Jan 6th Protests in DC and the Gun Ban

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Frisco

New member
First, let me say that I tend to lean to the "all gun laws are an infringement" side of any 2A argument. So, the following is just a "situational observation" that I am finding to be "curious".

There is a Trump rally on the 6th. Apparently the democrats are on the verge of a panic over it. Yeah...business as usual based on 2020 and the whole TDS we have seen over his administration.

DC has "banned guns" for the event.

I am sorry, but I thought it was nearly impossible for a so-called "regular" person to carry and in many cases, even possess a gun in DC for decades and which only changed with Heller.

I am covered by LEOSA (Yes, it sucks that I am one of those "special" people because of my status as a retired LEO, and I WISH everyone had the same ability to carry in all 50 so PLEASE don't devolve the conversation to that. I think that the 2A all the LEOSA we need.), and DO exercise it, but it still appears as though their "ban" has gone from their general unconstitutional restrictional nature to completely off the chain.

This is the same crowd that called all the rioting and looting "mostly peaceful protesting" and every righteous instance of self defense by a non lefty wing nut a "murder".

Unless I am reading this whole thing wrong, it looks like the dems are doing their Chicken Little Dance and invoking terms like "riot", "coup" and "ultra right wing" etc. You know, all the things they have embraced over the last four years.

I have the feeling that no matter what happens...the media will call it a "coup attempt".

Let's say The President says..."You know what, we have a zillion people here, let's put some National Guard on Biznezz Districts A, B, C and at WallzMartz" and for crowd and traffic control and assistance and to help DC PD keep the peace.

The media WILL say "Trump uses military to stage coup to stay in power!"

Basically, the left and the media will use their control over the low information crowd and the hysterical left and actually spark a violent confrontation with generally right leaning people who are the ones planning this show of support for the President.

Am I the only one who is suspicious? I am not a conspiracy theorist by any means, I tend to have a critical eye when evaluating anything...but something just sniffs badly here.
 
LEOSA=?
I find it a little bit difficult to keep up with the proliferation of acronyms these days. I just like to understand what's being said.
 
While I am not familiar with the specifics of DC law, I believe that carry is very restricted. What the Heller decision did was end DC complete prohibition on handguns, not much else in terms of regulation and carry.

DC police are saying "leave your guns at home" which is both sensible and entirely within reason. This is to avoid issues with current existing LAW in DC.

The press and certain political types ARE doing the chicken little dance, to them, the sky IS falling whenever someone disagrees with their worldview.

I support peaceful protest, I even condone a SMALL level of civil disobedience SOMETIMES. Going armed into DC (especially in violation of law) is just barking STUPID.

Plenty of other LEGAL ways to get a point across.
 
Frisco said:
DC has "banned guns" for the event.
Click to expand...
In order for us to discuss this at all rationally, you need to provide a link to the actual language of the ban. As has been pointed out already, even post-Heller it is virtually impossible for residents of DC to get carry permits, and other than people covered by the LEOSA I don't think DC recognizes any permits from any other states. So what does a "ban" accomplish? Is it just making something that's already illegal more illegaler?
 
Aguila Blanca said:
In order for us to discuss this at all rationally, you need to provide a link to the actual language of the ban. As has been pointed out already, even post-Heller it is virtually impossible for residents of DC to get carry permits, and other than people covered by the LEOSA I don't think DC recognizes any permits from any other states. So what does a "ban" accomplish? Is it just making something that's already illegal more illegaler?
Click to expand...
@ Aguila

There is no "actual language", to the source other than Tim Pool referencing it in his podcast earlier today from an article in his video: https://youtu.be/hkodowwc-JI

I am still figuring out linking.

Yes, there is no more draconian place than DC, though Chicago and NYC come close, than DC for banning carry, etc. It also begs the question is LEOSA somehow "suspended" as well? How are they enforcing it. What are they actually enforcing? There are more questions than answers...which is pretty much par for the course.

A previous post said "....make something illegal illegaler" which is a brilliant way to have put it. It just strikes me that banning something that is already illegal in a place (yeah it sucks) is just a way to get a spin onto something and create a scenario where a spark could lead to a flame which would lead to an explosion, or that some sort of "mass shooting" incident would (will happen) so it can be falsely blamed on the folks rallying behind the President by saying that "Person X, a ***right wing zealot*** brought an evil gun to the protest and then did thus and so....." and creating a narrative that is false just to fan more unrest.

It just smells bad.
 
It's actually rather simple, once you understand they lie.

The DC police "advise", and request protestors to leave their guns home, to comply with current DC law, which essentially "bans" everything, without a permit. People showing up with guns, without DC permits WILL be breaking the law.

The media reports this as "DC BANS GUNS FOR PROTEST", conveniently ignoring the fact that guns are already as banned as they can legally get in DC, under the current law.

Various talking heads take up the narrative, repeating the media sound byte headline as if it were fact, and it snowballs from there.

This is not news, it is a "news story" created by not telling all the relevant facts in order to create the impression they desire, in order to spin up people. They call it spin, I call it LYING.

You decide which of us is correct.
 
44 AMP said:
Various talking heads take up the narrative, repeating the media sound byte headline as if it were fact, and it snowballs from there.

This is not news, it is a "news story" created by not telling all the relevant facts in order to create the impression they desire, in order to spin up people. They call it spin, I call it LYING.

You decide which of us is correct.
Click to expand...
Maybe we could compromise and call it "prevaricating"?
 
In order for us to discuss this at all rationally, you need to provide a link to the actual language of the ban.
Click to expand...

We had another thread about this a couple of weeks ago. I'll repost my response here.

The District doesn't just prohibit carry; it prohibits any possession of a firearm not registered there:

Except as otherwise provided in this unit, no person or organization in the District of Columbia (“District”) shall receive, possess, control, transfer, offer for sale, sell, give, or deliver any destructive device, and no person or organization in the District shall possess or control any firearm, unless the person or organization holds a valid registration certificate for the firearm.
Click to expand...

That's for all firearms, including long guns. The only real exception doesn't help in your situation:

With respect to firearms, any nonresident of the District participating in any lawful recreational firearm-related activity in the District, or on his way to or from such activity in another jurisdiction; provided, that such person, whenever in possession of a firearm, shall upon demand of any member of the Metropolitan Police Department, or other bona fide law enforcement officer, exhibit proof that he is on his way to or from such activity
Click to expand...

A political rally doesn't really fit that description.

I don't advise anyone, regardless of reason, to carry a firearm into the District. They will find some reason to bust you for it.
 
Tom Servo said:
We had another thread about this a couple of weeks ago. I'll repost my response here.

The District doesn't just prohibit carry; it prohibits any possession of a firearm not registered there:



That's for all firearms, including long guns. The only real exception doesn't help in your situation:



A political rally doesn't really fit that description.

I don't advise anyone, regardless of reason, to carry a firearm into the District. They will find some reason to bust you for it.
Click to expand...
Oh, I am not going. I didn't even consider it as a smart thing to do from get-go. Regardless of the "ban" headline...it's going to be a Category 5 Crap Show.

I am just sitting here thinking that not only has the media abandoned any sort of integrity, but they have also embraced the fact that they can lie with no one else holding them up to the light, and not be ashamed of themselves.

Then there's the fact, as we have all seen, that "edicts" and "proclamations" from bureaucrats are being treated as though they have the force of law.

This rally seems to be a focal point for all of it.

2021 is going to be.....interesting.
 
they can lie with no one else holding them up to the light, and not be ashamed of themselves.
Click to expand...

I'm sure those with a tiny shred of integrity (assuming there still are any) are terribly ashamed...all the way to the bank! Which, these days is in the phone in their hand....:rolleyes:
 
In order for us to discuss this at all rationally, you need to provide a link to the actual language of the ban. As has been pointed out already, even post-Heller it is virtually impossible for residents of DC to get carry permits, and other than people covered by the LEOSA I don't think DC recognizes any permits from any other states. So what does a "ban" accomplish? Is it just making something that's already illegal more illegaler?
Click to expand...

There was a blurb about it on Fox News last night. DC has signs up basically saying that absolutely no firearms of any type are allowed with in 1000 feet of this sign. There are dozens, maybe hundreds of these signs in place in and near the location where this rally is to be held. If the signs cover say, 4 square city blocks, you could just about double that area when you include the 1000 foot buffer zone. Some one is going to mess up for sure, and the media will run with it if the person is pro 2nd Amendment. If it's an Antifa goon, the media will remain silent.

I have a bad feeling about this rally. Two groups of idiots are going to butt heads there. The Proud Boys and Antifa/BLM. I pray nothing irrational happens, but fear it could. If something does happen, it will make both sides look bad in the eyes of rational people.
 
I went to D.C. last month. I felt like I was walking around on top of a powder keg. No way I'd want to be there tomorrow.
 
Mike38 said:
There was a blurb about it on Fox News last night. DC has signs up basically saying that absolutely no firearms of any type are allowed with in 1000 feet of this sign. There are dozens, maybe hundreds of these signs in place in and near the location where this rally is to be held. If the signs cover say, 4 square city blocks, you could just about double that area when you include the 1000 foot buffer zone. Some one is going to mess up for sure, and the media will run with it if the person is pro 2nd Amendment. If it's an Antifa goon, the media will remain silent.
Click to expand...
Signs can say whatever they want to say. Unless the law has changed, a sign that is contrary to the law is meaningless.

In this case, however, it appears that all the signs are doing is stating what's already in the law, not anything new or different. Unless there has been something lawfully enacted that would override the LEOSA and prohibit current and retired law enforcement officers from carrying. But I don't think that's possible, because of the language of the LEOSA law itself:

18 U.S. Code § 926B - Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).
(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—
(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or
(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.
Click to expand...
Hmmm ...

I am not a lawyer, so perhaps some of the attorneys here can take a stab at this. What it says is, as I understand it, the law supersedes any state law prohibitions on concealed carry. I had forgotten that section (b)(2) says the law doesn't limit states' right to prohibit carry on state-owned property.

BUT (the big "but") ... Washington, DC, is not a state. It's a federal "enclave." If laws are to be construed according to their plain language meaning, then I think we have to assume that "state" means "state," and Washington, DC, is not a state. Therefore, I would conclude that the LEOSA does not apply within Washington, DC.
 
Last edited:
18 U.S.C. § 926B states, in part:
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—
(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or
(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.
Click to expand...
(emphasis added).

So, even qualified retired law enforcement officers may be prohibited from carrying on a good bit of land in D.C.

D.C. is considered to be a state for purposes of the above statute. 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(2) specifically states: "The term 'State' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) [for purposes of this Chapter]."
 
KyJim said:
D.C. is considered to be a state for purposes of the above statute. 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(2) specifically states: "The term 'State' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) [for purposes of this Chapter]."
Click to expand...
Thank you, Sir.

Unfortunately, considering how much of DC is federal (i.e. "State" for the purposes of the law) property, the LEOSA is likely of little comfort if someone wants to be squeaky clean and legal.
 
https://lawenforcementmuseum.org/museum-policies/firearms-policy/

I guess this Museum in DC reads the law differently than some of you do, pertaining to their policy, which appears based on the LEOSA. Other venues in DC may have a different take on it.

This is why people shouldn't try to get legal advice from an online forum. LEO or not, I would think twice before going to DC with a gun.

A few years ago, I know Disney didn't honor the LEOSA, no guns permitted for anyone. :confused: However at Busch Gardens, the LEOSA WAS honored, in fact Security appeared very supportive. Always research prior to taking your weapon someplace, LEO or otherwise.
 
Last edited:
I never had an issue at Disney...Land...World...or Epcot. We used to go annually when my daughter was younger (I'd rather have paper cuts on my face). The wife and I both carried in all three facilities under LEOSA. Six Flags facilities were even better about it.

In fact, the only place I ever had even close to an issue was in NYC. I got pulled over by NYSP on the 95 going from Philly to New Haven, CT in a rental. I had my LWRC pistol (with brace) in a case in the back seat of the POS Crossover and when I made my "polite disclosure", you would have thought that I just shot up the Statue Of Liberty and was on the lam. He couldn't wrap his head around the fact that it was a "pistol" rather than a so-called "assault rifle" (refer back to the brace).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top