall not be infringed except to impose reasonable restrictions on the carrying of arms." Then I and a lot of others here would agree with some of your views on this point. But it does not say that, and to take and holdthe view that it does not and live accordingly is not extremist. It may be activist, but not extremist.

In the context of this forum references such as "OC extremists"seem rather ad hominem and unnecessarily provocativefor use in intelligent discussion. There is a big difference between noting that someones views share features in common with anarchy, and that they themselves are anarchists. You will find that most here are constitutional constructionists. You seem by your own description to be a relativist. These two views will always conflict as they are almost bipolar opposites.

Relativists views share a lot of common ground with socialism and communism, but that does not mean that we need to refer to you or them as OC hating communists, or a gun grabbing socialists.

All I am suggesting is that we ALL, on BOTH sides of the discussion, try to keep things on a little higher plane than name calling.

Regards
 

les_aker

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
221
Location
Springfield, Virginia, USA
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
By all means, elaborate. Create this world were every single person can be independant or, at the very least, we'd only need tiny groups of people to coordinate. I'd like every possible issue addressed, including infrastructure, law enforcement, law creation, justice systems, mass transit coordination, international relations (very important when you're dealing with 9,000,0000 independant nations), defence, economics (national and international), etc etc etc. I'll sit here and list stuff until your head starts spinning and you realize that the world is the way it is now forgood reason.

I have no doubt that you'll sit there with nothing of value to add. You'd probably fair better in your postings here if you ever managed to argue with what was actually posted rather than what you would obviously preferred someone had posted.

We the people have a continuing society because we understood how to coordinate with each other a long time ago. Even the items in the list you posted above don't require a government at any level to either create or coordinate them. I realize that it's probably beyond your ability to comprehend, but if a bunch of people really wanted "mass transit" someone would figure out how to get a bus/boat/airplane/etc from point A to point B without a government around to artifically pick the wrong route.
 

Gordie

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
716
Location
, Nevada, USA
imported post

Gordie wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
The Supreme Court agrees with me on common sense restrictions.
I love the "common sense restrictions" argument. Can you show just one single restriction on firearms which has been shown to reduce violent crime? The Clinton Justice Department couldn't find any, the CDC couldn't find any, can you AWD?

To most people, common sense dictates that any law which does nothing to reduce crime, puts people in danger, and costs much in scarce resources, is stupid. When you look at the stats, the only thing gun control laws accomplish is to weaken the law abiding citizen and embolden the criminal who will ignore this law like they ignore all others.:banghead:

The Supreme Court has been known to make a ruling based more on political expediency than on law. If you doubt this, look at some of the rulings on imminent domain and freedom of speech in regards to the Campaign Finance Reform Act. One of the more outlandish cases was that of Dred Scott, not one of the greater moments in our history.
You forgot to answer my question AWD. This should be easy to answer, much easier than settling the debate over what exactly constitutes anarchy orlibertarianism.
 
Top