Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Yesterday- Federal bills would repeal D.C. gun laws!

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2

    Post imported post

    Can we get mandatory reciprocity too!!!

    Federal lawmakers Tuesday introduced bills into the House and Senate that would repeal most of the local gun laws in Washington, D.C.

    The bills come less than a week after Democratic leaders withdrew landmark legislation that would have given the District a vote in the House of Representatives because of Republican plans to introduce an amendment similarly aimed at loosening city gun restrictions.

    The bills introduced Tuesday would eliminate gun-registration requirements in the city and prevent the mayor and the D.C. Council from adopting laws prohibiting gun ownership....

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...l-dc-gun-laws/

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Gloucester, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    Since DC is not a state, this seems like the best way to deal with the tyranny by local officials in DC.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964

    Post imported post

    The Washington Times

    Wednesday, April 28, 2010

    Federal bills would repeal D.C. gun laws

    By Matthew Cella

    Federal lawmakers Tuesday introduced bills into the House and Senate that would repeal most of the local gun laws in Washington, D.C.

    The bills come less than a week after Democratic leaders withdrew landmark legislation that would have given the District a vote in the House of Representatives because of Republican plans to introduce an amendment similarly aimed at loosening city gun restrictions.

    The bills introduced Tuesday would eliminate gun-registration requirements in the city and prevent the mayor and the D.C. Council from adopting laws prohibiting gun ownership.

    It would also bar city officials from enacting laws that would prohibit guns from being carried in public places (whether concealed or openly brandished), that would diminish the authority of the city's police chief to deny concealed-carry licenses, or that would prohibit city leaders from preventing guns from being taken into city buildings.

    "This looks exactly like the bill that was going to be attached to the [D.C. Voting Rights Act] last week," said Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, the city's nonvoting representative. "It is this revised, over-the-top language that caused us to pull the DCVRA from the House floor schedule in the interest of protecting public safety, both in our neighborhoods and on federal property here."

    Mrs. Norton, a Democrat, also said she had expected renewed assaults on the city's gun laws by National Rifle Association-backed members of Congress.

    The legislation was introduced into the Senate by Sens. John McCain, Arizona Republican, and Jon Tester, Montana Democrat. In the House, the bill was sponsored by Reps. Travis Childers, Mississippi Democrat, and Mark Souder, Indiana Republican.

    The bill cites the high rate of violence in the District, where a 2008 Supreme Court decision overturned a 30-year ban on handguns that was considered among the most stringent gun restrictions in the nation.

    City officials began rewriting the laws immediately after the decision, and a District Court judge last month upheld local laws requiring gun registration and prohibiting assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices.

    An NRA spokesman last week said the legislation was necessary because D.C. gun laws remain too restrictive.

    D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty said Tuesday he opposes the newly introduced bill, noting that the homicide rate in the District is at a 40-year low.

    "Any provisions that would permit more guns in the District would be a major step backward for public safety in the nation's capital," he said.


    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605

    Post imported post

    About time!

  5. #5
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358

    Post imported post

    Everyone should be calling or emailing their Senators and Representatives IMMEDIATELY and encouraging them to vote for this Bill. The official name of this bill is:

    Second Amendment Enforcement Act

    and if you click on the above name, it will download a PDF of the official Bill text...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Montague, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post


    D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty said Tuesday he opposes the newly introduced bill, noting that the homicide rate in the District is at a 40-year low.

    "Any provisions that would permit more guns in the District would be a major step backward for public safety in the nation's capital," he said.

    And everyone knows the more legally obtained guns you have in an area, the greater the homicide rate, I mean they go hand in hand right?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Gloucester, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    I wonder if this will permit non residents to carry lawfully? I read through the text of the above PDF, maybe I missed it.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    142

    Post imported post

    I have not done a side by side comparison of theSenaate bill with current law but,

    1. Seems to repeal the so-called assault weapons ban.

    2. Does not have a carry provision and continues the prohibition oncarrying shotguns and rifles.

    3. Not clear if the "restrictive pistol ammunition" provision remains in effect (rounds that penetrate 18 layers of Kelvar -- anyone have a clue what rounds actually are prohibited here beyond the Federal prohibition on armor piercing rounds?

    4. Eliminates the registration requirement.

    5. Allows purchase of handguns in Virginia and Maryland.

    6. Continues prohibition on NFA weapons, but not clear if a suppressor might become legal under the act. Not clear whether "other weapons as classed under NFA, such as pistol grip shotgun under 18 inch barrel would be legal (these are $5 registrationitems not classified as short barrel shotguns assuming the gun has never had a shoulder stock. Can you say Mossberg Persuader with 14 inch barrell?)

    On balance a B+ I think. Still this has no chance of passing as a stand along bill. It can pass only if attached to a must pass bill and if the NRA uses it in its ratings.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    142

    Post imported post

    I emailed the reporter on this yesterday. They are preparing a correction I understand. This got put in up the editorial food chain.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama, ,
    Posts
    1,338

    Post imported post

    ianto94 wrote:
    I emailed the reporter on this yesterday. They are preparing a correction I understand. This got put in up the editorial food chain.
    I don't know, a law that prohibits the city from stopping brandishing would be helpful.
    If you can wave the gun in the air then they cannot object to wearing it safely in a
    holster.
    But needs to say city AND FEDERAL buildings, to include Capital, White House,
    and all representatives offices.
    If you fear the racist violent Tea Parties, then don't anger them, or they will go
    'peaceful immigration reform' on you.

    I for one would love to watch his royal highness dance around about he supports
    the 2nd Amendment, but this is just plain unconstitutional so he has to veto it.
    BHO: "You don't need a gun in the capital, you have Health Care reform!!!"
    Bet the hacker puts that on his teleprompter gets the entire 50 years.:what:



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

    Post imported post

    Since it is hard to understand everything this bill does without having the current D.C. laws in front of you, I tried to list here the current law sections (in red) along with how the new sections (in green) would read if the bill would pass. My own words are in blue. I admit that I got a little lazy with some of the later sections and did not list the changes out. In short, there's not much that would change for people who do not live, own land, or own a business in D.C.

    [line]

    SEC. 3. REFORM D.C. COUNCIL’S AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT FIREARMS.

    1-303.43 currently reads:


    The Council of the District of Columbia is hereby authorized and empowered to make, and the Mayor of the District of Columbia is hereby authorized and empowered to enforce, all such usual and reasonable police regulations, in addition to those already made under §§ 1-303.01 to 1-303.03 as the Council may deem necessary for the regulation of firearms, projectiles, explosives, or weapons of any kind in the District of Columbia.

    This bill would add the following to the end:

    Nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall authorize, or shall be construed to permit, the Council, the Mayor, or any governmental or regulatory authority of the District of Columbia to prohibit, constructively prohibit, or unduly burden the ability of persons not prohibited from possessing firearms under Federal law from acquiring, possessing in their homes or businesses, transporting for legitimate purposes, or using for sporting, self-protection or other lawful purposes, any firearm neither prohibited by Federal law nor subject to the National Firearms Act. The District of Columbia shall not have authority to enact laws or regulations that discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms. Nothing in the previous two sentences shall be construed to prohibit the District of Columbia from regulating the carrying of firearms by a person, either concealed or openly, other than at the person’s dwelling place, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person.

    [line]

    SEC. 4. REPEAL D.C. SEMIAUTOMATIC BAN.

    This appears to only change the double-quotes to single-quotes around the term "machine gun". I don't understand how this would repeal the "semiautomatic ban." Maybe they made a mistake in the bill or I missed something.

    [line]

    SEC. 5. REPEAL REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT AND AUTHORIZE AMMUNITION SALES.


    This would change the following in 7-2502.01:


    "(a) Except as otherwise provided in this unit, no person or organization in the District of Columbia ("District") shall receive, possess, control, transfer, offer for sale, sell, give, or deliver any destructive device, and no person or organization in the District shall possess or control any firearm, unless the person or organization holds a valid registration certificate for the firearm."

    to

    "(a) Except as otherwise provided in this unit, no person or organization in the District of Columbia ("District") shall receive, possess, control, transfer, offer for sale, sell, give, or deliver any destructive device, and no person or organization in the District shall possess or control any firearm described in subsection (c).

    <subsection (b) remains intact>

    (c) A firearm described in this subsection is any of the following:
    (1) A sawed-off shotgun.
    (2) A machine gun.
    (3) A short-barreled rifle."


    [line]

    The title of 7-2502.01 would change from "Registration requirements" to "Firearm Possession".

    [line]

    The following would be repealed:

    § 7-2502.02. Registration of certain firearms prohibited.
    § 7-2502.03. Qualifications for registration; information required for registration.
    § 7-2502.04. Fingerprints and photographs of applicants; application in person required.
    § 7-2502.05. Application signed under oath; fees.
    § 7-2502.06. Time for filing registration applications.
    § 7-2502.07. Issuance of registration certificate; time period; corrections.
    § 7-2502.07a. Expiration and renewal of registration certificate.
    § 7-2502.08. Duties of registrants.
    § 7-2502.09. Revocation of registration certificate.
    § 7-2502.10. Procedure for denial and revocation of registration certificate.
    § 7-2502.11. Information prohibited from use as evidence in criminal proceedings.


    [line]

    Paragraph 13 would be removed from 7-2501.01:
    (13) "Registration certificate" means a certificate validly issued pursuant to this unit evincing the registration of a firearm pursuant to this unit.

    It does not say that 13A is removed, so I presume that this would stay:
    (13A) "Restricted pistol bullet" means any bullet designed for use in a pistol which, when fired from a pistol with a barrel of 5 inches or less in length, is capable of penetrating commercially available body armor with a penetration resistance equal to or greater than that of 18 layers of kevlar.

    [line]

    7-2504.01(a) would be changed from:

    (a) No person or organization shall manufacture any firearm, destructive device or parts thereof, or ammunition, within the District; provided, that persons holding registration certificates may engage in hand loading, reloading, or custom loading ammunition for his registered firearms; provided further, that such person may not hand load, reload, or custom load ammunition for others.

    to

    (a) No person or organization shall manufacture any firearm, destructive device or parts thereof, or ammunition, within the District, except that a person may engage in hand loading, reloading, or custom loading of ammunition for firearms lawfully possessed under this Act.

    [line]

    7-2504.01(b) would be changed from:

    (b) No person or organization shall engage in the business of selling, purchasing, or repairing any firearm, destructive device, parts therefor, or ammunition, without first obtaining a dealer's license, and no licensee shall engage in the business of selling, purchasing, or repairing firearms which are unregisterable under § 7-2502.02, destructive devices, or parts therefor, except pursuant to a valid work or purchase order, for those persons specified in § 7-2502.01(b)(1).

    to

    (b) No person or organization shall engage in the business of selling, purchasing, or repairing any firearm, destructive device, parts therefor, or ammunition, without first obtaining a dealer's license, and no licensee shall engage in the business of selling, purchasing, or repairing firearms which are prohibited under section 7-2502.01.

    [line]

    7-2504.02(a) would be changed from:

    (a) Any person eligible to register a firearm under this unit and who, if a registrant, has not previously failed to perform any of the duties imposed by this unit; and, any person eligible under the acts of Congress to engage in such business, may obtain a dealer's license, or a renewal thereof, which shall be valid for a period of not more than 1 year from the date of issuance. The license required by this unit, shall be in addition to any other license or licensing procedure required by law.

    to

    (a) Any person not otherwise prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal or District law, or from being licensed under section 923 of title 18, United States Code, may obtain a dealer's license, or a renewal thereof, which shall be valid for a period of not more than 1 year from the date of issuance. The license required by this unit, shall be in addition to any other license or licensing procedure required by law.

    [line]

    7-2504.02(b)(1) would be changed from:

    (1) The information required by § 7-2502.03(a);

    to

    (1) The applicant's name;


    [line]

    7-2504.03(b) would be changed from:

    (b) The Chief shall approve or deny an application for a registration certificate within a 60-day period beginning on the date the Chief receives the application, unless good cause is shown, including nonreceipt of information from sources outside the District government. The Chief may hold in abeyance an application where there is any firearms revocation proceeding pending against such person.

    to

    (b) The Chief shall approve or deny an application for a dealer's license within a 60-day period beginning on the date the Chief receives the application, unless good cause is shown, including nonreceipt of information from sources outside the District government. The Chief may hold in abeyance an application where there is any firearms revocation proceeding pending against such person.

    [line]

    7-2504.04(a)(3)(B)(i) would be changed from:

    (i) Serial number, caliber, make, model, manufacturer's number (if any), dealer's identification number (if any), registration certificate number (if any) of the firearm, and similar descriptive information for destructive devices;

    to

    (i) Serial number, caliber, make, model, manufacturer's number (if any), dealer's identification number (if any), and similar descriptive information for destructive devices;

    [line]

    7-2504.04(a)(3)(B)(iv) would be changed from:

    (iv) Date and time received by the licensee and in the case of repair, returned to the person holding the registration certificate; and

    to

    (iv) Date and time received by the licensee and in the case of repair, returned to the person from whom it was received for repair; and

    [line]

    7-2504.04(a)(3)(C)(i) would be changed from:

    (i) Serial number, caliber, make, model, manufacturer's number or dealer's identification number, and registration certificate number (if any) of the firearm or similar information for destructive devices;

    to

    (i) Serial number, caliber, make, model, manufacturer's number or dealer's identification number, or similar information for destructive devices;

    [line]

    7-2504.04(a)(3)(C)(ii) would be changed from:

    (ii) Name, address, registration certificate number or license number (if any) of the person or organization to whom transferred;

    to

    (ii) Name, address, license number (if any) of the person or organization to whom transferred;

    [line]

    7-2504.04(a)(3)(D) and 7-2504.04(a)(3)(E) would be removed:
    (included here for reference)


    (D) Ammunition received into inventory including the:
    (i) Brand and number of rounds of each caliber or gauge;
    (ii) Name, address, and dealer's license or registration number (if any) of the person or organization from whom received;
    (iii) Consideration given for the ammunition; and
    (iv) Date and time of the receipt of the ammunition;
    (E) Ammunition sold or transferred including:
    (i) Brand and number of rounds of each caliber or gauge;
    (ii) Name, address and dealer's license number (if any) of the person or organization to whom sold or transferred;
    (iii) If the purchaser or transferee is not a licensee, the registration certificate number of the firearm for which the ammunition was sold or transferred;
    (iv) The consideration for the sale and transfer; and
    (v) The date and time of sale or transfer.

    [line]

    7-2504.06(c)(1) and (2) would change from:

    (1) If he is eligible to register firearms pursuant to this unit, register such firearms in his inventory as are capable of registration pursuant to this unit;
    (2) Peaceably surrender to the Chief any firearms in his inventory which he does not register, and all destructive devices in his inventory in the manner provided for in § 7-2507.05;


    to

    (1) Lawfully remove from the District all destructive devices in his inventory, or peaceably surrender to the Chief all destructive devices in his inventory in the manner provided in section 7-2507.05; and
    (2) Lawfully dispose, to himself or to another, any firearms and ammunition in his inventory.


    [line]

    7-2504.07(b) would change from:

    (b) No licensee shall knowingly employ any person in his establishment if such person would not be eligible to register a firearm under this unit.

    to

    (b) No licensee shall knowingly employ any person in his establishment if such person is prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal or District law.

    [line]

    7-2505.02(a) would change from:

    (a) Any person or organization eligible to register a firearm may sell or otherwise transfer ammunition or any firearm, except those which are unregisterable under § 7-2502.02, to a licensed dealer.

    to

    (a) Any person or organization not prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal or District law may sell or otherwise transfer ammunition or any firearm, except those which are prohibited under section 7-2502.01, to a licensed dealer.

    [line]

    7-2505.02(b) would change from:

    (b) Any licensed dealer may sell or otherwise transfer:

    (1) Ammunition, excluding restricted pistol bullets, and any firearm or destructive device which is lawfully a part of such licensee's inventory, to any nonresident person or business licensed under the acts of Congress and the jurisdiction where such person resides or conducts such business;
    (2) Ammunition, including restricted pistol bullets, and any firearm or destructive device which is lawfully a part of such licensee's inventory to:
    (A) Any other licensed dealer;
    (B) Any law enforcement officer or agent of the District or the United States of America when such officer or agent is on duty, and acting within the scope of his duties when acquiring such firearm, ammunition, or destructive device, if the officer or agent has in his possession a statement from the head of his agency stating that the item is to be used in such officer's or agent's official duties.

    to

    (b) Any licensed dealer may sell or otherwise transfer:

    (1) Ammunition, excluding restricted pistol bullets, and any firearm or destructive device which is lawfully a part of such licensee's inventory, to any nonresident person or business licensed under the acts of Congress and the jurisdiction where such person resides or conducts such business;
    (2) Ammunition, including restricted pistol bullets, and any firearm or destructive device which is lawfully a part of such licensee's inventory to:
    (A) Any other licensed dealer;
    (B) Any law enforcement officer or agent of the District or the United States of America when such officer or agent is on duty, and acting within the scope of his duties when acquiring such firearm, ammunition, or destructive device, if the officer or agent has in his possession a statement from the head of his agency stating that the item is to be used in such officer's or agent's official duties.
    (3) Ammunition, excluding restricted pistol bullets, to any person not otherwise
    prohibited from possessing or receiving ammunition


    [line]

    7-2505.02(c) would change from:

    (c) Any licensed dealer may sell or otherwise transfer a firearm except those which are unregisterable under § 7-2502.02, to any person or organization possessing a registration certificate for such firearm; provided, that if the Chief denies a registration certificate, he shall so advise the licensee who shall thereupon: (1) withhold delivery until such time as a registration certificate is issued, or, at the option of the purchaser; (2) declare the contract null and void, in which case consideration paid to the licensee shall be returned to the purchaser; provided further, that this subsection shall not apply to persons covered by subsection (b) of this section.

    to

    (c) Any dealer licensed under the provisions of this Act may sell or otherwise transfer a firearm to any person or organization not otherwise prohibited from possessing or receiving such firearm under Federal or District law. In the case of a sale or transfer of a handgun to a resident of the District of Columbia, a federally licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer of firearms in Maryland or Virginia shall be treated as a dealer licensed under the provisions of this Act for purposes of the previous sentence, notwithstanding section 922(b)(3) of title 18, United States Code, if the transferee meets in person with the transferor to accomplish the transfer, and the sale, deliv6
    ery, and receipt fully comply with the legal conditions of sale in both the District of Columbia and the jurisdiction in which the transfer occurs.


    [line]

    7-2505.02(d) and (e) would be removed.
    (included here for reference)


    (d) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (e) of this section, no licensed dealer shall sell or otherwise transfer ammunition unless:

    (1) The sale or transfer is made in person; and
    (2) The purchaser exhibits, at the time of sale or other transfer, a valid registration certificate, or in the case of a nonresident, proof that the weapon is lawfully possessed in the jurisdiction where such person resides;
    (3) The ammunition to be sold or transferred is of the same caliber or gauge as the firearm described in the registration certificate, or other proof in the case of nonresident; and
    (4) The purchaser signs a receipt for the ammunition which (in addition to the other records required under this unit) shall be maintained by the licensed dealer for a period of 1 year from the date of sale.

    (e) Any licensed dealer may sell ammunition to any person holding an ammunition collector's certificate on September 24, 1976; provided, that the collector's certificate shall be exhibited to the licensed dealer whenever the collector purchases ammunition for his collection; provided further, that the collector shall sign a receipt for the ammunition, which shall be treated in the same manner as that required under paragraph (4) of subsection (d) of this section.


    [line]

    7-2531.01(4)(A) would change from:

    (4) "Illegal sale" means:
    (A) Failure to establish proof of the purchaser's residence in a jurisdiction where the purchase of the weapon is legal or ignoring proof of the purchaser's residence in the District of Columbia;


    to

    (4) "Illegal sale" means:
    (A) Failure to establish proof of the purchaser's residence in a jurisdiction where the purchase of the weapon is legal;


    [line]

    7-2531.01(4)(B) would change from:

    (4) "Illegal sale" means:
    (B) Failure to comply with District of Columbia registration and waiting requirements prior to delivery of the firearm to the purchaser when proof of District of Columbia residence is provided;

    to

    (4) "Illegal sale" means:
    (B) Failure to comply with District of Columbia waiting requirements prior to delivery of the firearm to the purchaser when proof of District of Columbia residence is provided;

    [line]

    SEC. 6. REPEAL HANDGUN AMMUNITION BAN.

    7-2506.01(a)(3) would change from:

    (a) No person shall possess ammunition in the District of Columbia unless:
    (3) He is the holder of the valid registration certificate for a firearm of the same gauge or caliber as the ammunition he possesses; except, that no such person shall possess restricted pistol bullets; or


    to

    (a) No person shall possess ammunition in the District of Columbia unless:
    (3) He owns a firearm of the same gauge or caliber as the ammunition he possesses; except, that no such person shall possess restricted pistol bullets; or

    [line]

    SEC. 7. RESTORE RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE IN THE HOME.

    <I'm getting tired, so I'm skipping this section for the time being>

    [line]

    SEC. 8. REMOVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR POSSESSION OF UNREGISTERED FIREARMS.

    7-2507.06(2) is removed, (3) is renumbered to (2).
    (included here for reference)


    (2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, any person who is convicted a second time for possessing an unregistered firearm shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
    (B) A person who in the person's dwelling place, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person, possesses a pistol, or firearm that could otherwise be registered, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.


    [line]

    SEC. 9. REGULATING INOPERABLE PISTOLS AND HARMONIZING DEFINITIONS FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF FIREARMS.

    <I'm skipping this one for now, too...>

    [line]

    SEC. 10. PROHIBITIONS OF FIREARMS FROM PRIVATE AND SENSITIVE PUBLIC PROPERTY.

    <I'm skipping this one for now, too...>

    [line]

    SEC. 11. REGULATING THE CARRYING OF FIREARMS.

    22-4504(a-1) is added:

    (a-1) Except as otherwise permitted by law, no person shall carry within the District of Columbia a rifle or shotgun. A person who violates this subsection shall be subject, as applicable, to the criminal penalties set forth in section 15 and paragraph (2) of subsection (a).

    [line]

    22-4504.01 is changed from:

    Notwithstanding any other law, a person holding a valid registration for a firearm may carry the firearm:

    (1) Within the registrant's home;
    (2) While it is being used for lawful recreational purposes;
    (3) While it is kept at the registrant's place of business; or
    (4) While it is being transported for a lawful purpose as expressly authorized by District or federal statute and in accordance with the requirements of that statute.

    to

    Notwithstanding any other law, a person not otherwise prohibited by law from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving a firearm may carry such firearm, whether loaded or unloaded—
    (1) in the person’s dwelling house or place of business or on land owned or lawfully possessed by the person;
    (2) by invitation on land owned or lawfully possessed by another;
    (3) while it is being used for lawful recreational, sporting, educational, or training purposes; or
    (4) while it is being transported for a lawful purpose as expressly authorized by District or Federal law and in accordance with the requirements of that law.


    [line]

    22-4504.02 is changed from:

    (a) Any person who is not otherwise prohibited by the law from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be permitted to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry the firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry the firearm if the firearm is transported in accordance with this section.


    (b)(1) If the transportation of the firearm is by a vehicle, the firearm shall be unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported shall be readily accessible or directly accessible from the passenger compartment of the transporting vehicle.

    (2) If the transporting vehicle does not have a compartment separate from the driver's compartment, the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console, and the firearm shall be unloaded.

    (c) If the transportation of the firearm is in a manner other than in a vehicle, the firearm shall be:

    (1) Unloaded;
    (2) Inside a locked container; and
    (3) Separate from any ammunition.

    to

    (a) Any person who is not otherwise prohibited by the law from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be permitted to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess the firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess the firearm if the firearm is transported in accordance with this section.


    (b)(1) If the transportation of the firearm is by a vehicle, the firearm shall be unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported shall be readily accessible or directly accessible from the passenger compartment of the transporting vehicle.

    (2) If the transporting vehicle does not have a compartment separate from the driver's compartment, the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console, and the firearm shall be unloaded.

    (c) If the transportation of the firearm is in a manner other than in a vehicle, the firearm shall be:

    (1) Unloaded;
    (2) Inside a locked container; and
    (3) Separate from any ammunition.

    [line]

    All instances of the word "pistol" are replaced with "firearm" in 22-4505.

    [line]

    SEC. 12. INCLUDING TOY AND ANTIQUE PISTOLS IN PROHIBITION AGAINST USING AN IMITATION FIREARM TO COMMIT A VIOLENT OR DANGEROUS CRIME.

    <skipping this one, too>

    [line]

    SEC. 13. PROVIDING JURISDICTION TO OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS TO HEAR CASES PERTAINING TO DENIAL OR REVOCATION OF FIREARM DEALER LICENSES.

    <skipping this one, too>

    [line]

    SEC. 14. REPEALS OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ACTS.

    <self-explanatory>

    [line]

    SEC. 15. SEVERABILITY.

    <self-explanatory>

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Gloucester, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    Seems like any type of carry in publicwould still beillegal though.

  13. #13
    Regular Member virginiatuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    788

    Post imported post

    Pagan wrote:
    Seems like any type of carry in publicwould still beillegal though.
    Technically, a person's private land or business could still be open to the public and it would be lawful to carry there, under some circumstances. So I wouldn't say "any type of carry in public," rather most types of carry in public would still be illegal.

    22-4504.01 would be changed to:

    Notwithstanding any other law, a person not otherwise prohibited by law from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving a firearm may carry such firearm, whether loaded or unloaded—
    (1) in the person’s dwelling house or place of business or on land owned or lawfully possessed by the person;
    (2) by invitation on land owned or lawfully possessed by another;
    (3) while it is being used for lawful recreational, sporting, educational, or training purposes; or
    (4) while it is being transported for a lawful purpose as expressly authorized by District or Federal law and in accordance with the requirements of that law.



    I interpret (2) to mean that a business owner in D.C. could invite people to their establishment and authorize them to carry loaded firearms while they are there. "Invitation" is not defined; I don't know whether the invitation would have to be formal and personal or if a business advertising to the public that "firearm owners are welcome to carry while at our 'establishment'" would suffice as an "invitation." It seems like that would at least open the door for an organized OC dinner in D.C.

    In fact, (4) would seem to allow one to carry a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, on their way to/from that hypothetical OC dinner or friend/family's home, to which one has been invited. Furthermore, a person would be allowed to carry their loaded firearm between residences, their place of business, and other places where they are allowed to possess their firearms.

    We'll see where this goes; I'll try not to be pessimistic; and not too optimistic either.

  14. #14
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    how about some federal bills to reduce gun laws nation wide?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama, ,
    Posts
    1,338

    Post imported post

    Didn't they just pass a law last year that said your driveway is public property?
    So there can be no 'private' land with the council still in existence.

    But to even get a politician to put in writing the words 'carried openly'
    is a win for our side.


  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    142

    Post imported post

    virginiatuck wrote:
    Pagan wrote:
    Seems like any type of carry in publicwould still beillegal though.
    Technically, a person's private land or business could still be open to the public and it would be lawful to carry there, under some circumstances. So I wouldn't say "any type of carry in public," rather most types of carry in public would still be illegal.

    22-4504.01 would be changed to:

    Notwithstanding any other law, a person not otherwise prohibited by law from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving a firearm may carry such firearm, whether loaded or unloaded—
    (1) in the person’s dwelling house or place of business or on land owned or lawfully possessed by the person;
    (2) by invitation on land owned or lawfully possessed by another;
    (3) while it is being used for lawful recreational, sporting, educational, or training purposes; or
    (4) while it is being transported for a lawful purpose as expressly authorized by District or Federal law and in accordance with the requirements of that law.



    I interpret (2) to mean that a business owner in D.C. could invite people to their establishment and authorize them to carry loaded firearms while they are there. "Invitation" is not defined; I don't know whether the invitation would have to be formal and personal or if a business advertising to the public that "firearm owners are welcome to carry while at our 'establishment'" would suffice as an "invitation." It seems like that would at least open the door for an organized OC dinner in D.C.

    In fact, (4) would seem to allow one to carry a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, on their way to/from that hypothetical OC dinner or friend/family's home, to which one has been invited. Furthermore, a person would be allowed to carry their loaded firearm between residences, their place of business, and other places where they are allowed to possess their firearms.

    We'll see where this goes; I'll try not to be pessimistic; and not too optimistic either.
    It is that phrase "as expressly authorized by DC or Federal law" in (4) that gets you. It would be interpreted to require that the firearm be carried unloaded and not accessible to you per DC or Federal law unless you had a license to carry, which this bill still does not authorize.




  17. #17
    Regular Member virginiatuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    788

    Post imported post

    ianto94 wrote:
    virginiatuck wrote:
    Pagan wrote:
    Seems like any type of carry in publicwould still beillegal though.
    Technically, a person's private land or business could still be open to the public and it would be lawful to carry there, under some circumstances. So I wouldn't say "any type of carry in public," rather most types of carry in public would still be illegal.

    22-4504.01 would be changed to:

    Notwithstanding any other law, a person not otherwise prohibited by law from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving a firearm may carry such firearm, whether loaded or unloaded—
    (1) in the person’s dwelling house or place of business or on land owned or lawfully possessed by the person;
    (2) by invitation on land owned or lawfully possessed by another;
    (3) while it is being used for lawful recreational, sporting, educational, or training purposes; or
    (4) while it is being transported for a lawful purpose as expressly authorized by District or Federal law and in accordance with the requirements of that law.



    I interpret (2) to mean that a business owner in D.C. could invite people to their establishment and authorize them to carry loaded firearms while they are there. "Invitation" is not defined; I don't know whether the invitation would have to be formal and personal or if a business advertising to the public that "firearm owners are welcome to carry while at our 'establishment'" would suffice as an "invitation." It seems like that would at least open the door for an organized OC dinner in D.C.

    In fact, (4) would seem to allow one to carry a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, on their way to/from that hypothetical OC dinner or friend/family's home, to which one has been invited. Furthermore, a person would be allowed to carry their loaded firearm between residences, their place of business, and other places where they are allowed to possess their firearms.

    We'll see where this goes; I'll try not to be pessimistic; and not too optimistic either.
    It is that phrase "as expressly authorized by DC or Federal law" in (4) that gets you. It would be interpreted to require that the firearm be carried unloaded and not accessible to you per DC or Federal law unless you had a license to carry, which this bill still does not authorize.


    [Notwithstanding any other law, a person not otherwise prohibited by law from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving a firearm may carry such firearm, whether loaded or unloaded] by invitation on land owned or lawfully possessed by another.

    So there's a [proposed] lawful purpose expressly authorized by District law.

    The proposed change to 22-4504.01(4), when expanded to include the preparatory statement, reads "[Notwithstanding any other law, a person not otherwise prohibited by law from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving a firearm may carry such firearm, whether loaded or unloaded] while it is being transported for a lawful purpose as expressly authorized by District or Federal law and in accordance with the requirements of that law."


    A person would still have to possess a license, as per 22-4504(a) in order to carry a loaded pistol on their person when they are not transporting the firearm to/from one of the enumerated places in 22-4504.01. Such as when they're going between home and land that is not their own and where they have not been invited to carry a firearm (eg. where they work).

    What am I missing?

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    142

    Post imported post

    My point is that transporting a firearm under subsection (4) would still have to be in accordance with the following:

    a) Any person who is not otherwise prohibited by the law from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be permitted to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess the firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess the firearm if the firearm is transported in accordance with this section.


    (b)(1) If the transportation of the firearm is by a vehicle, the firearm shall be unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported shall be readily accessible or directly accessible from the passenger compartment of the transporting vehicle.

    (2) If the transporting vehicle does not have a compartment separate from the driver's compartment, the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console, and the firearm shall be unloaded.

    (c) If the transportation of the firearm is in a manner other than in a vehicle, the firearm shall be:

    (1) Unloaded;
    (2) Inside a locked container; and
    (3) Separate from any ammunition.



    And given this specific statute, carrying a loaded firearm would not be authorized except in the case of subsections (1) -(3).

Posting Permissions

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