Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 07/05/2010 8:09:09 PM PDT by marktwain
The Supreme Court ruled last week that states and localities cannot ban handguns intended for self-defense. That could overturn local bans, just the way a similar ruling two years ago ended a ban in Washington, D.C.
Hundreds of district residents have taken advantage of the new law. Still, many residents complain it's still too difficult to get a gun in the nation's capital.
Costs And Fees
The toughest thing about getting a gun in the district is finding a gun store. There are none. You have to drive to a neighboring state like Maryland to buy a weapon.
Attorney George Lyon lives in a row house in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of D.C. with his wife, his dog and his Glock. He was one of the plaintiffs in the suit that overturned the original gun ban and shoots regularly. But he says he thinks the regulations are still too strict.
Attorney George Lyon lives in a row house in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of D.C. with his wife, his dog and his Glock. He was one of the plaintiffs in the suit that overturned the original gun ban and shoots regularly. But he says he thinks the regulations are still too strict.
Maryland Small Arms in Upper Marlboro, Md., has its own firing range just outside the Washington Beltway. The shop deals mostly to law enforcement, but hobbyists can buy everything from pistols to a target with a picture of Osama bin Laden pointing an assault weapon at you.
In the showroom, salesman Jack Donald can sell you a gun. But if you have a D.C. driver's license, you'll have to transfer the weapon to someone with a federal firearms license in D.C.
"He takes possession of the gun from us," Donald says. "He charges a transfer fee — I believe it's $125."
Then the federal licensee gives your gun back to you. But you're still not ready to go, Donald notes.
"You have to be fingerprinted, you have to submit photographs, you have to take a class that's supposed to consist of four hours of classroom and an hour of range time with ... a District of Columbia approved instructor," he explains.
That can bring the cost of registering to more than $500. That's a lot of work and expense, but people do it all the time.
Constitutional Rights
Attorney George Lyon lives in a row house in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of D.C. with his wife, his dog and his Glock. He was one of the plaintiffs in the suit that overturned the original gun ban, and he shoots regularly. He figured out how to get a handgun. But, he says, imagine a woman being stalked who fears for her life.
"She has to go to the D.C. Police Department, she's got to take the test, she's got to have the background check, and she's go to wait 10 days while she could potentially be killed," Lyon says in frustration.
Compare that to nearby Virginia, where you can walk out with a gun within minutes of purchasing.
Nevertheless, nearly 1,200 people have registered previously banned guns since the Supreme Court ruling two years ago.
D.C. Councilman Phil Mendelson says that shows the regulations do exactly what they're supposed to do — identify the bad guys, but leave the good guys alone.
"For the Metropolitan Police Department, when they find somebody with a gun, if the person doesn't have a registration certificate, which is typically the case, they can arrest the person on the spot because they know that person has an illegal gun," Mendelson says.
D.C.'s Restrictions True To Supreme Court Ruling
But the man who started the whole hullabaloo, Richard Heller, says the current regulations make a mockery of the court's decision. He's challenging everything, from the cost of the whole procedure to the limit on high-capacity ammunition clips.
That is the thread that runs through every major mass shooting in America since the McDonald's shooting in 1984. The perpetrator uses either a handgun or an assault weapon equipped with a high-capacity ammunition magazine.
- Kristen Rand of the Violence Policy Center
Heller argues that "it's unconstitutional to be forced to pay fees to exercise your constitutional right," and says the only reasonable restrictions prevent sales to felons, children and those with a history of mental illness.
A district court has upheld the D.C. process, but Heller is appealing.
Kristen Rand of the Violence Policy Center says D.C.'s restrictions are true to what the Supreme Court has said: Cities do not have to license weapons deemed "dangerous and unusual." That includes big ammo magazines.
"That is the thread that runs through every major mass shooting in America since the McDonald's shooting in 1984," Rand says. "The perpetrator uses either a handgun or an assault weapon equipped with a high-capacity ammunition magazine."
What's happened to crime? Homicides were down in the first year after the ban ended. That's too soon to declare a trend, but predictions of "blood on the streets" have not come to pass, either. Many gun foes here appear to have actually made peace with the ban on gun bans. Their biggest worry now is that Congress, which can overturn D.C. laws, keeps trying to nix the city's remaining gun limits.
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6..
Heller voluntarily climbed into the lion’s mouth by moving to DC in’93 specifically so he could challenge the ban. I’m glad he didn’t leave.
More FFL holders are needed in DC. The guy that owns the pawn shop down the street here in rural SC only charges $15 to handle a transfer.
I lived in D.C., ‘63-’67. I bought a hand gun during that period in Maryland. A long time Ago but I don’t recall having to jump through hoops to get it.
I reckon a lot has changed in the intervening 40-50 years.
For years , A holes like this have been the down fall of gun ownership, they don't give a damn about gun rights the want to screw you out of as much money as possible. But you can bet he has his I'm a member of the NRA on his wall.
Bingo. The NRA has been a racket since about 1965.
Seems that these restrictions are designed for one reason only - to prevent someone exercising a constitutional right, or make it very difficult and expensive and effectively denying the right to many citizens.
These efforts should be found unconstitutional just as a poll tax is not allowed because it discourages or prevents people from voting.
But it will probably take some time for the challenges to wind through the courts, with many of them ending up in the appellate courts or supreme court.
One of them was called "The Dictator", it could lob a 13" 200 pound explosive shell 2-1/2 miles.
These could be driven within range of any sensitive target in DC and be used to launch a simultaneous and devastating attack on the WH, the Capital , and the Pentagon.
With a little luck, this relatively low tech solution could take out the entire US leadership .
And these stupid comsymps are worried about handguns.
The Gun Control Act of 1968 made interstate transfers much more cumbersome and expensive.
Umm... that is all of five miles! Alternatively one could cross the Potomac to Virginia where gun shops and shooting ranges abound.
GCA68, for one.
One day that too will be ruled Unconstitutional.
I still think only those who pay taxes should be allowed to vote. Period.
Seems to me VOTING and HAVING A GUN are two "rights" guaranteed by the Constitution. So, first, BOTH should be unhampered. But if there is a need to "hamper" either (such as being a citizen to have the right to vote), then the "barrier" should be at the same level of difficulty.
SC Swamp Fox wrote:
More FFL holders are needed in DC. The guy that owns the pawn shop down the street here in rural SC only charges $15 to handle a transfer.
*****************************************************
***FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE***
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
July 6, 2010
WASHINGTON, D.C.
All Black Panther "Poll Security Employees" shall be issued, by no later than November 2, 2010, Class 3 SOT status Federal Firearm Licenses. Requirements of TITLE 27 CFR, CHAPTER II, PART 478—COMMERCE IN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION, § 478.42 License fees, shall be waived.
Hugz-n-Kisses,
Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General of the United States
Why should anyone be able to vote for more taxes on property if they don’t own anything?
I’m not so sure about ownership, It used to be that way originally. But I can see people not owning much (apt rentals in NYC, etc) and still earning certainly enough to pay taxes. If you pay taxes, then you should have a “say” in how they are spent. If you do not pay taxes or are ‘exempted’ then you don’t have a “say”. If we now have 46% that are not paying taxes, then we almost have a majority that could vote another socialist in like Obama so they can STAY ON THE DOLE.
All this mess reminds me of fishing. All the Gooberment give away programs have a hook embedded. Fish and suckers grab all the freebies and never see the hook until it is too late.
IT is impossible, I have been trying for almost 12 months.
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.