We all need to print that out and file it --- next to our unregistered firearms
Posted on 07/16/2008 11:35:55 AM PDT by JZelle
The D.C. Council on Tuesday night approved emergency legislation that will repeal the District's 32-year-old ban on handguns while setting stiff regulations for registering and storing guns inside homes.
Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, a Democrat, is expected to sign the bill as early as Wednesday, which would allow residents to begin registering guns Thursday.
The bill passed unanimously in the 13-member council with minimal discussion, though several council members acknowledged that more work should be done on the legislation, which as an emergency bill will only be in effect for 90 days.
"There will be more work to be done," Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray, a Democrat, said. "I think where we've come in such a short period of time is barely short of remarkable."
D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson, at large Democrat, added one amendment to the bill to add a fee for ballistics testing of handguns before they are registered.
Police are prepared to register guns immediately, Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said, though the process will take weeks or months depending on factors such as whether the gun is new and where it is purchased.
The department will release guidelines for the registration process, including fees for registration, fingerprinting and ballistics testing, once the law takes effect, police spokeswoman Traci Hughes said.
The fees will be affordable so as to "not be prohibitive" of gun ownership, D.C. Interim Attorney General Peter J. Nickles said.
D.C. interim Attorney General Peter Nickles
City officials and lawmakers have said they expect court challenges to the law.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
The DC got that out fast. How fast can this get to a Federal District Court for slap-down?
I wonder how long it will take the DC Government to lose all the gun registration papers?
Next to Detroit, perhaps, the District government is the most hapless municipal government in the country.
It is populated by some of the most unmotivated and inept workers in the country.
And it wants to be a state?
They still have triggerlocks as a requirement.
I’m sure they SHOULD expect challenges to this so-called ‘law’.
“SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”... dipsticks
in·fringe (n-frnj)
v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
v.tr.
1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.
Everything about that bill is "prohibitive" of gun ownership and a violation of the 2nd amendment. There should be no "fee' no criminalization of a gun owner by requiring finger printing, and ballistic testing? What nonsense. That can tie up your handgun for months alone.
Which the SCOTUS decision specifically stated as unconstitutional as well as banning of handguns.
Affordable? Since when do I have to pay to exercise a right?
What is needed are trigger and muzzle locks for that clod Fenty and the entire D.C. Council. Bring their damn jaws together, affix the lock, turn the key, throw key away.
I predict a special master will be appointed by the Court before this is all over (and I can’t wait to see that idiot Fenty’s face when he is informed that he’s gonna have a real-honest-to-gawd MASSA, err ‘master’, lol).
Again, only the criminals have unregistered guns. There is no compelling reason for requiring law abiding citizens to register their guns. Why shouldn't we have the same 'rights' as criminals?
Trigger lock requirements mean nothing unless the law is written to automatically permit entry by D.C. law enforcement to ensure these locks are on firearms. Yeah, yeah, I know that Heller clearly said this provision wasn't permissible. What bothers me most is the required ballistics testing. While fingerprints identify the applicant, and I'll grudgingly accept that, ballistics testing is nothing more than seizure of personal property for the sole purpose of creating evidence. To exercise the 2nd amendment rights, one has to give up one's 5th amendment rights? No thank you.
stiff regulations for registering and storing guns inside homes
I guess the barrels will have to be filled with lead,and no powder in the ammo. Must have permission from your mother and grandmother, guns must be stored in a locked box on the top shelf of the closet.
...is my choice for "D1CK OF THE YEAR"!
Didn't the actually supreme court ruling say that lock on guns is unconstitutional too?
POLL TAX!!
They are going to push to dilute the SC ruling or just not follow it as a practical matter. It is going to take more lawsuits by gunowers to get them to abide by the SC ruling and the constitution.
Kind of hard to acquire a gun without having any gun dealers permitted to do business in the city, you see.
Perhaps they could side-step this problem by allowing DC residents to acquire firearms from within the contiguous states surrounding the District like VA or MD? I think that BATFE might agree that's satisfactory, given Washington DC's unique status as a Federal creation. Also, that would spare the DC City Council from having to get involved in zoning laws for firearms sales. Best of all it would permit residents to acquire defensive firearms immediately. It would be up to VA and MD to permit this sort of transaction unless their state laws are already silent on the issue, I guess.
You can put Memphis, TN on your list. It used to be a nice city, but its fast on its way to being a complete craphole since its being run by a bunch of DC types. The exterior suburbs are nice though - Germantown, Collierville, etc.
So, effectively, the homeowner now must document their situation as opposed to the perp.
The homeowner must be able to prove that the gun had been unlocked in order to operate it or show how they felt threatened.
Yes, both in their oral arguments and the ruling.
There. I fixed it.
You do have the same rights as a crook, Read on:
In Haynes v. U.S. (1968), a Miles Edward Haynes appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of an unregistered short-barreled shotgun. His argument was ingenious: since he was a convicted felon at the time he was arrested on the shotgun charge, he could not legally possess a firearm. Haynes further argued that for a convicted felon to register a gun, especially a short-barreled shotgun, was effectively an announcement to the government that he was breaking the law. If he did register it, as 26 U.S.C. sec.5841 required, he was incriminating himself; but if he did not register it, the government would punish him for possessing an unregistered firearm -- a violation of 26 U.S.C. sec.5851. Consequently, his Fifth Amendment protection against self- incrimination ("No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself") was being violated -- he would be punished if he registered it, and punished if he did not register it. While the Court acknowledged that there were circumstances where a person might register such a weapon without having violated the prohibition on illegal possession or transfer, both the prosecution and the Court acknowledged such circumstances were "uncommon." The Court concluded:
We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under sec.5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec.5851.
You can read the rest here
Semper Fi
An Old Man
I beg your pardon? I think the District government is FULLY as hapless and incompetetent and crooked as Detroit’s. How dare you, sir!
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
IIRC, the Brady Bill bans the sale of handguns to non-residents of a given state. I think you'd need an amendment to that bill to allow DC residents to buy handguns in VA or MD.
Unconstitutional, unconstitutional, unconstitutional... and unconstitutional.
Arrogant pr*cks, all of them, once again proving that it ain’t about guns - it’s about control.
Sure, but DC isn’t a state. Besides, the woman who’s husband that ‘The Brady Bill’ is named after doesn’t consider it a violation to buy and transport guns across state lines without an FFL, seeing as she did it herself when she bought a rifle for her son for Christmas in Delaware. BATFE said they had no interest in pursuing charges, so why not allow DC residents to buy guns in Virginia?
“Guns for me, but none for thee.”
not that I’m defending sarah brady in any way, but it’s legal to buy a long gun from a FFL in an adjoining state. Handguns are another matter.
***doesn’t consider it a violation to buy and transport guns across state lines without an FFL, seeing as she did it herself when she bought a rifle for her son***
We have FOPA ‘86 I believe for that.
The game here is to do whatever they wish while tying up everything in court until they get a USC that will overturn Heller.
We all need to print that out and file it --- next to our unregistered firearms
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.