Rules for registering a gun in DC
- Thread starter divemedic
- Start date
Bob Lee Swagger
New member
Why is the waiting period (8 weeks), so long?
Don't sound as bad as the current system they have in NYC:barf:. That no semi-auto requirement should be easy to get overturned as it directly conflicts with the "Heller" decision. I choose revolvers for defensive handguns but that is my choice not one the government should make for me. To those us in pro-gun states, this system is very draconian, but it is a large step forward for DC. In time it will get closer to what it should be.
As for the requirement for the gun to be transported in the backseat of your car; what if you drive a truck or a sports car with no back seat. Many people walk or ride bikes in DC.
They'll be a lot of details to work out. I think the important part here is the change in public perception, when after a few years of DC residents being able to own guns for protection, the crime rates don't go up and even more likely go down.
As for the requirement for the gun to be transported in the backseat of your car; what if you drive a truck or a sports car with no back seat. Many people walk or ride bikes in DC.
They'll be a lot of details to work out. I think the important part here is the change in public perception, when after a few years of DC residents being able to own guns for protection, the crime rates don't go up and even more likely go down.
Haha, fooled you! This is far from over!
There are currently no licensed gun dealers in DC. If city council gets it way, there won't be any, either! Talk about arrogance...figuratively spitting in the face of the Supreme Court! Now, someone gets to spend years and millions to appeal this aspect through the courts. Ultimately, we could end up with a catch-22 situation similar to the Thomas Bean debacle. Remember, when the Supreme Court ruled that an unfunded ATF appeals process was not equivalent to a denial?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121453058531709463.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Absence of Gun Shops Limits
Ruling's Reach in Capital
By GARY FIELDS and LOUISE RADNOFSKY
June 27, 2008
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court's decision legalizing handgun ownership in the District of Columbia answers the question of whether individuals have a right to possess firearms. But in the city that spawned the legal challenge, the impact will be minimal for one big reason: It will remain almost impossible to buy a gun.
Washington has no federally licensed gun stores, so nowhere in the city can residents buy a handgun legally. Under federal law, buying one in neighboring Maryland or Virginia isn't an option either. If gun dealers sell a firearm to a nonresident, they have to ship it to a licensed dealer in the purchaser's home state, which then conducts the relevant background checks.
"Without a dealer, there's no place to ship the gun to," said Mike Campbell, a spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
It is unlikely that Washington will get any new dealers, either. Federal licensing requirements mandate that would-be dealers meet local guidelines and zoning ordinances. Representatives of each of the district's eight council wards said they would vigorously oppose a gun shop in their area. They also said discussions had already begun over which regulations they might use to keep one from opening.
"I would push the envelope as far as I could, as far as we were permitted to do," said Jim Graham, a Democrat representing Ward 1, in the center of the district.
"It's going to be a long process," said John Snyder, spokesman for Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, a gun-rights advocacy group.
As a result of the High Court's decision, the District of Columbia will likely revert to guidelines it had in place before the law went into effect in 1976, according to activists on both sides of the divide. Gun-control advocates say those requirements also are among the most restrictive in the country.
Under the old law, handgun owners had to register their firearms with the city. Licensing requirements for dealers were stringent. In addition, the law placed limitations on the sale of ammunition. Police had to approve anyone who wanted to carry a gun outside their home.
The impact of more guns is an open question in a city enduring a rise in violent crime in some areas after years of falling homicide rates. If a gun store locates in the eastern quadrants of the city, it will be in an area where gun violence already is high. Gun dealers are loath to move into high-crime areas because they would face stronger scrutiny from police on background checks of customers. The stores also would be potential targets for criminals. If a store ends up in the more affluent northwest section of the city, it would mean bringing firearms into neighborhoods where gun violence -- especially that resulting in murder -- is a rarity and demand is low.
More than 80% of the city's 181 homicides recorded in 2007 took place in the northeast or southeast quadrants, and a third were concentrated in southeast's Ward 8 alone. Just seven killings occurred in the ward that encompasses the White House, Georgetown and Dupont Circle, while none occurred in Ward 3, home to suburban communities such as Chevy Chase. The homicide total included 143 shootings, according to Metropolitan Police Department figures. A breakdown by gun type wasn't available.
James Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, which represents about 320,000 uniformed officers in the U.S., said he thinks anyone attempting to open a gun store in the city "will ultimately prevail on the same theory of this lawsuit, but it'll be pretty expensive. Realistically, the city would probably make permitting and various commerce laws difficult."
A former federal agent, Mr. Pasco added that whatever the outcome, "the strict gun laws in D.C. have clearly not been reflected in a lower violent crime rate. I don't know what the answer is to that."
Write to Gary Fields at gary.fields@wsj.com and Louise Radnofsky at louise.radnofsky@dowjones.com
Washington DC has posted its handgun registration requirements:
http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/frames.asp?doc=/mpdc/lib/mpdc/info/pdf/registering_firearm_dc.pdf
$13 / per gun, $35 fingerprinting (not clear if you have to be fingerprinted once per gun, once per session or just once)
But get this: No semiautomatic hanguns!
"ONLY rifles, shotguns and revolvers may be
registered in the District of Columbia. The following
firearms may not be registered in the District: sawed-off
shotguns, short-barreled rifles, machine guns and semiautomatc
handguns."
So Glocks, Colt 1911s and Beretta 92s are STILL illegal in DC, despite the clear mandate from SCOTUS. I smell lawsuit!
http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/frames.asp?doc=/mpdc/lib/mpdc/info/pdf/registering_firearm_dc.pdf
$13 / per gun, $35 fingerprinting (not clear if you have to be fingerprinted once per gun, once per session or just once)
But get this: No semiautomatic hanguns!
"ONLY rifles, shotguns and revolvers may be
registered in the District of Columbia. The following
firearms may not be registered in the District: sawed-off
shotguns, short-barreled rifles, machine guns and semiautomatc
handguns."
So Glocks, Colt 1911s and Beretta 92s are STILL illegal in DC, despite the clear mandate from SCOTUS. I smell lawsuit!
There is a story about the civil rights movement, and the days of literacy exams for voters to register. The story goes that the literacy exam in Georgia was to be administered by the local Sheriff. In one county, the test simply required that the person desiring to register had to read the headline of the paper out loud in the presence of the Sheriff.
A black man went in to register, and was handed a copy of a newspaper. It was printed in Chinese. He read aloud, "It says here that ain't no ni@@ers gonna vote in this county."
That is why there are no tests required for voting in this country, and is also why no American should ever tolerate ANY test for exercising ANY right, even ones you do not agree with.
A black man went in to register, and was handed a copy of a newspaper. It was printed in Chinese. He read aloud, "It says here that ain't no ni@@ers gonna vote in this county."
That is why there are no tests required for voting in this country, and is also why no American should ever tolerate ANY test for exercising ANY right, even ones you do not agree with.
Here's another example - Oklahoma's literacy test with a "facially-neutral" exemption for white Americans:
Interesting that the standard-issue sidearm of the US Army is still banned in DC. The powers that be are setting themselves up for yet another costly smackdown, but I guess it's not their money so what do they care?
I'll be interested to meet Alan Gura and find out if he regrets conceding licensing of a fundamental individual right. Given the 5-4 decision, perhaps not, though.
Interesting that the standard-issue sidearm of the US Army is still banned in DC. The powers that be are setting themselves up for yet another costly smackdown, but I guess it's not their money so what do they care?
The SCOTUS said in Heller:
Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
That tells me that any licensing MUST be fair and not be arbitrary. Thus, as the court says about restricting the right:
The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,
If you are not mentally ill, guilty of a felony, or some other valid reason, your right cannot be restricted.
Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
That tells me that any licensing MUST be fair and not be arbitrary. Thus, as the court says about restricting the right:
The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,
If you are not mentally ill, guilty of a felony, or some other valid reason, your right cannot be restricted.
I want DC to make it as difficult as possible. Require fingerprinting, test, and multi month waiting periods. Ban semi autos, make regulations that make it impossible to exercise the right or place undo burden on it.
DC is the fastest path back to the SCOTUS and if they are dumb enough to attempt to subvert the decision then let them and drag them to court.
DC is the fastest path back to the SCOTUS and if they are dumb enough to attempt to subvert the decision then let them and drag them to court.