I'm very confused by this article.

[aarondhgraham]

Gun rights restored in Washington D.C.

This article is very confusing to me,,,

Gun rights were restored to Washington, D.C. residents after an amendment passed by the House of Representative this week. The legislation would prohibit the District of Columbia from spending money to enforce local gun laws, effectively nullifying statutes.

Are rights really restored when you simply defund enforcement of existing laws?

Are they telling the denizens of DC to ignore the law because Congress said so?

I'm very confused here.

Aarond

.

 

[Pahoo]

A positive first step ???

Are rights really restored when you simply defund enforcement of existing laws?

I suppose, by some measures but not by mine. Only thing worse than a bad law, is a law that folks choose to work around or ignore. We have to much of this going on by our leadership. Now, there might be a reason why they can't overturn the law and for now, just defund it. Then I guess I'm okay with that. ...

Be Safe !!!

 

[aarondhgraham]

What worries me is,,,

What worries me is,,,
Someone will read this article,,,
Then get arrested for breaking a gun law.

What is their defense?

"Hey, Congress said it was okay."

It's like VP Biden and his shotgun advice,,,
Good for sentiment but won't keep you out of jail.

Aarond

.

 

[noelf2]

What worries me is,,,
Someone will read this article,,,
Then get arrested for breaking a gun law.

What is their defense?

They may get arrested, but there will be no funding to prosecute them.

Good for sentiment but won't keep you out of jail.

If there's no funding to prosecute, then the case is dropped. No jail ! But I bet you lose your gun....

 

[Frank Ettin]

Nonsense From a Highly Questionable Source

...Are rights really restored when you simply defund enforcement of existing laws?

Are they telling the denizens of DC to ignore the law because Congress said so?

I'm very confused here....

First, journalists, except established legal experts, don't necessarily fully understand law. Their comments should always be taken with a grain of salt.

Second, one needs to be careful to pick reliable sources. Looking at the run down of other stories published on this cyber-rag, I wouldn't take it seriously.

Third, the article linked to in the OP made it appear that the "restoration" of gun rights in the District of Columbia is a fait accompli. It is not. The bill still needs to be passed in exactly the same form by the Senate, and that's unlikely to happen.

Here's a more reliable article on the subject.

 

[dove]

In the hypothetical world where this makes it through the senate, here's what I see happening:

- Good citizens continue to abide by the law and don't enjoy any new rights.
- Existing criminals have a field day, knowing that they can't be prosecuted and take even riskier actions.
- Balance continues to shift to higher crime, murder, etc.
- Eventually this becomes an anti datapoint in the flawed statistical battle surrounding gun rights. "Look what happened when we stopped enforcing gun laws!!!"

"You probably won't be punished" has never been a convincing argument for good, law-abiding citizens. Criminals, on the other hand, are guided only by what they think they can or cannot get away with.

Tangentially, this rep has made clear his lack of understanding the 2A rights battle by playing the antis' game and offering a primarily statistical argument.

 

[Frank Ettin]

In the hypothetical world...

This isn't the hypothetical world, and we don't go there here.

If something like this passes, there'll be the opportunity to discuss the possible consequences based on what the law in enacted form really is.

Until then there's nothing to discuss.

Closed.