Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

(DC) Mayor Fenty, Council Announce New Emergency Legislation to Amend the District's Gun Law
Washington, DC Mayor's Office ^ | September 15, 2008 | Washington, DC

Posted on 09/16/2008 11:44:18 AM PDT by gieriscm

Today Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, joined by members of the Council of the District of Columbia and Acting Attorney General Peter J. Nickles introduced new emergency and temporary legislation to further amend the District’s firearms laws.

“This new legislation is the second step in the process to do all that we can to minimize handgun violence in the District,” said Mayor Fenty. “These actions will continue to protect our citizens from gun violence while respecting the Second Amendment.”

“We believe that any legitimate concerns by Congress on District gun laws should satisfied by the new laws,” said Acting Attorney General Nickles.

The legislation will:

1. Change definition of a machine gun. The definition of machine gun will be changed to track the federal government and several other states. The District will allow semi-automatic firearms while preserving a ban on all automatic weapons.

a. It will now be illegal to possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device that has a capacity greater than 10 rounds of ammunition.

b. the one pistol per person temporary registration limit will be removed and replaced with a one pistol per month limit.

2. Add Child Access Provision. The current safe-storage law will be changed to make its current restrictions recommended instead of mandatory behavior. The Child Access provision will not allow District residents to store or keep any loaded firearm on any premises if they know that a minor is likely to gain access to the firearm unless the firearm is:

a. Kept in a securely locked box, secured container, or in a location which a reasonable person would believe to be secure; or

b. carried on the person or within such close proximity that a person can readily retrieve and use it.

3. Clarify the limited circumstances when a firearm maybe carried without a license. The District’s laws are restated to make clear the limited circumstances when registered firearms may be carried without a license to include:

• Within the registrant’s home; • While it is being used for lawful recreational purposes; • While it is kept at the registrant’s place of business; or • 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.

“The Council continues to move expeditiously to meet the requirements of the Supreme Court decision, keeping in mind the public safety of our citizens, and taking into account the feedback we’ve received over the past few months from residents and legal experts. We will take another step tomorrow at our legislative meeting by considering amendments to the emergency bill now in place, while the Council continues to move ahead to pass a permanent law in the best interests of residents of the District of Columbia,” said Council Chairman Vincent Gray.

“We said in July that these immediate changes to the law are a work in progress,” said Councilmember Phil Mendelson, chair of the Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary. “The amendments I am offering tomorrow respond to the concerns raised after our first emergency bill was acted upon. We will have another hearing this week, and that will better inform our action on permanent legislation this fall.”

"The Department is working closely with the Office of the Attorney General and Councilmember Mendelson to ensure that MPD implements a firearms registration process that fully complies with the Supreme Court decision allowing District residents to keep a firearm in their home,” said Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier. “At the same time, rest assured that we are continuing strong enforcement of criminal gun laws.”


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: banglist; dc; fenty; gun; heller
Hope this wasn't posted already... I did a search and didn't find it.

DC is asking the USSC to slap them again.

1 posted on 09/16/2008 11:44:22 AM PDT by gieriscm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BCR #226; bang_list

ping


2 posted on 09/16/2008 11:45:04 AM PDT by gieriscm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gieriscm
in a location which a reasonable person would believe to be secure

does that mean if i say "i am a reasonable person and believe that on my person is a secure location."

also. i believe that if my front door is locked then that is a "secure location" if it isn't, why is it against the law to "break in" to my house?
3 posted on 09/16/2008 11:49:02 AM PDT by absolootezer0 ( Detroit: we're so bad, even our mayor is a criminal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gieriscm
Notice the bald-faced lie in the Mayor's statement that D.C. "will continue to protect the citizens of D.C." Yeah, right. From the summary the law may be, for the first time, consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Heller. I look forward to hearing from Freepers who have read this proposed law with care.

Congressman Billybob

Click here -- I think you'll be surprised and delighted.

Latest article, "I, Obama"

4 posted on 09/16/2008 11:49:27 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob (www.theacru.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gieriscm

DC deserves it.


5 posted on 09/16/2008 11:52:29 AM PDT by sauropod (There's no stoppin' the cretins from hoppin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gieriscm
introduced new emergency and temporary legislation to further amend the District’s firearms laws

Of COURSE it's an emergency.....why there's 100's of criminals currently awaiting the passing of this legislation.

6 posted on 09/16/2008 11:52:38 AM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gieriscm

DC deserves it.


7 posted on 09/16/2008 11:52:46 AM PDT by sauropod (There's no stoppin' the cretins from hoppin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: harpseal; TexasCowboy; nunya bidness; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; Shooter 2.5; wku man; SLB; ..
Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!
8 posted on 09/16/2008 12:07:50 PM PDT by Joe Brower (Sheep have three speeds: "graze", "stampede" and "cower".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gieriscm

“. . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” I read this somewhere and thought it was important - supposedly pertaining to all law-abiding citizens of this country. Am I missing something?


9 posted on 09/16/2008 12:08:54 PM PDT by bonnieblue4me (You can put lipstick on a donkey (or a dimrat), but it is still an ass!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gieriscm
DC is asking the USSC to slap them again.

Maybe, maybe not. If DC had had the proposed law in place rather than an outright ban, it's doubtful that Heller would have gone to the Supreme Court and even if it had the SC probably would have upheld it. Remember that 4 of the 9 judges felt that an outright ban on guns did not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms and that 2 of the other 5 seemed somewhat lukewarm in their support of gun rights.

I'm guessing that this proposed new law will be approved by the council and probably upheld by the courts, but even though it is an abomination and an infringement on the rights of the residents of DC, we're still moving in the right direction. Gun owners there will have more rights under the law than they did a few short months ago and if we get McCain elected and a couple more moderate to conservative justices on the SC, then maybe we can get a few more victories.

As I see it, the legacy of Heller will be to get rid of the outright gun bans in places like DC, NYC and Morton Grove. We'll still have to fight some more battles before we can get rid of the other illegal gun laws out there.

10 posted on 09/16/2008 12:13:38 PM PDT by elmer fudd (Fukoku kyohei)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gieriscm

The House of Representatives is currently discussing this matter.


11 posted on 09/16/2008 12:37:46 PM PDT by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gieriscm; Joe Brower
We will take another step tomorrow at our legislative meeting by considering amendments to the emergency bill now in place, while the Council continues to move ahead to pass a permanent law in the best interests of residents of the District of Columbia,” said Council Chairman Vincent Gray.
There are no permanent laws that will be in the best interests of the residents of the District of Columbia.
The first attempt to restrict gun ownership (you know, the one that recently got overturned) by "the Council" should've given you a clue, Mr. Gray, but it obviously hasn't. The Council should preserve the rights of the CITIZENS of DC, not infringe upon them.
12 posted on 09/16/2008 12:43:32 PM PDT by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elmer fudd

It IS much better than whan they did after Heller.


13 posted on 09/16/2008 12:43:56 PM PDT by patton (cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: gieriscm

Can someone explain to the rest of us what happens when a government body openly defies a SCOTUS ruling? Does this enter limbo for 5-15 years while it “works its way through the courts” or is there a more abrupt response?


14 posted on 09/16/2008 12:54:12 PM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gieriscm

bttt


15 posted on 09/16/2008 12:54:32 PM PDT by JDoutrider (Pray for our side!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gieriscm
Good ol' DC. What I have to say would get me banned.

comment removed by moderator

16 posted on 09/16/2008 1:02:17 PM PDT by beltfed308 (Heller: The defining moment of our Republic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

“will continue to protect the citizens of D.C.”

Did he say that with a straight face?


17 posted on 09/16/2008 1:06:22 PM PDT by Travis McGee (--- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gieriscm
DC is asking the USSC to slap them again.

Au contraire, this is a huge step to AVOID being slapped up again. These changes largely eliminate three major previously implemented "please slap me again" post-Heller regulations.

Improvements:
- Semi-autos are now legal
- Locks are not required at all times
- Not limited to one period
- Carry at home, business, recreation, and related transport need not be licensed.

This is FAR better than the outright contempt DC was showing. There is now room for future SCOTUS reviews (10 round limit, no general carry), but DC no longer is begging for contempt-of-court jail time.

18 posted on 09/16/2008 1:13:33 PM PDT by ctdonath2 (The average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. - Ratatouille)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elmer fudd
Maybe, maybe not. If DC had had the proposed law in place rather than an outright ban, it's doubtful that Heller would have gone to the Supreme Court and even if it had the SC probably would have upheld it.

You may be right, but it didn't work that way, and now we do have Heller.

Part of Heller was the dicta that "arms in common use" could not be banned. Modern semi-autos are in common use, and now that the AWB is dead, they are all sold with high capacity magazines. This puts high capacity magazines in common use, and banning them comes right up against Heller.

Also, the way I think the court was leaning is that carry bans are not going to fly. While being couched in terms of where one can carry, the the places omitted as being out of bounds for carry are many. Just wait until that comes to the Supremes.

I suspect that carry is going to be the area where a case will come to the SC and Heller will be incorporated against the states. The liberals are going to reluctantly give up on their bans on possession at home, but they will fight carry to the ends of the earth. As I see the 2A, "keep" and "bear" are co-equal.

19 posted on 09/16/2008 1:20:03 PM PDT by CurlyDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: gieriscm
DC is asking the USSC to slap them again.

Actually, this iteration looks a lot like Kalifornia's current regs.

20 posted on 09/16/2008 5:11:39 PM PDT by xsrdx (Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
This is FAR better than the outright contempt DC was showing.

Agreed - DC is genuinely concerned Congress may act, and that got their attention. This version is essentially current California reg; 10rd mags and safe storage provisions.

21 posted on 09/16/2008 5:14:48 PM PDT by xsrdx (Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
Good evening.

What are the odds that Fenty's position on the Heller decision matches Obama's?

5.56mm

22 posted on 09/16/2008 8:30:51 PM PDT by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Congressman Billybob said: "From the summary the law may be, for the first time, consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Heller."

I don't have an electronic copy of Heller handy, so I can't do a search for "arbitrary" or "capricious". I seem to recall those terms being used. What could be more arbitrary than a ten round limit on magazine capacity? If a limit of ten rounds is legal, then wouldn't a limit of TWO be legal?

23 posted on 09/16/2008 9:07:03 PM PDT by William Tell (RKBA for California (rkba.members.sonic.net) - Volunteer by contacting Dave at rkba@sonic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gieriscm

LOL

Scramble


24 posted on 09/17/2008 9:40:30 PM PDT by wastedyears (Single dudes for hockey moms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson