Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Senate to DC's rulers: If you wanna vote in America's house, no more gun registration!

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post


    http://tinyurl.com/bqgzed

    Senate to DC’s rulers: If you wanna vote in America’s house, no more gun registration!
    by Mike Stollenwerk, DC Gun Rights Examiner

    SNIP

    A “news” item yesterday in the Washington Post said that the Senate gun rights amendment to the bill providing the District of Columbia a voting representative in the House of Representatives “will turn the nation's capital into one of the easiest places in America to own a gun.” . . . the Senate amendment just closes the loophole in federal law which allows DC to restrict gun ownership rights, even in the home.


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902

    Post imported post

    Good article; however, I noticed afew errors. Michigan requires universal registration of handguns. When you move, you have to get a permit to purchase (unless you have a MI CPL) and register each pistol.

    Hawaii requires the registration of all firearms for everyone. Upon arrival to any county in Hawaii, you have 72 hours to register your firearms with that county PD. This can be found in Chapter 134 of Hawaii's law.

    The Commonwealth of Massachusetts only registers transfers and new purchases. You can move to MA with as many guns as you want and you do not have to tell anyone; however, you must have either a FID card or a Class A or B license. Chapter 140 outlines that you have 60 days to do this upon moving to the state.

  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Jared wrote:
    Good article; however, I noticed afew errors. Michigan requires universal registration of handguns. When you move, you have to get a permit to purchase (unless you have a MI CPL) and register each pistol.

    Hawaii requires the registration of all firearms for everyone. Upon arrival to any county in Hawaii, you have 72 hours to register your firearms with that county PD. This can be found in Chapter 134 of Hawaii's law.

    The Commonwealth of Massachusetts only registers transfers and new purchases. You can move to MA with as many guns as you want and you do not have to tell anyone; however, you must have either a FID card or a Class A or B license. Chapter 140 outlines that you have 60 days to do this upon moving to the state.
    OK, I want to fix any errors- but I think what I wrote is what you say above: "Handgun Registration:Only 4 states require all handguns to be registered - Hawaii, Michigan, New York, and Massachusetts.But visitors and new residents can bring their handguns into Hawaii and Michigan without prior registration (i.e., "prior restraint”), unlike DC."

    If I have a handgun in Mass., do I not need to provide the handgun info to the state to get the class A or B license? I used to live in Massand has a class B and thought I gave them info about my handgun(s).

    Please advise.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    45

    Post imported post

    Good bill except it also sets back DC's shotgun definition to 20 inches instead of 18 like they changed it to (probably the only good change they did to their post Heller gun laws)

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    242

    Post imported post

    Can't stress this enough, guys - we've got to contact our Representatives ( http://www.theorator.com/government/house.html ) about this one. I just got through FAX'ing that GOA letter to every N.C. Representative:

    Senate Repeals D.C. Gun Ban By Large Vote
    -- But the fight in the House is just beginning

    Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
    8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
    Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
    http://www.gunowners.org

    Monday, March 2, 2009


    By a resounding vote of 62 to 36 last week, the U.S. Senate has approved
    an amendment, offered by Senator John Ensign of Nevada, to repeal the
    D.C. gun ban.

    Congratulations!

    But the battle is not over.

    This week, the House will take up the D.C. voting legislation. And
    anti-gun Speaker Nancy Pelosi is angling to impose a "gag
    rule" on the
    House, so that D.C. gets its unconstitutional representative, while
    continuing its draconian anti-gun laws (like microstamping).

    So here's the deal: The House will be asked to consider a
    "rule" which
    establishes the time for debate and provides for which amendments may be
    considered -- and which may not.

    It is expected that the Pelosi rule will seek to deny the House any vote
    on the D.C. gun ban and thereby strip the repeal of the ban from the
    House bill.

    So what we are asking you to do is to write and/or call your congressman
    and demand that he oppose any rule that strips the D.C. gun ban repeal
    from the D.C. voting bill.

    Just to remind you of how draconian the D.C. gun law is:

    * Following the Supreme Court's decision in Heller declaring the law to
    be unconstitutional, D.C. made a few cosmetic changes which will, as a
    practical matter, allow it to continue to deny its citizens the right to
    keep and bear arms.

    * Then, the City Council passed a whole series of new anti-gun measures.
    These include a requirement that most guns used for self-defense
    "microstamp" fired casings in two places with a "unique
    serial number."


    Aside from being ineffectual with respect to stolen guns or crimes where
    the brass has not been left behind, this microstamping provision is
    intended to make guns so expensive that they won't be available anywhere
    -- including your state.

    ACTION: Write your Representative and urge him or her in the strongest
    terms to oppose any rule which will strip the gun ban repeal from the
    D.C. voting bill.

    You can go to the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
    http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Representative the
    pre-written e-mail message below.

    You can also call him or her toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.

    ----- Prewritten Letter -----

    Dear Representative:

    This week, when the House takes up the D.C. voting legislation, please
    vote against any rule that strips the Senate's pro-gun language and/or
    imposes a "gag rule" on members of the House.

    Just to remind you of how virulently anti-gun the D.C. gun law is:
    Following the Supreme Court's decision in Heller declaring the law to be
    unconstitutional, D.C. made a few cosmetic changes which will, as a
    practical matter, allow it to continue to deny its citizens the right to
    keep and bear arms.

    But, in addition, the City Council passed a whole series of new anti-gun
    measures. These include a requirement that most guns used for
    self-defense "microstamp" fired casings in two places with a
    "unique
    serial number."

    Aside from being ineffectual with respect to stolen guns or crimes where
    the brass has not been left behind, this microstamping provision is
    intended to make guns so expensive that they won't be available anywhere
    -- including my state.

    I urge you, in the strongest terms, to oppose any rule that makes it
    impossible for you to vote on the D.C. gun ban repeal.

    Sincerely,


    ****************************



  6. #6
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Jared wrote:
    Good article; however, I noticed afew errors. Michigan requires universal registration of handguns. When you move, you have to get a permit to purchase (unless you have a MI CPL) and register each pistol.

    Hawaii requires the registration of all firearms for everyone. Upon arrival to any county in Hawaii, you have 72 hours to register your firearms with that county PD. This can be found in Chapter 134 of Hawaii's law.

    The Commonwealth of Massachusetts only registers transfers and new purchases. You can move to MA with as many guns as you want and you do not have to tell anyone; however, you must have either a FID card or a Class A or B license. Chapter 140 outlines that you have 60 days to do this upon moving to the state.
    OK, I want to fix any errors- but I think what I wrote is what you say above: "Handgun Registration:Only 4 states require all handguns to be registered - Hawaii, Michigan, New York, and Massachusetts.But visitors and new residents can bring their handguns into Hawaii and Michigan without prior registration (i.e., "prior restraint”), unlike DC."

    If I have a handgun in Mass., do I not need to provide the handgun info to the state to get the class A or B license? I used to live in Massand has a class B and thought I gave them info about my handgun(s).

    Please advise.
    Mike here is the law on non-residents bringing handguns into Michigan. You have to have a license for the firearm or you can't have a handgun in Michigan. Se bold areas below.

    FIREARMS (EXCERPT)
    Act 372 of 1927


    28.422 License to purchase, carry, possess, or transport pistol; issuance; qualifications; applications; sale of pistol; exemptions; nonresidents; basic pistol safety brochure; forging application; implementation during business hours.
    Sec. 2.

    (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person shall not purchase, carry, possess, or transport a pistol in this state without first having obtained a license for the pistol as prescribed in this section.

    (2) A person who brings a pistol into this state who is on leave from active duty with the armed forces of the United States or who has been discharged from active duty with the armed forces of the United States shall obtain a license for the pistol within 30 days after his or her arrival in this state.

    (3) The commissioner or chief of police of a city, township, or village police department that issues licenses to purchase, carry, possess, or transport pistols, or his or her duly authorized deputy, or the sheriff or his or her duly authorized deputy, in the parts of a county not included within a city, township, or village having an organized police department, in discharging the duty to issue licenses shall with due speed and diligence issue licenses to purchase, carry, possess, or transport pistols to qualified applicants residing within the city, village, township, or county, as applicable unless he or she has probable cause to believe that the applicant would be a threat to himself or herself or to other individuals, or would commit an offense with the pistol that would violate a law of this or another state or of the United States. An applicant is qualified if all of the following circumstances exist:

    (a) The person is not subject to an order or disposition for which he or she has received notice and an opportunity for a hearing, and which was entered into the law enforcement information network pursuant to any of the following:

    (i) Section 464a(1) of the mental health code, 1974 PA 258, MCL 330.1464a.

    (ii) Section 5107 of the estates and protected individuals code, 1998 PA 386, MCL 700.5107, or section 444a of former 1978 PA 642.

    (iii) Section 2950(10) of the revised judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236, MCL 600.2950.

    (iv) Section 2950a(7) of the revised judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236, MCL 600.2950a.

    (v) Section 14 of 1846 RS 84, MCL 552.14.

    (vi) Section 6b(5) of chapter V of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 765.6b, if the order has a condition imposed under section 6b(3) of chapter V of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 765.6b.

    (vii) Section 16b(1) of chapter IX of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 769.16b.

    (b) The person is 18 years of age or older or, if the seller is licensed under 18 USC 923, is 21 years of age or older.

    (c) The person is a citizen of the United States and is a legal resident of this state. For the purposes of this section, a person shall be considered a legal resident of this state if any of the following apply:

    (i) The person has a valid, lawfully obtained Michigan driver license issued under the Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.1 to 257.923, or an official state personal identification card issued under 1972 PA 222, MCL 28.291 to 28.300.

    (ii) The person is lawfully registered to vote in this state.

    (iii) The person is on active duty status with the United States armed forces and is stationed outside of this state, but the person's home of record is in this state.

    (iv) The person is on active duty status with the United States armed forces and is permanently stationed in this state, but the person's home of record is in another state.

    (d) A felony charge or a criminal charge listed in section 5b against the person is not pending at the time of application.

    (e) The person is not prohibited from possessing, using, transporting, selling, purchasing, carrying, shipping, receiving, or distributing a firearm under section 224f of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.224f.

    (f) The person has not been adjudged insane in this state or elsewhere unless he or she has been adjudged restored to sanity by court order.

    (g) The person is not under an order of involuntary commitment in an inpatient or outpatient setting due to mental illness.

    (h) The person has not been adjudged legally incapacitated in this state or elsewhere. This subdivision does not apply to a person who has had his or her legal capacity restored by order of the court.

    (i) The person correctly answers 70% or more of the questions on a basic pistol safety review questionnaire approved by the department of state police and provided to the individual free of charge by the licensing authority. If the person fails to correctly answer 70% or more of the questions on the basic pistol safety review questionnaire, the licensing authority shall inform the person of the questions he or she answered incorrectly and allow the person to attempt to complete another basic pistol safety review questionnaire. The person shall not be allowed to attempt to complete more than 2 basic pistol safety review questionnaires on any single day. The licensing authority shall allow the person to attempt to complete the questionnaire during normal business hours on the day the person applies for his or her license.

    (4) Applications for licenses under this section shall be signed by the applicant under oath upon forms provided by the director of the department of state police. Licenses to purchase, carry, possess, or transport pistols shall be executed in quadruplicate upon forms provided by the director of the department of state police and shall be signed by the licensing authority. Four copies of the license shall be delivered to the applicant by the licensing authority. A license is void unless used within 10 days after the date it is issued.

    (5) If an individual purchases or otherwise acquires a pistol, the seller shall fill out the license forms describing the pistol, together with the date of sale or acquisition, and sign his or her name in ink indicating that the pistol was sold to or otherwise acquired by the purchaser. The purchaser shall also sign his or her name in ink indicating the purchase or other acquisition of the pistol from the seller. The seller may retain a copy of the license as a record of the transaction. The purchaser shall receive 3 copies of the license. The purchaser shall return 2 copies of the license to the licensing authority within 10 days after the date the pistol is purchased or acquired. The return of the copies to the licensing authority may be made in person or may be made by first-class mail or certified mail sent within the 10-day period to the proper address of the licensing authority. A purchaser who fails to comply with the requirements of this subsection is responsible for a state civil infraction and may be fined not more than $250.00. If a purchaser is found responsible for a state civil infraction under this subsection, the court shall notify the department of state police of that determination.

    (6) Within 48 hours after receiving the license copies returned under subsection (5), the licensing authority shall forward 1 copy of the license to the department of state police. The licensing authority shall retain the other copy of the license as an official record for not less than 6 years. Within 10 days after receiving the license copies returned under subsection (5), the licensing authority shall electronically enter the information into the pistol entry database as required by the department of state police if it has the ability to electronically enter that information. If the licensing authority does not have that ability, the licensing authority shall provide that information to the department of state police in a manner otherwise required by the department of state police. Any licensing authority that provided pistol descriptions to the department of state police under former section 9 of this act shall continue to provide pistol descriptions to the department of state police under this subsection. The purchaser has the right to obtain a copy of the information placed in the pistol entry database under this subsection to verify the accuracy of that information. The licensing authority may charge a fee not to exceed $1.00 for the cost of providing the copy. The licensee may carry, use, possess, and transport the pistol for 30 days beginning on the date of purchase or acquisition only while he or she is in possession of his or her copy of the license. However, the person is not required to have the license in his or her possession while carrying, using, possessing, or transporting the pistol after this period.

    (7) This section does not apply to the purchase of pistols from wholesalers by dealers regularly engaged in the business of selling pistols at retail, or to the sale, barter, or exchange of pistols kept as relics or curios not made for modern ammunition or permanently deactivated. This section does not prevent the transfer of ownership of pistols that are inherited if the license to purchase is approved by the commissioner or chief of police, sheriff, or their authorized deputies, and signed by the personal representative of the estate or by the next of kin having authority to dispose of the pistol.

    (8) An individual who is not a resident of this state is not required to obtain a license under this section if all of the following conditions apply:

    (a) The individual is licensed in his or her state of residence to purchase, carry, or transport a pistol.

    (b) The individual is in possession of the license described in subdivision (a).

    (c) The individual is the owner of the pistol he or she possesses, carries, or transports.

    (d) The individual possesses the pistol for a lawful purpose as that term is defined in section 231a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.231a.

    (e) The individual is in this state for a period of 180 days or less and does not intend to establish residency in this state.

    (9) An individual who is a nonresident of this state shall present the license described in subsection (8)(a) upon the demand of a police officer. An individual who violates this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days or a fine of not more than $100.00, or both.

    (10) The licensing authority may require a person claiming active duty status with the United States armed forces to provide proof of 1 or both of the following:

    (a) The person's home of record.

    (b) Permanent active duty assignment in this state.

    (11) This section does not apply to a person who is younger than the age required under subsection (3)(b) and who possesses a pistol if all of the following conditions apply:

    (a) The person is not otherwise prohibited from possessing that pistol.

    (b) The person is at a recognized target range.

    (c) The person possesses the pistol for the purpose of target practice or instruction in the safe use of a pistol.

    (d) The person's parent or guardian is physically present and supervising the person.

    (e) The owner of the pistol is physically present.

    (12) This section does not apply to a person who possesses a pistol if all of the following conditions apply:

    (a) The person is not otherwise prohibited from possessing a pistol.

    (b) The person is at a recognized target range or shooting facility.

    (c) The person possesses the pistol for the purpose of target practice or instruction in the safe use of a pistol.

    (d) The owner of the pistol is physically present and supervising the use of the pistol.

    (13) The licensing authority shall provide a basic pistol safety brochure to each applicant for a license under this section before the applicant answers the basic pistol safety review questionnaire. A basic pistol safety brochure shall contain, but is not limited to providing, information on all of the following subjects:

    (a) Rules for safe handling and use of pistols.

    (b) Safe storage of pistols.

    (c) Nomenclature and description of various types of pistols.

    (d) The responsibilities of owning a pistol.

    (14) The basic pistol safety brochure shall be supplied in addition to the safety pamphlet required by section 9b.

    (15) The basic pistol safety brochure required in subsection (13) shall be produced by a national nonprofit membership organization that provides voluntary pistol safety programs that include training individuals in the safe handling and use of pistols.

    (16) A person who forges any matter on an application for a license under this section is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.

    (17) A licensing authority shall implement this section during all of the licensing authority's normal business hours and shall set hours for implementation that allow an applicant to use the license within the time period set forth in subsection (4).


    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  7. #7
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    Mike here is the law on non-residents bringing handguns into Michigan. You have to have a license for the firearm or you can't have a handgun in Michigan. Se bold areas below.

    FIREARMS (EXCERPT)
    Act 372 of 1927


    28.422 License to purchase, carry, possess, or transport pistol; issuance; qualifications; applications; sale of pistol; exemptions; nonresidents; basic pistol safety brochure; forging application; implementation during business hours.
    Sec. 2.
    need you to boil this down to the bottom line - new resident to MI, how long does he have to get a MI pistol license after having entered state with pistol?

  8. #8
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    Isn't anyone worried about this issue? D.C. is not a state! Thereare not 51 stars onOld Glory!

    I am all for erasing gun restrictions, and would love another Representative for Utah, but to negotiate something that is unconstitutional? I thought only the NRA 'negotiated rights away".

    If we allow D.C. a house seat that is clearly not authorized, where will constitutional violations end? I feel like this is opening a can of worms...

    Article I, Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.

    No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  9. #9
    Regular Member virginiatuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    788

    Post imported post

    SGT Jensen wrote:
    Isn't anyone worried about this issue? D.C. is not a state! Thereare not 51 stars onOld Glory!
    D.C. can have one of the stripes. Or they can share Maryland's star.

    I don't see how the number of stars on the flag has anything to do with this at all. The number of stars on the U.S. flag has been and can be changed.

    This is an issue of statehood, not cosmetics. I agree with you on the rest of it, I am worried about this. I am of the mindset that D.C., as it exists today, can not have a representative in the House and so residents should be exempt from federal taxation.


  10. #10
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    virginiatuck wrote:
    I don't see how the number of stars on the flag has anything to do with this at all. The number of stars on the U.S. flag has been and can be changed.
    I just threw that in there, but the point remains. If they were a state, the flag would have 51 stars. If they want a house seat, they need to become a state, not circumvent the Constitution.
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  11. #11
    Regular Member virginiatuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    788

    Post imported post

    SGT Jensen wrote:
    virginiatuck wrote:
    I don't see how the number of stars on the flag has anything to do with this at all. The number of stars on the U.S. flag has been and can be changed.
    I just threw that in there, but the point remains. If they were a state, the flag would have 51 stars. If they want a house seat, they need to become a state, not circumvent the Constitution.
    Maybe D.C. should have an asterisk.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    L.A. County, California, USA
    Posts
    149

    Post imported post

    SGT Jensen wrote:
    snip...
    If we allow D.C. a house seat that is clearly not authorized, where will constitutional violations end? I feel like this is opening a can of worms...

    Article I, Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.

    No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.
    I believe the real goal is to get D.C. TWO Senate Seats!!! Think about it. If D.C. is able to secure a House seat, they will use that as "evidence" that they are also entitled to 2 Senators!!!!

    Hopefully this violation of the Constitution will not go unchallenged.



  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Norfolk, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,000

    Post imported post

    Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it made policy at one point that states could only be added to the union in groups of two? I seem to recall something about needing to keep the Senate at an even number of people.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Houston, , USA
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    darthmord wrote:
    Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it made policy at one point that states could only be added to the union in groups of two? I seem to recall something about needing to keep the Senate at an even number of people.
    Hrmm...doesn't ring any bells. Adding states to the union one-at-a-time still keeps the Senate evenly numbered, since each state gets exactly two senators, and at minimum One congressional seat.

    I too think it's out of line to consider the District of Columbia a state. The purpose of the district is to (supposedly) be neutral to all of these trappings...

    'Course it's also known as the "Logic Free Zone" in certain communities, for obvious reasons.



  15. #15
    Regular Member DanM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,937

    Post imported post

    darthmord wrote:
    Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it made policy at one point that states could only be added to the union in groups of two? I seem to recall something about needing to keep the Senate at an even number of people.
    I don't know about such a policy, but keeping the Senate at an even number of memberswould not have been a reason for it. Since each state gets two senators, it is a mathematical certainty that the Senate will always have an even number of members, even if only one state is added at a time.

    Of course, since the VP of the United States is the President of the Senate, and casts a vote in case of a tie in the Senate, technically the members of the Senate are actually always an odd number.
    "The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi . . ."--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

    He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.--M. K. Gandhi

    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." --M. K. Gandhi

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Post imported post

    1. There is little value in repealing a local law that has no effect under the Heller decision. You cannot restrict a right to the extent that there really is no right. Thus any "trade" is unnecessary.

    2. D.C. cannot vote in either house unless and until it becomes a state and/or the constitution is otherwise amended. Granting a vote in the house by statute is just blowing smoke. It would immediately be challenged and struck down. This is why the "delegates" don't get to vote on final passage or if they are the deciding vote anywhere along the line - a challenge would ensue.

    3. D.C. becoming a state would require the permission of Maryland. Not that it's far fetched (they certainly don't want it back) but it is another hurdle.

  17. #17
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    apjonas wrote:
    1. There is little value in repealing a local law that has no effect under the Heller decision. You cannot restrict a right to the extent that there really is no right. Thus any "trade" is unnecessary.
    No effect? Huh?

    Then why are applications for registrations being denied? Why are folks who registered guns last year being told they will have to remove the guns from DC within 3 years when their -re-registration comes up?

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    apjonas wrote:
    1. There is little value in repealing a local law that has no effect under the Heller decision. You cannot restrict a right to the extent that there really is no right. Thus any "trade" is unnecessary.
    No effect? Huh?

    Then why are applications for registrations being denied? Why are folks who registered guns last year being told they will have to remove the guns from DC within 3 years when their -re-registration comes up?
    No legal effect. The fact that DC is thumbing their nose at the Supreme Court is a matter that ought to be dealt with. I am just saying that there is no need to trade anything of value to DC in exchange for a power which they (legally) do not have. Congress may want to pass this law to pressure compliance but it is the President who has the obligation and authority to enforce the Court's decision (fat chance). So it is left to those impacted by the actions of DC to get an injunction. It isn't simple, it isn't fair but beats the heck out of (unconstitutionally attempting to) give DC more political power.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    "Senate to DC's rulers:", there's the oxymoron at the heart of it. The Congress has supreme Constitutional authority over D.C.

  20. #20
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Swanzey,NH, ,
    Posts
    218

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Jared wrote:
    Good article; however, I noticed afew errors. Michigan requires universal registration of handguns. When you move, you have to get a permit to purchase (unless you have a MI CPL) and register each pistol.

    Hawaii requires the registration of all firearms for everyone. Upon arrival to any county in Hawaii, you have 72 hours to register your firearms with that county PD. This can be found in Chapter 134 of Hawaii's law.

    The Commonwealth of Massachusetts only registers transfers and new purchases. You can move to MA with as many guns as you want and you do not have to tell anyone; however, you must have either a FID card or a Class A or B license. Chapter 140 outlines that you have 60 days to do this upon moving to the state.
    OK, I want to fix any errors- but I think what I wrote is what you say above: "Handgun Registration:Only 4 states require all handguns to be registered - Hawaii, Michigan, New York, and Massachusetts.But visitors and new residents can bring their handguns into Hawaii and Michigan without prior registration (i.e., "prior restraint”), unlike DC."

    If I have a handgun in Mass., do I not need to provide the handgun info to the state to get the class A or B license? I used to live in Massand has a class B and thought I gave them info about my handgun(s).

    Please advise.
    MIke, Some Police Chiefs made thier own requirements to obtaining a LTC and some still do though unlawfully. People then go along to get along, in fear that if they don't he will denie them the LTC. Mass. General Law Chap. 140 covers licensing in The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts. Was your permitissued around the Devens Area?

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Sioux Falls, South Dakota, USA
    Posts
    133

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    "Senate to DC's rulers:", there's the oxymoron at the heart of it. The Congress has supreme Constitutional authority over D.C.
    And thus the entirety of congress is the representative of Washington, DC.

    This bill is a direct violation of the constitution and this amendment is only being tossed in to sweeten the pot for a few legislators that don't want to vote for it on constitutional grounds.

  22. #22
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    http://www.standard.net/live/news/168923

    D.C. attorney general decries gun amendment

    By BRIAN WESTLEY

    The Associated Press




    WASHINGTON -- The nation's capital would be more vulnerable to a terrorist attack if the District of Columbia's gun laws were weakened, the city's attorney general said Friday.

    Peter Nickles testified before a House subcommittee examining the potential effect of a gun amendment attached to legislation that would give D.C. its first full vote in Congress.

    The measure sponsored by Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., would repeal the city's strict gun registration requirements and restrictions on semiautomatic weapons.

    "The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, demonstrated something that we have known for some time: government facilities, dignitaries and public servants are prime targets for terrorists," Nickles said. "As a result, it would seem to me the district is the last place where residents across the country would want to allow assault weapons."

    Nickles testified on behalf of D.C. police chief Cathy Lanier, who was unable to attend Friday's hearing because of a family emergency. Lanier testified that she had "grave concerns" when a similar bill was considered by Congress last year.

    Friday's hearing led by Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, the city's nonvoting member of Congress, comes as Democratic leaders plot how to move the voting rights bill forward in the House. The Senate has already passed the measure with the gun amendment attached.

    The legislation, to offset the certain Democratic gain from D.C., would also add a fourth district to Republican-leaning Utah. That would increase House voting membership by two, to 437.

    The amendment has D.C. voting-rights advocates in a bind. If the gun language remains, there's concern the bill might be killed by liberal lawmakers who favor gun control. But taking out the amendment could erode support from gun-rights Democrats.

    "Congress has largely regarded the bill as another piece of local legislation," said Norton, one of only a few lawmakers at the hearing. "However, federal police must operate largely under the district's gun laws and have testified that these gun laws have been critical to homeland security."

    Assistant U.S. Capitol Police Chief Daniel Nichols told lawmakers Friday he could not comment specifically on pending legislation. But he said allowing residents to carry guns outside their homes would "complicate" law enforcement efforts.

    As of right now, police are trained to view anyone carrying a weapon as a threat, he said. Ensign's amendment would allow residents to carry guns to and from a place of business.

    Ensign's office did not immediately return a request for comment. The amendment comes after the Supreme Court affirmed in June that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to private citizens and ruled that D.C.'s 32-year-old handgun ban was unconstitutional.

    Since then, D.C. officials have rewritten their gun laws to comply with the ruling. But the National Rifle Association and other lawmakers, including Ensign, say the city continues to violate the constitution by imposing numerous restrictions on gun ownership.

    But Nickles argued the amendment would make Washington's gun regulations among the most lax in the nation, making it much harder for law enforcement to protect dignitaries who frequently travel by motorcade through the city.

    He also criticized a provision that would allow D.C. residents to buy handguns in Maryland and Virginia without going through a federally licensed dealer in D.C. -- something that is not allowed anywhere else in the country.

    Rep. Donna Edwards, D-Md., said the costs of extra background checks would place a "tremendous burden" on the state at a time when its budget is already strained.


    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •