District of Columbia continues anti-gun agenda

During his presidency in the early part of the 19th Century, Andrew Jackson famously challenged the United States Supreme Court to try and enforce a ruling with which he disagreed.  The high Court, absent any physical means to force a commander in chief to obey its order, could do little in the face of Jackson’s defiance.  The government of the District of Columbia in 2010 is emulating Jackson’s defiant attitude.  The issue involves the extent to which law-abiding citizens in the nation’s capitol – which has long been a city that believes the safest citizenry is a disarmed citizenry – may possess a firearm in their own home.

Two years ago, in a case involving a direct challenge to the three-decades old D.C. gun ban, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did indeed protect a pre-existing individual right to “keep and bear arms”; and that the local government’s complete ban on keeping a firearm in one’s home (or anywhere else) was an impermissible restriction on that right.  In the wake of that ruling, however, the District government has been doing everything it can to avoid allowing the citizens within its jurisdiction any meaningful Second Amendment rights.

For example, when forced to actually take steps a year after the 2008 Supreme Court ruling, the D.C. city council adopted procedures governing the circumstances under which one of its law-abiding citizens might be able to lawfully maintain a firearm at home.  The list of requirements a prospective firearms owner must meet is extensive; and includes, for example:

  • Submitting fingerprints and photographs to the authorities.
  • Permitting the authorities to perform “ballistics identification” tests on the firearm which the citizen wishes to possess.
  • Submitting to whatever tests the District decides are necessary for the authorities to determine if the citizen has the proper degree of “vision” to satisfy the authorities.
  • Completing a safety and training course, and submitting to a test gauging the citizen’s knowledge of D.C. firearms laws and procedures.
  • Telling the authorities in advance where the firearm will be maintained in the home.
  • Reapplying every three years and submitting to a full background check every six.

The above list is neither exhaustive nor does it reflect the many additional restrictions imposed on the physical aspects of maintaining a firearm in one’s home.  For example, the District government requires that the firearm be maintained in an unusable condition unless the citizen can demonstrate that its use is required to meet an “immediate” threat imposed by an “intruder” in their home!  Also, the authorities prohibit the citizen from possessing any handgun that is semi-automatic and which has an ammunition clip capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

So-called “assault weapons” are of course banned.  This category includes a list similar to that incorporated in the 1994 federal gun ban (a law that expired 10 years later); meaning essentially rifles that look nasty but are no more or less deadly than many other hunting rifles, are verboten.

Following the District’s promulgation of these regulations “permitting” its citizens to protect themselves in their homes, Dick Heller (the D.C. citizen who successfully challenged the old gun ban) brought another legal action, claiming this latest permutation was overly restrictive of his rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment and failed to comply with the 2008 Supreme Court opinion bearing his name.  Late last month, a federal judge, applying a standard preordained to uphold a government restriction, found the District’s actions to be “reasonable.”

Hopefully, Mr. Heller will not stop here, but will appeal his case and eventually afford the Supreme Court a chance to revisit this issue and put a stop to the District of Columbia’s Jackson-esque defiance.

79 comments Add your comment

Mark Spence

April 5th, 2010
9:47 am

We MUST protect our right to bear arms,and keep the government out of our personal lives as much as we can.I have been a legal gun owner,permit,safety,and responsibility,for more than 10 years.It is my right,my priviledge and my responsability to protect my family.I support ALL efforts to protect our rights,and will continue to do so.I have always followed the rules set forth for a responsible gun owner,(maintaining my permits,teaching gun safety to my kids,etc),and I do not feel the government should have the right to INTEREFERE in my personal life and/or dictate how I make informed decisions.
Thank you,
MARK SPENCE
-RESPONSIBLE GROWN UP AND AVID GUN OWNER

[...] DC continues its anti-gun agenda… [...]

[...] Read article here. [...]

retiredds

April 5th, 2010
10:22 am

Mark Spence, so what government are you addressing? Is it the D.C. government, the GA government, the U.S. government? Has anyone knocked on your door lately and asked you to hand over your guns? I am a former member of the NRA. About 20 years ago I gave up my membership (when George H.W. Bush gave up his) because I got tired of the dunning for $$$ and its incessant rant that the government was going to take away my guns (which they have been saying for at least 30 years). I came to the conclusion that the NRA was less interested in their favorite scare line than they were in my $$$.

Barack

April 5th, 2010
10:54 am

We should just mandate that all Americans are required to carry guns like healthcare or pay a fine.

DeeSee

April 5th, 2010
11:04 am

I was born and raised in GA, but currently live in D.C. and have lived here for about 5 years. Personally, I am not a fan of the NRA, but believe in the right to bear arms.

I am pretty happy with the way the current gun laws in D.C. The District of Columbia is entirely urban, thus there is no need for people to hunt. So, if someone wants a gun, it should be for protection, and only for protection. Requiring people to be responsible gun owners isn’t evil, it’s just rational.

D.C. is rapidly gentrifying. Twenty years ago, we had the nation’s highest murder rate. Now, we have crime that is pretty standard in most urban areas in the U.S. Despite this, this past week there were two incidents of gang-related violence, killing several people.

People in D.C. don’t want people to be able to run around with assault weapons. And I don’t think anyone should run around Dupont Circle shooting pigeons. Leave us alone.

Jefferson

April 5th, 2010
11:15 am

If a cop points a weapon at you 1st and you can’t shoot him even if you are in fear of your life what good is having the gun.

Do tell.

No More Progressives!

April 5th, 2010
11:19 am

DeeSee

April 5th, 2010
11:04 am

I am pretty happy with the way the current gun laws in D.C. The District of Columbia is entirely urban, thus there is no need for people to hunt. So, if someone wants a gun, it should be for protection, and only for protection. Requiring people to be responsible gun owners isn’t evil, it’s just rational.

So there’s no hunting in DC. Exactly how do you “require” people to be responsible with firearms?

Isn’t it interesting that Wash, DC, Detroit and New Orleans are among the top 10 cities in terms of murder rates per capita?

No More Progressives!

April 5th, 2010
11:21 am

People in D.C. don’t want people to be able to run around with assault weapons. And I don’t think anyone should run around Dupont Circle shooting pigeons. Leave us alone.

Ever heard of the Crips & the Bloods? Not only do they want to run around with AK’s, they do!!!

DeeSee

April 5th, 2010
11:35 am

No More Progressives,

You can’t entirely know if people are being responsible with guns. However, you can, as Barr noted:

Submitting fingerprints and photographs to the authorities.
Permitting the authorities to perform “ballistics identification” tests on the firearm which the citizen wishes to possess.
Submitting to whatever tests the District decides are necessary for the authorities to determine if the citizen has the proper degree of “vision” to satisfy the authorities.
Completing a safety and training course, and submitting to a test gauging the citizen’s knowledge of D.C. firearms laws and procedures.
Telling the authorities in advance where the firearm will be maintained in the home.
Reapplying every three years and submitting to a full background check every six.

I can’t find any information online with rankings of murder per capita. Could you provide that link for me? I don’t think we are in the top 10. Either way, that’s more the reason to have stricter laws…

DeeSee

April 5th, 2010
11:38 am

No More Progressives,

I have been mugged at gun point in D.C. I know people have guns, even before it was legal. That doesn’t mean I need an AK-47 to protect myself from someone robbing my apartment. Just not logical.

DeeSee

April 5th, 2010
11:42 am

No More Progressives,

I have been mugged at gunpoint in D.C. I currently live in posh Dupont Circle, so I am extremely safe here. My boyfriend lives in a transitional neighborhood, and although it is cute, we regularly hear gun shots at night. So yeah, I know people have guns. I just want LESS gangsters with guns.

Hillbilly Deluxe

April 5th, 2010
2:28 pm

Criminals are going to have guns, no matter what the law is. If they don’t think twice about shooting you, they aren’t going to think twice about breaking a gun law. Why not even up the odds?

Bobsmith

April 5th, 2010
2:33 pm

You should also know that in DC, you have to drive to Va. or Md. to take a 5 hour handgun course just to register a shotgun. Yes., it is true.

Leif Rakur

April 5th, 2010
2:52 pm

If the citizens of D.C. don’t like their city council’s efforts to diminish gunfire and improve public safety, surely they can elect a different council.

DeeSee

April 5th, 2010
5:13 pm

Leif Rakur: I can assure you the people lobbying to change DC gun laws don’t even live in D.C. A council-member rallying for looser gun laws would not be re-elected.

Bobsmith: I think owning a lethal weapon of any kind deserves training. If 5 hours can give someone advice on how to not accidentally kill themselves or others, what’s the harm?

bobsmith

April 5th, 2010
5:29 pm

@Leif, the problem in DC is that, at 13 members representing 600,000 the council is too small. My guess is that 80% of the people support DC’s gun laws…yet 100% of the council voted for it. There is never even any voice to have the debate.

bobsmith

April 5th, 2010
5:33 pm

Dee:

DC had a a long gun registration policy for 30 years. The council did not even ask the police chief if there was a problem with legal shotgun owners shooting themselves. There were never any complaints about it. The laws was put into place to drive up the costs, and reserve the right to bear arms only for the richest DC residents. The laws are classist and racist.

The reason for the handgun range time requirement is because DC does not have any public firing ranges, so it forces them to travel outside the city. The Council woman who proposed the amendment happens to reprepresent the wealthiest ward in DC. I asked her the question, and she could not explain why people wanting to own a shotgun needed to learn how to fire a handgun. Can you?

No More Progressives!

April 5th, 2010
5:41 pm

No More Progressives!

April 5th, 2010
5:44 pm

bobsmith

April 5th, 2010
5:29 pm

‘My guess is that 80% of the people support DC’s gun laws…..”

How can 80% of the DC population support the gun laws when they don’t even know they exist?

I can garantee you that the crowd on South Capital St. couldn’t care less……………….

DeeSee

April 5th, 2010
7:37 pm

No More Progressives: I don’t know if that’s the most reliable source in the world. It looks like people just randomly vote on what’s dangerous. I think our murder rate is half that of Detroit…I’ll try to find something rather than speaking out of my ass :)

schmed

April 6th, 2010
8:25 am

Why is it that NY, DC, Chicago have the most intrusive gun laws yet the most gun crime per capita. Then you have states live Vermont, Alaska and NH that have virtually NO gun control and virtually NO gun crime, it’s the people stupid (primates more like it, need I say more) that are the problem, not the guns.

Adam

April 6th, 2010
8:36 am

DeeSee

April 5th, 2010
11:04 am
“The District of Columbia is entirely urban, thus there is no need for people to hunt. So, if someone wants a gun, it should be for protection, and only for protection.”

Apparently you have never been to Virginia. If you choose to visit our Commonwealth, you will see that there are lovely rural areas where fine hunting opportunities exist, with many of these places being a reasonable driving distance from D.C. In any event, we have the right to bear arms for ALL lawful purposes. You may not hunt, but please don’t force your agenda on those who do.

aboch

April 6th, 2010
8:58 am

Schmed,

It should be common sense to know that the biggest cities are going to have the most gun crime per capita. There is no correlation between gun laws and crime when it comes to urban vs. rural areas. It’s simply because when you get millions of people in a smaller area, there is going to be more crime. People living in Vermot, Alaska, and NH are typically more secluded. This doesn’t make them any less stupid (or primitive as you put it) it just means that they have MUCH less interaction with people, thus leading to little person-on-person crime.

Rational Person

April 6th, 2010
9:33 am

Oh, and the New York Metro area is now ranked 8th-safest in the country according to Forbes Magazine. New York state is 46th in gun deaths per 100,000 people.

Rational Person

April 6th, 2010
9:34 am

Gee, Bob, is DC using common sense where guns are concerned? Unlike Georgia?

How UnAmerican!

“The people’s right to be stupid shall not be infringed.”

TINSTAAFL

April 6th, 2010
10:25 am

Sound like very sensible restrictions to second amendment rights. I suggest we go further and apply some equally reasonable restrictions to the first amendment lest we have people making or writing opinions irresponsibly.

To properly exercise first amendment rights, you should be required to:
- Submit a voice sample, and a handwriting sample to the authorities. Your IP address should be frequently updated to protect against improper exercise of the first amendment on the internet.
- Permit the authorities to utilize voice analysis and handwriting analysis on your samples
- Submitting to whatever tests the authorities decide are necessary to determine if the citizen has the proper degree of intelligence to satisfy the authorities
- Completing a government-approved college level english class , and submitting to a test gauging the citizen’s knowledge of first amendment laws and procedures.
- Telling the authorities in advance which venues you might choose to exercise the first amendment in.
- Reapplying every three years and submitting to a full background check every six.
And for good measure, all pens, pencils, and computers should be kept in unusable condition unless the citizen can demonstrate that its use is required to meet an “immediate” threat imposed by disagreement in their home.
Adherence to these rules would surely benefit the public welfare as it would ensure intellectual safety for everybody.

Christy

April 6th, 2010
11:00 am

For decades the city of D.C. had a virtual gun ban, even going so far as prohibiting guns in the homes of legal, taxpaying, law-abiding citizens. That is why the city was dubbed the “murder capitol of the U.S.” When are these anti-second amendment people going to get it – the perps and thugs do not care one iota about your gun laws and to disarm people prohibiting them from defending their families and homes is criminal. Why don’t the courts get serious on crime? No, it’s the revolving door justice system wherein the gangbangers and sociopaths get turned loose out into society to prey on people time and time again. Forget your nitwit “gun laws” as they are totally ineffective in deterrring crime and serve only to make more victims out of the disarmed and helpless. If guns were not to be held in the hands of private citizens under the second amendment, then why was it a requirement that all homeowners have guns for defense when the Constitution was crafted? Why, for decades and decades, was it ok for citizens to have guns with no problem until the liberal, anti-freedom loving revisionists came on board. Quit trying to rewrite our Bill of Rights. Get over it, or repeal the 2nd amendment and see how far that gets. Quit trying to put the reinterpretion spin on our rights.

trapperdan

April 6th, 2010
11:04 am

I get tired of all the back and forth arguments on gun control and the bad guys. Why cant people wake up and realize that if this was a bought the bad guys in your house and you having to protect yourself from them, then the discussion would be a bought crime control, and would not be a bought guns. Our constitution is under attack like never before, if this continues and is not reversed then somebody will start something that the rest of us have to finish and at that time I would like to see the anti gun people in this article still saying that we don’t need AK 47’s and so forth. The constitution gave us the right to bear arms to protect ourselves from not only the bad guys that break into our homes but also the bad guys in congress do not be deceived.

David S

April 6th, 2010
11:47 am

DC has one of the highest murder rates, the highest per student spending – combined with the worst school performance, the highest levels of crime (especially when you throw in all of the government employees and their non-stop theft and violations of the constitution, and it technically is the only place in america run entirely by the Federal Government. Need a better example of government failure?

LeverActionJake

April 6th, 2010
12:02 pm

Trapperdan… The constitution didn’t give us the right to bear arms, we already had those God given rights to self preservation since the beginning of our existence. What the Second Amendment of the constitution gives us is reassurance to those rights. It is our duty to never give up those rights to any menacing thug or tyrant.

No More Progressives!

April 6th, 2010
12:04 pm

Well, maybe you’ll like this one better:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0921299.html

But I know it’s in error; New Orleans isn’t in the top 25, and that’s bull.

mpercy

April 6th, 2010
12:05 pm

DeeSee: agree that NMP’s website was less than authoritative, but how about the FBI’s own statistics?

In 2008, D.C. had 14 murders per 100k residents. The stats aren’t ranked, so you have to scroll through lot’s of cities, and you have to do the math yourself, too to find per capita figures. The highest I’ve found so far is Baltimore at 16.5 and Detroit at 16.1 murders per 100k. DC is certainly near the top. Atlanta is virtually the same size in #of residents as D.C., but has 9.38 per 100k. NYC has a paltry 3.0 murders per 100k residents, Chicago is 8.0.

Oh, just figured New Orleans at 33.4 per 100k. That looks like the winner.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2009prelimsem/table_4.html

No More Progressives!

April 6th, 2010
12:06 pm

Here’s another that seems to favor New Orleans:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_US_city_has_the_highest_crime_rate

Remeber: Statistics don’t lie, but liars use statistics.

DeeSee

April 6th, 2010
12:12 pm

David,

I live in D.C. and do not work for the federal government. Believe it or not, some people here are doctors, nurses, artists, and business people. There are a lot of problems in D.C., but people are working hard to fix them (Michelle Rhee). Teachers unions are a major problem for the educational system. As for being run by the federal government, blame the feds, not DC residents. We desperately want voting rights in Congress, and have no voice nationally. Compared to Atlanta, I think the city runs pretty smoothly. We have excellent public transportation, many free museums and shows, and a great sense of community.

Trapperdam: I don’t think anyone here is anti-second amendment, we just think there should be restrictions on what guns people should be allowed to own. Guns should be used for hunting and protection. Period. There is no reason for any civilian to own an AK-47.

Seriously, some of you guys remind me of this guy:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/

DeeSee

April 6th, 2010
12:54 pm

mpercy: Thanks for the data. Not exactly good to read, though.

MrJake

April 6th, 2010
1:14 pm

DeeSee,

No reason for any civilian to own an AK-47? Is it right for you to tell me what I can and cannot own? I”m a law abiding high school teacher with no criminal record, what I own in my gun locker is none of your business. (No offense):) I teach my students about totalitarian regimes that have surfaced over the years, I sincerely hope you realize that the United States, as great as it is will not last forever, empires rise and fall and have since the dawn of time. Point being, revolutions come and go, if the citizens are not well armed then they have a harder time in starting a new government. Imagine if our Founding Fathers used subpar weapons to defeat the British? Actually, the Colonists had superior rifles to the commmon British rifle but that’s another story.

Don’t blame the actions of a few criminals on the rest of the gun owning population.

Do you blame the car or the driver in drunk driving cases?

I blame the actions of the person, not what they are yielding.

MrJake

April 6th, 2010
1:20 pm

I forgot one more point, just because something is banned, do criminals still have it?

Think the Volstead Act (Prohabition) from the 1920s. Alcohol was illegal, then the Mob started to make bootleg alcohol. Crime went up because the demand for weapons was still there.

Gangstas do not and never will care about gun laws, they will still get the AK’s, M16’s, Mac10’s and whatever their tainted hearts desire. So, why cannot honest law abiding citizens protect their loved ones and families? I live near Los Angeles and there have been some serious riots there the past 40 years, Watts and 1992 Rodney King riots. Trust me, I’d rather have an AK for those situations than a 9mm pistol, since the thugs have the big guns. I want at least a fighting chance if trouble comes my way.

Maybe that’s the problem, honest good people do no go looking for trouble, sometimes it finds us, shouldn’t we be able to defend ourselves?

StJ

April 6th, 2010
1:23 pm

TINSTAAFL, good post. The issue is that the anti-2nd crowd doesn’t see the 2nd as a “right” in the same context as the others. It’s just an error in the Constitution as far as they are concerned and shouldn’t even be there.

Karl

April 6th, 2010
1:35 pm

… the order that Jackson disagreed with didn’t order the President to do anything – and the Trail of Tears, which this is almost certainly referring to, happened after Jackson was no longer the president.

vartika

April 6th, 2010
2:13 pm

There isn’t an iota of doubt as who is responsible for terrorism in India. It is India itself. Thats right India is busy engaging in terrorism on her own country so she can score brownie points against neighbor Pakistan.
All leading law enforcement agencies openly work for exiled underworld don Dawood Ibrahim – who supposedly is in Sonia
Gandhi’s ( former PM’s Widow) first circle of close friends.
So much so that even NDTV ( India’s leading media house) is hand in glove as well. All senior police officials i.e. Director
General level staff are but employees of this vast underworld network that thrives openly in a lawless jungle state that is
India. And underworld don Dawood Ibrahim operates all of India through his right hand man Muthappa Rai.
And there’s one man – an IIM Graduate ( India’s Harvard) who is now being chased all over the country by this crime network
in a desperate bid to shut him up from blowing the whistle. And in the process have exposed the most unusually brilliant
psychological alternative means to operate in India. And is the reason why we haven’t heard of any underworld story from
India in the past decade and a half. Read this ghastly truth of Terrorism in India on his blog
http://truthbottle.blogspot.com
All incriminating details and show all pics are available on this blog
And he needs your help to save himself and pronounce the whole truth to the world. His whole family has been killed, his job was removed and the gangsters along with Indian Police openly chase him everywhere he goes!

Willbill

April 6th, 2010
2:23 pm

Dee See, you said, “People in D.C. don’t want people to be able to run around with assault weapons.”

We do not have an “Assault weapons” ban in our state, and I don’t see people “Running around with them.”

You also said, “That doesn’t mean I need an AK-47 to protect myself from someone robbing my apartment.”

An AK is very well suited for self defense.

You went on to say,
“Bobsmith: I think owning a lethal weapon of any kind deserves training.” “If 5 hours can give someone advice on how to not accidentally kill themselves or others, what’s the harm?”

The problem with mandatory training, licensing, and fees is they be used as an means to ban the public in the same way poll taxes and literacy tests were used to keep African Americans from voting.
For example, when right to carry legislation was signed into law the agency that was charged with administered designed a test that was so difficult that law enforcement officers couldn’t pass it. One of there bureaucrats said, just because a bunch of legislators in the State House wants people to be able to carry firearms doesn’t mean we are going to let them.
In D.C., they are trying to make lawful firearms ownership as difficult as they can get away with.
Furthermore, deaths from accidental gunshot wounds have been declining for years, and are now at an all time low in spite of the fact that the nations population and firearms ownership are increasing. According to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control there were 642 deaths from accidental gunshot wounds in 2006 from firearms which was less than two per day nationwide and down 156 from 2005.

You then said,
“There is no reason for any civilian to own an AK-47.”

You obviously have been suckered into believing the gun ban zealot’s “Assault Weapons” lie. The AK that you speak of, as well as ARs, SKSs, Uzi Carbines, Etc. all has one thing in common. They are all semi-automatic rifles that fire one shot per one pull of the trigger just like a double action revolver.
Here are now some inconvenient facts for you. When the Department of Justice compiles statistics by type of weapons they place those scary “Assault Weapons” in with all other rifles. Their statistics show that all rifles including those scary “Assault Weapons” account for only three percent of murders nationwide. In 2008, the total was 375, which was down 78 from 2007. That comes to less than two murders per day nationwide. This not only means that no one in your state will be murdered with a “Assault Weapon” today tomorrow or the next day but this week, the next week, and yes even the week after that. Moreover, over five times as many murders were committed with knives or other cutting instruments, over twice the number of murders were committed with hands, fists, feet, Etc, and more murders were committed with blunt objects like baseball bats, hammers, clubs Etc. than with all rifles combined. Since these weapons are so rarely used in crime, the government has no compelling reason to reinstate the so-called “Assault Weapons” ban.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html

retiredds

April 6th, 2010
2:59 pm

Mr. Barr, according to you and the NRA it is only the law abiding people who have gun permits. Can you explain why Mr. Wilson was issued a permit? And, how many more permit holders like him are out there?

The FBI has arrested a Washington state man on charges that he threatened to kill Sen. Patty Murray, the state’s senior senator and a member of the Democratic Senate leadership team, over her support for President Obama’s health care legislation.

According to an affidavit filed in federal court, Charles Alan Wilson of Selah, Wash., threatened Murray’s life in a series of obscenity-laced messages left on her office voice mail.

“I want to (expletive) kill you,” one of the messages said.

The FBI’s affidavit said that Wilson, 64, had a permit to carry a concealed weapon and had a .38 caliber Smith and Wesson revolver registered to his name.

MrJake

April 6th, 2010
3:12 pm

retiredds, if Wilson had a permit or not and wanted to kill Murray, would a permit stop him?

Do criminals read “NO GUNS ALLOWED!” signs and then turn away or put their illegally owned weapons away?

I can guarantee you, for every rotten apple there are millions more who do the right thing.

If we banned something every time somebody abused it we’d be wrapped up in rubber suits in a white rubber room for our protection.

retiredds

April 6th, 2010
3:26 pm

Mr Jake, my oh my, you are jumping way ahead on your assumption about banning. That is the NRA and Bob’s problem, whenever a citizen asks a question the immediate leap is that the questioner wants to ban guns. All I did was ask a simple question. Is there any harm in that. Did I say anything about banning? It seems your meaning making that takes you off track.

jconservative

April 6th, 2010
3:48 pm

This is from Justice Scalia’s majority opinion.

“In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.”

As you see it leaves room for DC to have something in the way of “controls”. See the line “…must permit him to register…”. The Court did not forbid registration. In fact, it says registration is OK. The Court just did not define register. So the DC government is flexing its authority to define register until the Court defines it for them.

David S

April 6th, 2010
3:56 pm

DeeSee – First, there are no “free” anythings in DC. Somebody is paying for these things even if it doesn’t happen at the entrance. Your common sense appears to have been warped by the negative energy eminating from the occupying forces of the Federal Government. You blame the Federal Government, I blame them too. I never said that there weren’t any other folks living in DC. I blamed the problems on the government types working there and running the show. DC is and will always be an perfect example of what a government can do to ruin anything given total control. By the way, you are not a state. You are the seat of the Federal Government. As such, you do not deserve states rights. It would be a conflict of interest. You do however deserve all the rights the rest of us are given by our creator and supposedly protected by the constitution and the government. This by the way includes the ability to freely protect yourself with whatever you feel in necessary. Given the firepower the Feds possess in that city, it is hard not to argue that every citizen in DC should be able to own nukes to safely defend themselves against the current domestic threat.

David S

April 6th, 2010
3:59 pm

As for a sense of community, once on a trip to DC in the 90’s I turned down a small street within clear view of the Capitol building. Standing in the middle of the street was a black man at the front of a very long line of cars. He was selling small rocks of crack that were piled high in his folded arms. Middle of the day, clear view of the capitol. Great city. Glad these folks are wasting our money fighting the senseless war on drugs.

MrJake

April 6th, 2010
4:45 pm

retiredds,

I use ban as a worst case scanario as far as banning a firearm does not stop violent behavior. Criminals if they want will still do what they want to do regardless of what’s in the law books. But what about the other 99 percent of the population? How do they protect themselves? An average 911 call takes a couple minutes, by that time I’m bleeding and or dead don’t I have the right to protect my wife and kids?

Nothing is guaranteed on public safety, you can put a police officer on every street corner yet violence will still exist. It’s unfortunate that Wilson made other concealed carry holders look bad but look at the overall statistics, concealed carry patrons have a much lower crime rate than the average citizen. Statistically speaking, you’re safer to hang out with those legally armed than not.

But what do you do is if you make it extremely difficult for law abiding citizens to protect themselves and live in a country where the government does not have to legally protect you, what do you do?

No More Progressives!

April 6th, 2010
4:54 pm

Willbill

April 6th, 2010
2:23 pm
You obviously have been suckered into believing the gun ban zealot’s “Assault Weapons” lie. The AK that you speak of, as well as ARs, SKSs, Uzi Carbines, Etc. all has one thing in common. They are all semi-automatic rifles that fire one shot per one pull of the trigger just like a double action revolver.

Hate to tell you, Willbill; the most popular AK-47 has an automatic and semi-automatice mode. Automatic weapons have been illegal in the hands of civilians since FDR’s Federal Firearms Act (in the 30’s). The Gansta’s certainly pay attention to it, don’t they?