DC short changing 2nd Amendment

[Bugfatty300]

DC defiant on 2nd Amendment ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court may have ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual citizen's right to own and possess a firearm, but that doesn't mean the District of Columbia won't do everything possible to discourage law-abiding citizens from arming themselves for self-defense.

For 32 years, it was all but impossible for law-abiding U.S. citizens living in the District of Columbia to exercise their Second Amendment rights. When the Supreme Court last month struck down the gun ban in the nation's capital, it also ruled that other restrictions designed to keep people from using guns for self-defense, such as trigger-lock requirements, were also unconstitutional. Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America is convinced that liberal, gun-hating politicians in the District have no intention of allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from violent criminals.

"They're making it so that, if you're willing to crawl over glass and walk through concertina wire, then you might be able to get a license," he says. "But, of course, that office will only be open between 2 and 4 on, maybe, a couple of days a week, or some such thing as that. So lots of luck."

In addition to requiring trigger locks, in direct violation of the Supreme Court's order, the District is conducting ballistic testing on guns submitted for licensing, in violation of a congressional ban on federal agencies creating any kind of gun owner registry. Pratt says it is time for Congress to force D.C. officials to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling.

"That would be the least expensive recourse, for the Congress to act," says Pratt, "because the Congress has constitutional authority over the District of Columbia." He notes that the District is "self-governing" only at the deference of Congress. "Congress frankly, I think, has been irresponsible to let these clueless clowns demonstrate a level of lawlessness that has now reached the point where they are in open contempt of the Supreme Court," he adds.

Security officer Dick Heller, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit against the DC gun ban, tried to register his semi-automatic pistol on Thursday but was refused because the District bans semi-autos as "machine guns." Heller said it looks like he will be suing the District, again, to protect his constitutional rights.

The battle isn't over yet.

Meanwhile in Chicago:

An “outraged” Mayor Daley this morning denounced a U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning Washington D.C.’s handgun ban as a “frightening decision” and a “return to the days of the Wild West.”

The mayor said he would vigorously defend Chicago’s ordinance, in spite of what he called the dangerous precedent set by the nation’s highest court.

News flash: The precedent was set over 200 years ago.

And of course...
The Uber-genius Statement Awards From the Comments Section:

2nd place goes to

All "semi-automatic" means is that you have to pull the trigger more times

And the winner!

Spoiler :

"Also, why would you need a gun to defend you, if you have Jesus Christ as your Savior?"

 

[IglooDame]

From a "big picture" viewpoint I'm actually pretty happy DC is being so smarmily disingenuous about this, post-Heller. It means that further precedent can be set that much more quickly, so when incorporation happens (I'm thinking a 95% chance that it will), it'll apply not only the Heller decision, but the net result of the followup in DC.

And really, these mayors need to get a grip. There are plenty of large cities in this country (in blue, below) that not only have legalized pistol ownership, but issue permits for concealed carry to anyone who isn't insane or a felon. It hasn't resulted in "blood running in the streets" or "a return to the Wild West" in any of them.

 

[Tycoon101]

Argh! New Hampshire! Murder capitol of the USA! Unrestricted gun ownership!

Oh, wait...

 

[Simple Simon]

It hasn't resulted in "blood running in the streets" or "a return to the Wild West" in any of them.

'more legal guns now means more illegal guns later' - what about that statement?

 

[Bugfatty300]

Argh! New Hampshire! Murder capitol of the USA! Unrestricted gun ownership!

That would be Vermont actually. But yeah Vermont and Alaska have no laws against carrying a concealed handgun with out a license.

Surely the murder capitals of the world!

 

[IglooDame]

'more legal guns now means more illegal guns later' - what about that statement?

That statement is logical, but pointless. It doesn't appear that there's a shortage of illegal guns in Chicago or DC as it stands, so 'more illegal guns later' isn't much of a reason to deny legal guns now. If one insists on comparing gun ownership to car ownership (regarding licensing/registration), it'd be like denying someone the opportunity to purchase a car to commute with because it'll lead to one more stolen car and joyriding later.

 

[Kraznaya]

That would be Vermont actually. But yeah Vermont and Alaska have no laws against carrying a concealed handgun with out a license.

Surely the murder capitals of the world!

Well, Vermont is nearly in Quebec, so I'm sure they've all been properly wussified

 

[Simple Simon]

That statement is logical, but pointless. It doesn't appear that there's a shortage of illegal guns in Chicago or DC as it stands, so 'more illegal guns later' isn't much of a reason to deny legal guns now. If one insists on comparing gun ownership to car ownership (regarding licensing/registration), it'd be like denying someone the opportunity to purchase a car to commute with because it'll lead to one more stolen car and joyriding later.

That's pretty much my take on it, too: the US is (for historical reasons) way past the point where a gun ban can be effective in preventing criminals from obtaining guns.

 

[Ecofarm]

That's pretty much my take on it, too: the US is (for historical reasons) way past the point where a gun ban can be effective in preventing criminals from obtaining guns.

That's the fact.

Besides, you can by a semi-auto AK from Walmart/K-mart at age 18+, without registration (but with a background check).

Restricting handguns is pretty silly, considering that.

It doesn't take a genius to saw the barrel off an AK and file the sear... full-auto sub-machinegun with rifle rounds FTW. Give me a 50-round drum and I'll ignore the twist on the bullets after the barrel warps from heat.

 

[JohnRM]

That's the fact.

Besides, you can by a semi-auto AK from Walmart/K-mart at age 18+, without registration (but with a background check).

Restricting handguns is pretty silly, considering that.

It doesn't take a genius to saw the barrel off an AK and file the sear... full-auto sub-machinegun with rifle rounds FTW. Give me a 50-round drum and I'll ignore the twist on the bullets after the barrel warps from heat.

You cannot purchase full-automatic weapons in the United States unless they are one of the very few pre-ban weapons registered to the NFA.

 

[JohnRM]

DC defiant on 2nd Amendment ruling



The battle isn't over yet.

Meanwhile in Chicago:



News flash: The precedent was set over 200 years ago.

And of course...
The Uber-genius Statement Awards From the Comments Section:

2nd place goes to


And the winner!

Spoiler :

"Also, why would you need a gun to defend you, if you have Jesus Christ as your Savior?"

Yeah, Jesus can't stop a few nails, he sure as poo can't stop a bullet.

The uber-restrictive cities are going to fight this tooth and nail. They won't just let it go and compromise, which is going to lead to dozens more lawsuits and perhaps even another Supreme Court case. At this point, though, the walls are going to come tumbling down, cause 2nd Amendment advocates are more excited than ever and ready to fight.

 

[Ecofarm]

You cannot purchase full-automatic weapons in the United States unless they are one of the very few pre-ban weapons registered to the NFA.

I mentioned filing the sear. I didn't say it was legal.

 

[Bugfatty300]

You cannot purchase full-automatic weapons in the United States unless they are one of the very few pre-ban weapons registered to the NFA.

Today yes. Tomorrow?..who knows.

Probably not but can't I dream?

Edit: Fixed

 

[Ecofarm]

The above quote is accidently mis-attributed.

EDIT: Fixed

 

[skadistic]

You cannot purchase full-automatic weapons in the United States unless they are one of the very few pre-ban weapons registered to the NFA.

With the right licenses you can buy a brand spanking new full auto machine or sub machine gun or machine pistol. Hell you can even get a nice shiny Gatling gun.

 

[IglooDame]

With the right licenses you can buy a brand spanking new full auto machine or sub machine gun or machine pistol. Hell you can even get a nice shiny Gatling gun.

Which licenses are these?

 

[skadistic]

Which licenses are these?

Upon checking this doesn't apply to average citizens. The 89 ban however doesn't apply to businesses that use full auto in testing. You still need the class 3 and an additional federal permission slip.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Which licenses are these?

An LEO badge.

Gatling guns are already unrestricted and are not considered machine guns. But machine guns manufactured after 1986 are all illegal I'm sorry to say.

 

[Godwynn]

I love how Daley talks about the Wild West.

Chicago a few weeks back needed SWAT teams patrolling the streets, the violence in Illinois is getting ridiculous.

 

[JollyRoger]

There is a self-defense exception to the trigger lock requirement, so that is arguably within line of the Supreme Court opinion. Also, the Heller decision would allow for a semi-automatic ban. Remember, Scalia wrote a fairly narrow opinion that did not take "shall not infringe" all that seriously.