DC

[rwl1955]

D.C. on verge of new gun law
NRA lobbyist calls legislation 'a joke'
David C. Lipscomb and Gary Emerling
Tuesday, July 15, 2008

* Comment
* Print
* Listen
* Font Size
* Share
* Ask a Question
* You Report

The District, rebuffed by the Supreme Court last month in a landmark decision on its 32-year-old gun ban, could soon be headed back to court over a new gun law that could take effect as early as Wednesday.

The D.C. Council will vote Tuesday on emergency legislation that will require handgun owners to keep their weapons disassembled or under lock and key in what gun rights advocates see as direct defiance of the Supreme Court ruling.

That ruling said the District could not bar residents from "rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."

Some interpreted that language at the time as prohibiting any requirement for gun locks.

TWT Editorial: Gun law shenanigans

 

[dixidawg]

Is it possible tio be held in contempt of the Supreme Court?

 

[Mr Weebles]

This article goes over some of the new rules regarding firearm ownership in DC.

Some of the lowlight include:

• Allowing an exception for handgun ownership for self-defense use inside the home.
  
• If you want to keep a handgun in your home, the MPD will have to perform ballistic testing on it before it can be legally registered.
  
• There will be a limit to one handgun per person for the first 90 days after the legislation becomes law.
  
• Firearms in the home must be stored unloaded and disassembled, and secured with either a trigger lock, gun safe, or similar device. The new law will allow an exception for a firearm while it is being used against an intruder in the home.
  
• Residents who legally register handguns in the District will not be required to have licenses to carry them inside their own homes.

Also,

Registration procedures for a handgun purchased for self-defense in a District residence:

1. A District resident who seeks to register a handgun must obtain an application form from MPD’s Firearms Registration Section and take it to a firearms dealer for assistance in completing it.

2. The applicant must submit photos, proof of residency and proof of good vision (such as a driver’s license or doctor’s letter), and pass a written firearms test.

3. If the applicant is successful on the test, s(he) must pay registration fees and submit to fingerprinting. MPD will file one set of fingerprints and submit the other to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for analysis and criminal background check.

4. MPD will notify the applicant whether all registration requirements are satisfied. At that point, the applicant returns to the Firearms Registration Section to complete the process and receive MPD’s seal on the application.

5. The applicant takes his or her completed application to a licensed firearm dealer to take delivery of the pistol. If the dealer is outside the District, the dealer transports the pistol to a licensed dealer in the District to complete the transaction.

6. The applicant takes the pistol to the Firearms Registration Section for ballistics testing. When testing is complete, the applicant may retrieve the pistol and take it home.

Registration procedures for a handgun legally registered in another jurisdiction, or a handgun possessed in the District but not registered:

1. Applicants bringing a firearm from another jurisdiction into the District must transport it immediately to the Firearms Registration Section, or notify the Section that they will do so within 48 hours.

2. MPD will allow the registration of previously possessed handguns other than those that qualify as “machine guns” under District law (that is, all automatics and most semiautomatic pistols) for the next six months. During that period, the Office of the Attorney General has established an Amnesty policy not to prosecute anyone for unregistered possession of such a handgun when it is brought to MPD for registration, although those who have committed other crimes with firearms of course remain subject to prosecution.

3. Regulations for registering handguns in either of these two scenarios are similar to those for newly-purchased handguns, but do not require the assistance of a licensed firearms dealer.

Rules for transporting firearms legally within the District:

1. When the law allows transporting a firearm legally, the owner must transport it unloaded and securely wrapped in a package, with the package visible in plain view.

Provisions for becoming a licensed firearms dealer in the District:

1. Firearms dealers must first be licensed by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

2. Potential firearms dealers must be eligible to register guns in the District and eligible under federal law to sell them.

3. Firearms dealer licenses will be valid for one year.

4. Applications for dealer licenses will include a sworn or affirmed statement by the applicant, and may require photographs and fingerprints.

5. Firearms dealers must also comply with other District licensing and zoning requirements, such as having a Basic Business License and certificate of occupancy.

They're going to do everything they can to go against the Supreme Court's ruling.

 

[MikeH]

Unbelievable!

 

[Mike-Mike]

OMG

 

[WayneWong]

This stands out like the proverbial turd in a punchbowl

Firearms in the home must be stored unloaded and disassembled, and secured with either a trigger lock, gun safe, or similar device. The new law will allow an exception for a firearm while it is being used against an intruder in the home.

Didn't SCOTUS specifically tell them the gun had to be allowed readily operable for self defense?

 

[Pilgrim]

onerous is a word that comes to mind.

 

[jcr]

proof of good vision

This does not pass with the Americans with Disabiities Act

pass a written firearms test.

Literacy tests aren't allowed as a requirement for voting. Besides, the Disabilities Act protects slow people too.

must pay registration fees

But the Supreme Court said that you can't tax people's rights (Murdock)

submit to fingerprinting.

Forget the ID law for voting that the Supreme Court rulled okay, everyone who votes should be required to be fingerprinted.

 

[Skald]

Should we get a pool going to see how fast DC is brought back into court?

Also, what exactly happens if your found to be in contempt/ignore a SCOTUS ruling?

 

[pdm]

Should we get a pool going to see how fast DC is brought back into court?

Also, what exactly happens if your found to be in contempt/ignore a SCOTUS ruling?

Joe Average gets the hammer dropped on him. Governments less so.

 

[Baystatesuks]

Is it possible tio be held in contempt of the Supreme Court?

You wouldn't need to go SCOTUS. Just go to your local federal court (D.C. Circuit), sue D.C. and move to hold them in contempt at the same time for clearly violating a court order. Any court can hold you in contempt. They should jail the mayor, the district's attorney and the police chief for even trying this manuever. Bet the D.C. inmates would love to have them as roomies for a night.

Also, I believe a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of these laws would be a slam dunk in view of Heller.

 

[seanc]

I think this is EXTREMELY interesting. Essentially what we have here is a showdown.

DC is essentially telling the SCOTUS, "F Off! You are irrelevant. You had your say. Now go away, we don't need you!"

The question is, what could the SCOTUS do about it? If a federal jurisdiction refuses to abide by the legally binding ruling of the highest court in the country what happens then?

How relevant is a lower court ruling anywhere? How / why should anybody pay any attention to the ruling of any court? Basically, if you don't like what they say, just ignore it.

 

[FunYun]

This stands out like the proverbial turd in a punchbowl

Firearms in the home must be stored unloaded and disassembled, and secured with either a trigger lock, gun safe, or similar device. The new law will allow an exception for a firearm while it is being used against an intruder in the home.

Didn't SCOTUS specifically tell them the gun had to be allowed readily operable for self defense?

It is legal to have it ready to go for self defense, but only while being attacked.

"The new law will allow an exception for a firearm while it is being used against an intruder in the home."


You didn't think they meant ready to go before you were attacked did you?









Seriously, this is f***ing childish.

 

[Marcus in the Darkus]

Un-freaking-believable.

** shakes head in disgust **

 

[Coyote33]

I think this is EXTREMELY interesting. Essentially what we have here is a showdown.

DC is essentially telling the SCOTUS, "F Off! You are irrelevant. You had your say. Now go away, we don't need you!"

The question is, what could the SCOTUS do about it? If a federal jurisdiction refuses to abide by the legally binding ruling of the highest court in the country what happens then?

How relevant is a lower court ruling anywhere? How / why should anybody pay any attention to the ruling of any court? Basically, if you don't like what they say, just ignore it.

How relevant are ANY laws at all any more? Are stop signs and speed limits optional now? Is it anything goes in the U.S.? I am really not understanding any of our legal system any longer.

 

[Erebus]

How relevant are ANY laws at all any more? Are stop signs and speed limits optional now? Is it anything goes in the U.S.? I am really not understanding any of our legal system any longer.

I hear you. It seems that people in positions of power or high regard(read celebrities) don't have to obey any law they don't like to. Joe Q Public gets the hammer dropped on him and they get a slap on the wrist if they agree to have their wrist slapped.

 

[packingungal]

Oh, the energy put into trying to control...

 

[Baystatesuks]

I think this is EXTREMELY interesting. Essentially what we have here is a showdown.

DC is essentially telling the SCOTUS, "F Off! You are irrelevant. You had your say. Now go away, we don't need you!"

The question is, what could the SCOTUS do about it? If a federal jurisdiction refuses to abide by the legally binding ruling of the highest court in the country what happens then?

How relevant is a lower court ruling anywhere? How / why should anybody pay any attention to the ruling of any court? Basically, if you don't like what they say, just ignore it.

Well the court has no police power per se. However, based on SCOTUS's ruling, the president (as chief of the executive branch) could send in troops to take over DC and their police force and force them to comply with court's order. Congress could also pass emergency legislation cutting off all federal funds to DC until they comply with the order.

What would be really interesting is if the DC police refused to comply. Then we would have a little "civil" war between the DC police and the US armed forces. That would be some interesting TV at night.

Maybe in the fighting the whole damn place will be destroyed and we can just start over.

A potentially more interesting scenario occurred when SCOTUS ordered Nixon to release information relating to Watergate. Had Nixon refused (he claimed executive privilege), then there would have been a real federal stand off - president versus SCOTUS. The U.S. military would have had to protect the president. Potentially, the whole damn constitution could have gone down.

But Nixon wisely conceded...

 

[calsdad]

I hear you. It seems that people in positions of power or high regard(read celebrities) don't have to obey any law they don't like to. Joe Q Public gets the hammer dropped on him and they get a slap on the wrist if they agree to have their wrist slapped.

Didn't you know the government was above the law? All those pesky rules and regulations and laws are just to keep the unwashed masses in line.

I just saw a pretty good article about this by coincidence:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/19/law/index.html

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

You guys know there's an actual historical example, right? The Trail of Tears.

The Cherokee Nation actually GOT a SC ruling that they couldn't be dispossesed. President Andrew Jackson flat out said, "They've made their ruling, now let them enforce it. Army, move them Indians!"

Regards
John

 

[WayneWong]

I would love to see Fenty and Lanier jailed for contempt. This would pretty much put the kaibosh on any bull sh*t by our beloved czars in Massachusetts post a favorable federal court decision.

 

[maee]

Rules for transporting firearms legally within the District:

1. When the law allows transporting a firearm legally, the owner must transport it unloaded and securely wrapped in a package, with the package visible in plain view.

For example, Christmas paper with one of those stick-on bow ties?? Doesn't seem like the sort of "common sense" law they are always ranting and raving about.

 

[JimB]

lesson

they need to be slapped around a little, i just don't know whoan do it.

But it has to be done.

JimB

 

[Exousia]

Another view...

http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/properties/benson/wpwg_calendar.php?today=2008-07-22