I think you guys are a lot smarter than me, but I'm enjoying this thread immensely. Could you help me with what you're saying here? Are you saying that since business and legal recreation are the only cases where you can have an operational firearm, it means that the law forbids operational firearms for self defense (for example)?
The basic idea is that when a law says "you may not do X except when A, B, and C" it means that you can do it ONLY when A, and C, and NOT when D, E, F, or other circumstances.
"Except for law enforcement personnel described in § 7-2502.01(b)(1), each registrant shall keep any firearm in his possession unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless such firearm is kept at his place of business, or while being used for lawful recreational purposes within the District of Columbia."
DC is trying to claim that this wording contains an "implicit" (implied, inherent) exception for self-defense. But as you can see, it's only implicit in the fevered imagination of desperate anti-gun lawyers.
You can keep a firearm assembled and loaded ONLY at your place of business, or while using it for lawful recreational purposes within DC.
Not at your home, not in your car, not in your nightstand, not on your hip, NOWHERE except at your place of business or while in actual use for recreation within DC.
And unless "self-defense" is considered a "recreational purpose," it's obviously not implicit.
It's possible that they're alluding to the doctrine of competing harms, where if breaking a law PREVENTS a greater harm than caused by breaking that law - such as crossing the double-yellow line to avoid hitting a toddler who wandered into the street - then you're not culpable for breaking that law.
But the problem there is that competing harms is only an affirmative defense, not a bar to prosecution. They can still charge you with crossing the double-yellow and force you to go to court to prove that you did so only in order to avoid the toddler.
Likewise, DC could still charge someone with not having a trigger lock on or having assembled their gun in their home even if they used it to shoot a rapist. The burden of proof is on the defendant, not the State, in an affirmative defense, and I tend to doubt that someone charged with having a loaded or assembled gun in their home WITHOUT a dead or wounded rapist nearby would have much luck mounting a competing harms defense.
And since usually the rapist doesn't give you time to assemble and load your gun, it means that for all intents and purposes, use of a gun for self-defense in the home is prohibited.