Washington Times Editor Attempts to Navigate D. C. Gun Laws

As if we needed further proof that the SCOTUS royally screwed the pooch by ruling that the 2nd Amendment is subject to "reasonable regulation" when the express language of the 2nd Amendment says just the opposite.
 
For those who are following, she finally managed to purchase a P229 (thanks in no small part to advice and help from Second Amendment supporters). Of course, this being D. C., just paying for the correct gun to comply with D. C. regs doesn't mean you can actually take possession of the gun. That would be way too simple...

I wonder what it is about D. C. that even with these complex gun laws they have a higher violent crime rate than I do in my hometown where I can just walk in, plunk my money down, and walk out 10 minutes later with the gun?
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
For those who are following, she finally managed to purchase a P229 (thanks in no small part to advice and help from Second Amendment supporters). Of course, this being D. C., just paying for the correct gun to comply with D. C. regs doesn't mean you can actually take possession of the gun. That would be way too simple...
Click to expand...
I've been following this one, and it's been interesting.

Bartholomew Roberts said:
I wonder what it is about D. C. that even with these complex gun laws they have a higher violent crime rate than I do in my hometown where I can just walk in, plunk my money down, and walk out 10 minutes later with the gun?
Click to expand...
Ssssshhhhh. . . You'll give away the secret (that law-abiding folk have an easier time gettin' guns where you live.)
 
The end of the document explains that guns eligible for registration must be on the California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale.
Click to expand...
Wait, what? I knew DC had a roster, but I didn't know it was a cut-and-paste of California's. It's sad to note that the Hanson case appears to have stalled.

When the District legalized ownership, they gave as little as humanly possible. They still require a 20-question test (like Alabama did for another right in the 1960's), and among other things, applicants

Must not suffer from a physical defect which would make it unsafe for you to possess and use a firearm safely and responsibly.
Click to expand...

I still wonder what the criteria for that are, and who makes the decision. That's an ADA lawsuit waiting to happen.
 
Tom Servo said:
I still wonder what the criteria for that are, and who makes the decision. That's an ADA lawsuit waiting to happen.
Click to expand...
That was my thought, too. Surely there's at least one wheelchair-bound military veteran in DC who could be a plaintiff on that one.
 
...or someone with epilepsy, cerebral palsy, or Parkinson's. If we assume (as McDonald did) that the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental, then infringements based on handicap are actionable. The government must comply with the ADA just as any private individual must.

Heck, I taught a guy with Down's Syndrome to shoot. It was a steep learning curve, and an educational experience for both of us, but he's actually safer than most folks on the range.
 
Tom Servo there used to be a legally blind guy who who shot indoor small bore rifle. He had tunnel vision about a 4inch tube out to 50 feet. He won several leg matches and recieved numerous awards.

Under DC law he would be DQd form owning a Firearm. If he is still around he would make a good test case.
 
Tom Servo said:
When the District legalized ownership, they gave as little as humanly possible. They still require a 20-question test (like Alabama did for another right in the 1960's)
Click to expand...

And probably for the same reasons as Alabama at that...
 
According to Emilys' Twitter account, she passed her written test and is in the "ten day cooling off period"!

I find this rather funny, since she has been working through the process since Octber!
 
Wyoredman said:
According to Emilys' Twitter account, she passed her written test and is in the "ten day cooling off period"!

I find this rather funny, since she has been working through the process since Octber!
Click to expand...

Maybe the ten day cooling off period is to allow you to cool down after your latest contact with the civil-rights disparaging D. C. bureaucracy? I know I would probably need at least ten days after talking to any apparatchik if I had to go through what Emily did.
 
I never included the Hanson case in the 2A Current Cases, because it was consolidated with Heller II months before I began the list. I'll go ahead and add it to the end of the list, but note that it is now Heller II. To recap that case:

HANSON et al v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al: Filed March 9, 2009 as 1:2009cv00454. This is a SAF/Alan Gura case that challenges the authority of D.C. to mirror the CA Safe Handgun Rooster. On May 7, 2009, this case was consolidated with Heller II (1:08-cv-01289-RMU - see doc #17. Decision is also at Justia). On June 25, 2009, D.C. Noticed an Emergency Rulemaking which change the CA Rooster to that of MD. The case was closed (as consolidated) on July 30, 2009.

Internet Archive
Justia Summary
TFL Thread
Click to expand...

As you can see from the above, it is not the CA roster, but the MD roster that is in effect.
 
DC is technically different than any other place in the US. It is technically a FEDERAL MILITARY DISTRICT. I think they should through out the civilian government and let the Army administer it.

Then we might get some reasonable rules and regulations.
 
re: the vision test requirement in DC.....

The guy that gave me my Concealed Carry class, Paul Horvick, of ShootingSafely.com, related how he had, under threat of an ADA lawsuit, repeatedly given ( and eventually passed! ) a blind, wheelchair bound man the required CCW class for Minnestota, complete with range qualification.

"Equality Before the Law" .... either it means something, or it does not.
 
Blindness isn't an either/or proposition. "Legally blind" can refer to several levels of visual impairment.

I know a guy who can't recognize faces from more than about four feet away, but he can shoot fairly well. It's amazing what a little guidance and muscle memory can achieve. He's proven himself safe and conscientious.

Yet, under DC's law, he'd be disarmed.
 
As I recall it, Paul's student was completely blind ....... the argument stands, and is stronger with a completely blind person: either they can or can't meet the requirements of the class/permit, regardless of some bureaucrats preconcieved notion of their abilities......

DC's laws could easily be asailed under the ADA, if there was a willing litigant.
 
I have started wondering about how the training and range requirements sound so much like Benson v. Chicago. No range in D.C. and trainers aren't allowed to perform the training in the city. Seems like similar circumstances to my non-lawyer brain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top