Guns still elusive for D.C. residents

Los Angeles Times ^ | July 5, 2008 | Vimal Patel

[Zakeet]

Those looking to buy firearms after the Supreme Court ruling against the District of Columbia's gun ban are out of luck. Purchasing regulations have yet to be written.

Days after the Supreme Court ruled that residents of the nation's capital can keep handguns at home for self-defense, George Harley walked out of a Maryland gun shop disheartened, his goal of legally having a gun to protect his family put on hold.

Since before Harley, 30, was born, the District of Columbia has restricted its residents' ownership of handguns. After the high court's ruling was handed down late last month, Harley was one of several dozen Washington residents who came to the Atlantic Guns shop in Silver Spring, Md., just over the district line, to ask about buying a gun.

They were all told the same thing: Go home.

"Presently, there's no change to anything," said Atlantic Guns owner Stephen Schneider. "There's no procedure in place for them to purchase a handgun because regulations haven't been written."

Washington Mayor Adrian M. Fenty has vowed to have the strictest gun laws possible, and the city's plans for the registration process, expected to be released in about two weeks, is being closely watched.

[Snip]

Even after guidelines are finalized, though, it's unclear how long it will take for Washingtonians to legally have handguns in their homes.

For instance, the federal ban on the transport of firearms across state lines means that gun shops outside the district could sell to a city resident, but the buyer could not leave the store with a weapon. The seller would have to transfer the gun to a federally licensed dealer in Washington, and the buyer would pick it up there. But there are no federally licensed gun shops in the district, police said.

[Zakeet]

Harley, who lives in northeast Washington, just inside the district ... hears about home-invasion robberies. And if something like that happens in his home, he said, he wants the security of a firearm to protect his wife and his 5-year-old daughter.

"Sit and wait," he said. "That's all we can do."

[Graybeard58]

One of the local hoods might sell him one.

[PalmettoMason]

Seems that in the absence of regulations pertaining to legal activity, there would be..ahem... NO CONTROLLING LEGAL AUTHORITY. Therefore... anything goes.

I'll bet they'd get off their butts and get some regulations in place if that were the case.

[Sender]

Interesting, there are no licensed gun stores in DC...that does make it hard to legally purchase a gun. And I’ll bet the first brave soul to open one will be the most strictly-scrutinized, anally-monitored, harassed and regulated business in DC.

[stevie_d_64]

I don’t understand why no one knew this was going to be the case...

Did anyone think the “district was going to roll over overnight???

Not that I am rubbing anyones nose in it, but the district was given permission by that very same court to continue to have reasonable, and responsible regulations in place before the residents were to be allowed to posess functioning guns in thier homes...

And you were not to do so unless they knew about them...(i.e.: registration)

—sigh—

[doodad]

The 2nd does not contain any purchasing regulations. The should have at least gotten an AR-15 while he was there.

[stevie_d_64]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbnSrD5O8d4

I’m sure a bunch of us have seen abndor heard about this little diddy...

The quality of the video is poor, but the audio is priceless...

It needs to be almost a daily reminder to what it really is ALL about...

Schumers absolute disdane needs to be slapped off that mug like there is no tomorrow...

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

If there’s no regulation, what’s the problem? /rhet

[Reagan Man]

The gestapo is still at work in DC.

[Condor51]

the federal ban on the transport of firearms across state lines means that gun shops outside the district could sell to a city resident, but the buyer could not leave the store with a weapon. The seller would have to transfer the gun to a federally licensed dealer in Washington, and the buyer would pick it up there. But there are no federally licensed gun shops in the district, police said.

(Yossarian) "That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.
"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.

© Joesph Heller, Catch-22, 1961

[Kolb]

I’d buy a handgun from an individual outside of DC, not a dealer, and take my chances with an unregistered weapon.

[capt. norm]

For instance, the federal ban on the transport of firearms across state lines

I think he made up that ban out of thin air. I've never heard of such thing.

[calex59]

Actually these people are letting DC get away with BS. The old regs are no good, immediately null and void as of the ruling by the Supremes. No new regs have been written that means they follow the federal regs until neg city regulations are written. These gun dealers are being cowards and letting themselves be buffaloed. If they continue with this farce that means DC can ban guns simply by refusing to write new regs. Let me repeat, no regs means federal regulations are to be followed. Someone needs to go to court and get a court order forcing DC to honor the Supremes decision.

[Chinstrap61a]

I would recommend the Nation's Gun Show, Chantilly Virginia (right next to the Dulles International Airport) 25, 26, 27 July.

Celebrate individual freedom and buy a firearm!

[fernwood]

Atlantic Guns would lose their FFL license if they sold handguns to out of state people. The 1968 laws applies and also MD state law applies. The residents can do a private transaction from a VA resident( not a FFL holder) and legally buy a handgun and transport back to DC. DC will have retroactive amnesty on handgun registration.

The problem with buying a gun on the street is that that gun may have been used in a crime and the new owner could be charged with the crime that that gun was involved. A simple ballistic check will probably be done on all guns that are to be registered.

A law abiding DC citizen does not want to be charged with a murder that the gun was involved in. So they do want to buy from a hopefully decent seller in VA.

[marktwain]

See this post for a discussion of the errors in th LA Times article:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2041268/posts

[SECURE AMERICA]

If I was a citizen of DC and the locality would restrict my rights under the Constitution I would move.
Why on earth would anyone want to live there in the first place?

[Cailleach]

Is there really a federal ban on the transport of firearms across state lines?

If so...how do people move?

[Cailleach]

nevermind, just went to the link at post 16. Thanks :)

[tvdog12345]

The problem with buying a gun on the street is that that gun may have been used in a crime and the new owner could be charged with the crime that that gun was involved. A simple ballistic check will probably be done on all guns that are to be registered.

A law abiding DC citizen does not want to be charged with a murder that the gun was involved in.

A guy I know told me he could get me a gun real cheap if I didn't care that it had been used in a murder. A gun that hadn't been used to kill somebody would cost somewhat more, he said.

[calex59]

I was talking about buying in DC itself. I know they have very few gun dealers, if any, in DC but if they do the residents are allowed to buy whether the politicians of DC admit it or not. As for the federal law about buying out of state and taking it back to your state, it should be struck down. It is useless and only hampers lawful citizens. Also, any resident that has a rifle or shotgun in their homes in DC are now allowed to put them together and keep them ready for self defense. They don't need DCs permission to do it, the Supremes ruling has made that law null and void also.

We need to take many more cases to court, the NRA and others are working on that now. In the future, if we can keep the likes of Obama out of the WH and elect more conservative legislators, we will have more of these restictive laws struck down.

[marktwain]

“As for the federal law about buying out of state and taking it back to your state, it should be struck down. It is useless and only hampers lawful citizens.”

---

IMHO, that is what it was designed to do. It was designed to make it easier for individual states to violate their citizens Second Amendment rights.

[esopman]

The many Schumers in this national play will never leave the stage - at least not vertically and by their own volition. The short answer is to press every lawsuit possible in every venue possible.

As far as needing a weapon in DC, easy done: Slip down to the Chantilly show, pick up a couple of large caliber black powder revolvers and learn to use them. OK, so its only 12 rounds. Twelve .44 ball rounds will dissuade most anyone who needs it. Better judged by 12...(though not necessarily in DC)...

[Beelzebubba]

If we had any alert congress critters, they have a fine election year law that provided that it was legal to purchase in a state bordering one’s state (or District) of residence, if there were not at least two competing FFL options in one’s home state.

Maybe even an executive order would do the trick.

[calex59]

IMHO, that is what it was designed to do. It was designed to make it easier for individual states to violate their citizens Second Amendment rights.

I realize that, and your statement holds true for all repressive gun laws, which is to say 99.9 percent of all gun laws.

[advance_copy]

If I was a citizen of DC and the locality would restrict my rights under the Constitution I would move. Why on earth would anyone want to live there in the first place?

Now you see the entire point of the DC gun laws in the first place. It is to ensure that all residents of the Capital of the United States are either those who ardently support gun control (i.e. Democrats) or those who don't give a hoot what the law says (i.e. Democrats). The latter being those who make it unsafe to live where the only people who have guns are evil thugs (i.e. Democrats).

[relee]

... Why on earth would anyone want to live there in the first place? ...

Short commute to a high pay job, lots of good restaurants, museums, parks, etc.

[Still Thinking]

"There's no procedure in place for them to purchase a handgun because regulations haven't been written."

This has a "That which is not mandatory is prohibited" feel about it. We're now supposed to assume that anything we wish to do it prohibited unless our employees the government have deigned to write down the details of the manner in which we are allowed to do it???? I see a big opportunity for Fenty here. All he has to do is not write the regs and when he gets hauled back to SCOTUS all he has to do is say "We're not prohibiting anything. Show me the law where we prohibit anything"

[Still Thinking]

There is no such thing. What he’s talking about is that if you’re from Oklahoma, you can’t go into a FFL in Texas and buy, or if you do, like the article says, he has to transfer it to an OK FFL, who will then transfer it to you as if he had sold it to you. I think it’s the home state FFL that is supposed to do the background check.

[Hawthorn]

> The residents can do a private transaction from a VA resident( not a FFL holder) and legally buy a handgun and transport back to DC. <

Nope, that’s also illegal. A private citizen is allowed to transfer a handgun ONLY to a resident of his own state. Applies to everybody — whether or not they have a FFL.

[marktwain]

“If we had any alert congress critters, they have a fine election year law that provided that it was legal to purchase in a state bordering one’s state (or District) of residence, if there were not at least two competing FFL options in one’s home state.”

---

I’d like it a lot better if they would just rescind NFA 34, GCA 68, and the Brady act.

[Sender]

Her testimony is powerful. You can tell the "legislators" in attendance were not amused nor were they comfortable.

"The Second Amendment is not about duck hunting. The Second Amendment is basically so that we can protect ourselves from all of you guys up there."

Game, set, match.

[John Williams]

“One of the local hoods might sell him one.”

And he’d probably buy it, if he didn’t care about the consequences of having an illegally-purchased firearm and the example D.C. police will make out of him for doing so.

[El Gato]

I think he made up that ban out of thin air. I've never heard of such thing

He just stated it poorly. You can't purchase a firearm from a dealer in another state from your state of residence, with some exceptions. Long arms you can purchase in an adjacent state, but not handguns. You can of course transport your firearms anywhere where possession is legal, and even through jurisdictions where it is not, provided that the arm is unloaded and locked away out of reach, such as in your trunk. That's thanks to the Reagan era Firearms Owners Protection Act.

[El Gato]

The residents can do a private transaction from a VA resident( not a FFL holder) and legally buy a handgun and transport back to DC.

Uh, no. Federal law prohibits purchase of a handgun from anyone not in ones own state.

US Code:
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 922

(a) It shall be unlawful—
...
(3) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to transport into or receive in the State where he resides (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, the State where it maintains a place of business) any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State, except that this paragraph (A) shall not preclude any person who lawfully acquires a firearm by bequest or intestate succession in a State other than his State of residence from transporting the firearm into or receiving it in that State, if it is lawful for such person to purchase or possess such firearm in that State, (B) shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a firearm obtained in conformity with subsection (b)(3) of this section, and (C) shall not apply to the transportation of any firearm acquired in any State prior to the effective date of this chapter;
...
(b) It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver—
...
(3) any firearm to any person who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the licensee’s place of business is located, except that this paragraph (A) shall not apply to the sale or delivery of any rifle or shotgun to a resident of a State other than a State in which the licensee’s place of business is located if the transferee meets in person with the transferor to accomplish the transfer, and the sale, delivery, and receipt fully comply with the legal conditions of sale in both such States (and any licensed manufacturer, importer or dealer shall be presumed, for purposes of this subparagraph, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to have had actual knowledge of the State laws and published ordinances of both States), and (B) shall not apply to the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;

So they could buy a long gun out of the district, but not a handgun. Not that a shotgun or rifle with as short a barrel as is legal would not do just fine for home defense. (A bullpup design perhaps, which is even shorter and handier than a standard rifle or shotgun. Something like shown in This Video

Mossberg 500 Bullpup

Or if you don't like the Bullpup, or can't find one.

18.5" barrel Mossberg 500, also available in blued steel.

[El Gato]

If we had any alert congress critters, they have a fine election year law that provided that it was legal to purchase in a state bordering one’s state (or District) of residence, if there were not at least two competing FFL options in one’s home state. .

If you had the votes to do that, why not just repeal that portion of the law which forbids sale and purchase "out of state". In this day of "instant check" it's obsolete anyway. The national database is after all "national", and the only reason for the ban on selling to someone from out of state was that you'd have less chance of knowing they were not a "prohibited person".

Maybe even an executive order would do the trick

Don't think so, and George W wouldn't issue one anyway.

[fernwood]

Thanks for the correction.
The “Gun Show Loophole” that the pro gun control people talk about is to make illegal the private sale of firearms that are not done by an FFL. As you can see that restriction works great when gov’t prevents a FFL from setting up shop. No dealers no legal guns.