Washington DC Council to Enact Sweeping New Gun Laws Tomorrow

[wingman]

I'm simply amazed at some "elite leaders" in city, state and federal governments who concern themselves so much about guns while ignoring, corruption,drugs, poor education, etc, but darn they certainly love people to be victims while their homes are protected.

[USAFNoDak]

Wingman posted:

I'm simply amazed at some "elite leaders" in city, state and federal governments who concern themselves so much about guns while ignoring, corruption,drugs, poor education, etc, but darn they certainly love people to be victims while their homes are protected.

What a great point, Wingman. These yahoos surround themselves with "armed" security, while at the same time trampling upon the citizens' right to keep and bear arms, which is the most effective means of self defense, all in the name of "public safety". What a bunch of gangsters.

When Fenty is at home, does he have any body guards employed? Are they armed? Can Fenty have a gun to protect himself and his family if he so chooses? Does it have to be kept unloaded and disassembled or locked unless he faces an immediate threat?

[Socrates]

I'm simply amazed at some "elite leaders" in city, state and federal governments who concern themselves so much about guns while ignoring, corruption,drugs, poor education, etc, but darn they certainly love people to be victims while their homes are protected.

That is an excellent point. This people are creating a class society, clearly NOT the intent of the founding fathers...

I don't know about Fenty, but Marion Barry sure didn't ignore
drugs. Does anyone remember if it 'possession with intent to
sell' or just enough for possession? He was convicted, wasn't he???

[applesanity]

Here it is: the joke of a bill that will most assuredly get challenged. I guess we'll be expecting the TFL lawyers and legal experts to rip this bill apart.
Firearms Control Emergency Amendment Act of 2008 (PDF)

The official press release: Mayor Fenty, Council Unveil Firearms Legislation and Regulations

The misguided and ridiculous leanings of the Washington Post: A New Gun Law

Here are some of the lovely highlights (from the press release)

The proposed legislation has four main components:

1. Continues to ban handguns in most places but creates an exception for self-defense in the home. The handgun ban remains in effect, except for use in self-defense within the home. Sawed-off shotguns, machine guns and short-barreled rifles are still prohibited.
   
   
2. Requires the Metropolitan Police Department to perform ballistic testing on handguns and makes such testing a registration requirement. The Chief of Police will require ballistics tests of any handgun submitted for registration to determine if it is stolen or has been used in a crime. Also, to serve as many residents as possible, the Chief will limit registrations to one handgun per person for the first 90 days after the legislation becomes law.
   
   
3. Clarifies the safe-storage and trigger-lock requirements. The legislation modifies existing law to clarify that firearms in the home must be stored unloaded and either disassembled secured with a trigger lock, gun safe, or similar device. An exception is made for a firearm while it is being used against reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm to a person within a registered gun owner’s home. The bill also includes provisions on the transportation of firearms for legal purposes.
   
   
4. Clarifies that no carry license is required inside the home. Residents who legally register handguns in the District will not be required to have licenses to carry them inside their own homes.

Your gun will tagged by the DC forensics people. (Remember, it's DC - The city where government employees are busy watching, ahem, "adult entertainment" on the job. The city that voted for Marion Barry even after the "B_____ set [him] up." I couldn't possibly trust DC government people to handle any bit of my personal information.

I suppose a "reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm" will translate to Mayor Fenty and that facist chief Lanier that it's okay to load your gun only after the robber has his weapon pressed against your right temple. "Excuse me, Mr. Robber sir, while I load my gun."

Like the urgings of Ron Popiel, you should wait! There's more!

Provisions for registering a handgun purchased for self-defense in a District residence.

1. A District resident who seeks to register a handgun must obtain an application form from MPD’s Firearms Registration Section and take it to a firearms dealer for assistance in completing it.
   
   
2. The applicant must submit photos, proof of residency and proof of good vision (such as a driver’s license or doctor’s letter), and pass a written firearms test.
   
   
3. If the applicant is successful on the test, s(he) must pay registration fees and submit to fingerprinting. MPD will file one set of fingerprints and submit the other to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for analysis and criminal background check.
   
   
4. MPD will notify the applicant whether all registration requirements are satisfied. At that point, the applicant returns to the Firearms Registration Section to complete the process and receive MPD’s seal on the application.
   
   
5. The applicant takes his or her completed application to a licensed firearm dealer to take delivery of the pistol. If the dealer is outside the District, the dealer transports the pistol to a licensed dealer in the District to complete the transaction.
   
   
6. The applicant takes the pistol to the Firearms Registration Section for ballistics testing. When testing is complete, the applicant may retrieve the pistol and take it home.

My legal knowledge is lacking, but aren't there multiple precedents that say chargining fees or forcing aptitude examinations is the same as infringing on a right? Which court cases were those?

There are 6 FFL dealers in DC. Only one of them is willing to do transfers. His name is Charles Sykes, Jr., owner of Cs Exchange Ltd. He mostly does transfers for security firms and some police. Get this - one of the FFL holders is part of the anti-gun Violence Policy Center. The owner of that FFL, Josh Sugarman, needs it for "research."

Supposedly the law will take affect in a matter of weeks. I suspect that given DC's history of messing everything up all the time, your typical gun application is gonna take months to complete, and somewhere in the dozens of forms, you'll have forgotten to dot an i or cross a t, so you'll be rejected.

I want to know what Mayor Fenty and that fascist Chief Lanier are thinking. They're just setting themselves up to be struck down again, consequently and potentially yielding addition RKBA precedents. I can imagine Boxer or Feinstein or Brady calling them at 3:05 a.m. to say, "Yo Adrian, just cut your losses and get out. Please."

[Eghad]

Mr. Fenty and DC will be going back to court again.

[USAFNoDak]

But how long will it take to get his butt back into court? I suspect it will take some time. This appears to me to be an "in your face" stalling tactic to technically avoid infringing upon the second amendment, while he wipes his feet on the right's of the folks in DC. Well, they voted this monster in. I wonder if they'll sit up and beg for more morsels of rights from him and his council of shenanigans. If they continue to vote these people in to office, I have to wonder if they really want their rights protected or not. Unfortunately, this then becomes the majority trampling on the rights of the minority, and that's a big no no in America, according to the Constitution.

It must suck to be a DC resident if you also want to be able to keep and bear arms. Good luck. Your chains are still upon you and the Mayor and his lap dog COP, Cathy Lanier, are doing everything in their power to keep those chains in place. They know they won't have to remove those chains anytime soon.

[Musketeer]

If they continue to vote these people in to office, I have to wonder if they really want their rights protected or not. Unfortunately, this then becomes the majority trampling on the rights of the minority, and that's a big no no in America, according to the Constitution.

DING DING DING DING DING!!!! We have a winner.

That is EXACTLY what is happening and EXACTLY why we have a Representative Republic with Amendments requiring a super majority and not a straight democratic (aka mob) rule.

The majority of the DC residents do not feel the 2A crowd is doing them any favors. They though are conditioned from birth to believe that given their surroundings and see no reason why they should be forced to live with rules (or the lack off) that they do not agree with. What they fail to see is that the rules they wish to IMPOSE are just that, an IMPOSITION on another. They don't want a gun, fine. The problem is THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO HAVE ONE. They do not recognize the logic in the arguments regarding self defense or that it is only the law abiding punished here.

[Alleykat]

I'd like to see a video of the D.C. Council in action!

[Socrates]

But how long will it take to get his butt back into court? I suspect it will take some time.

I attempted to explain that the court situation in D.C. is VERY fast, compared to having to litigate first in state court, then into federal court.

At anytime, Congress could step in, and overturn the laws.
At anytime the Supreme Court could pull the cases up, and hear them.

Federal judges, much less the Supreme Court don't take failure to follow precedent lightly.

Heller does clear the way to get into court quickly, since they are now dealing in a clarified area of law, and, an individual constitutional right.

[Musketeer]

Socrates said:

I attempted to explain that the court situation in D.C. is VERY fast, compared to having to litigate first in state court, then into federal court.

What he said. There is no better place to have this fight right now since if DC thumbs its nose at the SCOTUS it will make its way back to them faster than anywhere else in the nation.

[Unregistered]

My understanding was that in the Heller decision, all that was decided was that government could not ban guns, and that the 2nd was an individual right, but said clearly that regulation was still fine.

Is that not the case?

[ammoeater]

Get this - one of the FFL holders is part of the anti-gun Violence Policy Center. The owner of that FFL, Josh Sugarman, needs it for "research."

Hmmm, I thought the BATF requires an FFL holder "to be engaged in the business"? Per the BATF: "The term "engaged in business" as applied to a dealer in firearms refers, in part, to a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to engaging in such activity as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelyhood and profit." What are his hours of operation, and where is his business premises located? I was under the impression that the BATF was cracking down on FFL's for personal use.

[Socrates]

My understanding was that in the Heller decision, all that was decided was that government could not ban guns, and that the 2nd was an individual right, but said clearly that regulation was still fine.

Is that not the case?
__________________

Please read a bit of the thread at the top, that's a sticky about Heller. What the results are from that decision are both huge, and, more will be established as cases are based on the Supreme Court ruling of the 2A as a fundamental right.

[USAFNoDak]

Socrates posted:

I attempted to explain that the court situation in D.C. is VERY fast, compared to having to litigate first in state court, then into federal court.

At anytime, Congress could step in, and overturn the laws.
At anytime the Supreme Court could pull the cases up, and hear them.

Federal judges, much less the Supreme Court don't take failure to follow precedent lightly.

Heller does clear the way to get into court quickly, since they are now dealing in a clarified area of law, and, an individual constitutional right.

I pray that you are right, Socrates. I hope they (DC Mayor, Council and COP) get their come-uppance much sooner, rather than later.

Congress won't step in. Look who's running congress. The liberals. They hate guns in civilian hands. They love guns which protect them.

The Supreme Court seems to have a lot on their plate. I'm not confident they will run to the scene of the crime and start taking names and kicking butt. Hopefully, I'm wrong about that.

I'm happy that he Heller decision was about Washington, D.C. for precisely the reasons you mentioned. It will be quicker there than anywhere else. Still, if it would take another 5 years somewhere else, and DC takes three years, it still isn't a grand situation for law abiding, potential gun owners, who choose to live in D.C. and want to be free. Let's hope you are right and I am wrong. I would gladly tip my hat and give you reverence for being right whilst I am wrong. I got no problemo with that scenario, Socrates. Still, excuse me if I decline to hold my breath waiting for Fenty and his band of merry makers to get their pee pee's whacked. I don't believe I'd look good as a smurf.

[USAFNoDak]

Tying into Wingmans elitist post above, I was listening to a July 1st transcript of Ted Nugent on the Lars Larson show. Now, I know there are mixed feelings about Ted and some antics in his past, but please, look at what he says here, rather than who he is, if you have a beef with him. Let's not start an argument about Ted Nugent himself. That's not the point.

Here's what Ted said in part of that interview, regarding the Heller case (paraphrased).

The same 4 people who voted against the 2nd Amendment on the Supreme court, along with Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and others, are the same people who deny you the right to defend yourself with a gun while having the audacity to send taxpayers the bill for their body guards, who defend their lives with a gun. On top of that, the body guards who are paid by the taxpayers to defend these people, must not have a gun in their own homes to defend their life and the lives of their families when they go home from their job.

The man has a great point. You can hear this at www.larslarson.com and go to the audio archives tab.Then select interviews. Do a resort from older to newer. Again, the interview was conducted on July 1st, 2008.

Here's the link:

http://www.larslarson.com/pg/jsp/cha...leswelcome.jsp

Don't forget to resort from older to newer.

[Scott Conklin]

And I'll say again, as Unregistered notes, the Heller decision affirmed the 2A as an individual right subject to restrictions. DC is following the letter of the law. Chicago will, too. Other communities and even states will also.

Heller is potentially a Pandora's Box of restrictions we ain't gonna enjoy. Especially if Obama wins and is backed by a Democrat House and Senate.

I hope I am wrong and Socrates right but I suspect, in the thoroughly corrupt and eltist world of modern US politics, I am not.

[bikerbill]

"An exception is made for a firearm while it is being used against reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm to a person within a registered gun owner’s home."

Darn generous of them ... so I'm asleep, somebody breaks in and in my befuddled state I have to find a key, undo a lock, load the gun ... I wonder how many people in Washington actually obey these moronic laws ...

thankful I still live in a part of the country where common sense still prevails ...

[USAFNoDak]

"An exception is made for a firearm while it is being used against reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm to a person within a registered gun owner’s home."


Here's how I take this. If for some reason, somehow, the cops find you with a loaded gun in your home, or you have an unloaded gun that is not locked or in a safe, they can charge you with a violation of their laws. However, if you stop an intruder with a gun, they aren't going to ask any questions other than trying to determine if the threat was indeed immediate and there was a reasonable perception that it was threat. But you best not take a gun out to your garage or any other building on your property if you see an intruder in there. Your only option is to call the cops and hope they arrive before he leaves, which could be a half an hour or so.

That's when you pull this one:

911 caller: There's some guy in my garage.

911 Dispatcher: We'll send some over right away.

(5 minutes later) 911 caller: Where are the police, I called about the guy in my garage 5 minutes ago.

911 dispatcher: They are on their way. Hang on.

(1 minute later): 911 caller: Never mind, I shot the guy myself.

Cops immediately show up and catch the guy. They confront the home owner, "we thought you told the dispatcher that you shot this guy".

Homeowner: "I thought the dispatcher said you'd be here right away".

[USAFNoDak]

I wonder what the DC authorities would do with this hypothetical case.

A DC resident has jumped through the hoops, jumped over the hurdles, fetched Mayor Fenty's newspaper and slippers, and registered his new revolver with the city of D.C. So far so good. The resident keeps his gun unloaded and locked in a safe. One night, as his wife pulls into their garage, she is attacked by a rapist who snuck in there and waited for her to come home. The husband hears her scream. He gets his gun out of the safe, loads it, and heads to the garage. He confronts the rapist who lunges at him with a crow bar. He shoots him dead.

So, the gun was brought out of the house. The man defended himself and his wife on his own property. Would it make a difference if the garage was attached or detached from the house? Would they charge him with murder? Would they charge him with violating the gun regulations? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Al Norris]

Before we get all our knickers in a twist, it would be beneficial to examine the actual holding, and not all the dicta that is being referred to here (remembering that dicta is not binding).

From the holding (not the dicta):

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition — in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute — would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. 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's a big paragraph above, but it contains many important facets to what D.C. is attempting to do.

The Court said, "The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment."

Now an argument can be readily made that banning all semi-auto handguns violates the holding. Why? Since handguns fall into two separate classes, revolvers and semi-autos, one can apply what the Court said about such bans: "The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense." What overwhelming choice do American use for self defense? Semi-autos. Data from the arms manufacturers themselves will support this. Added to this, the law in D.C. that makes semi-autos, machine guns, violates this as the law itself is capricious.

Next we have the unloaded/storage scheme. The Court ruled, "Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock [and/or locked in a safe] makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional." Since they only want to register revolvers, loading becomes much more problematic than if it was a semi-auto. Do you honestly expect the average citizen to have practiced using speed-loaders/moon clips?

Then there is the whole registration scheme. Again, from the holding, "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." The entire licensing and registration scheme meets all the definitions of being capricious. Until the regulations have been in effect for some time, there is no way to determine if it would be arbitrary in enforcement... Except for one tiny procedure. The ballistic testing procedure will be used on all handguns, new or used. The problem with this is that the Mayor and his underlings have already said that this "test" will be used to determine if the handgun has been used in a prior crime. This is completely arbitrary, as a new handgun cannot have been used in any crime. Yes, the actual law says nothing about the reasons why, but that has been covered widely in the official press releases. Therefore the purpose of the law is not what it is publicly proclaimed to be.

So while this might be the only real point of litigation, it very well can be proven to be both arbitrary and capricious, which once again, runs afoul of the holding.

All of this can be filed for a writ of injunctive relief the moment it is signed into law. Since Heller prevailed, he would be the most logical candidate to ask for further injunctive relief. Should the Federal District Court deny the injunction, it can be immediately appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court. At any point during this, the SCOTUS could intervene and assume the case.

[kamerer]

First, thank you, Al, for parsing part of the SC decision. I have made that same argument elsewhere to try to point out how the decision works in regard to "in common use," etc., and that those will have to be followed.

The point I'd like to make is that it is highly unlikely any DC suits will go back to the SC. The decision in Heller did not overturn a lower court's ruling against D.C. It affirmed it. Remember Parker, et al, v DC? The DC Circuit's Appellate court had already ruled that the 2nd amendment guaranteed a right to both keep and bear arms. This court, in any future litigation, will be the last stop. They have already ruled on their opinion of the 2nd Amendment, and here are some of the things they said (from the Wikipedia summary):

"The court then held that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms", saying that the right was "premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)." They also noted that though the right to bear arms also helped preserve the citizen militia, "the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia." The court determined that handguns are "Arms" and concluded that thus they may not be banned by the District of Columbia; however, they said that Second Amendment rights are subject to reasonable restrictions.

The court also struck down the portion of the law that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." The District argued that there is an implicit self-defense exception to these provisions, but the D.C. Circuit rejected this view, saying that the requirement amounted to a complete ban on functional firearms and prohibition on use for self-defense..."


This court is going to follow both this precedent, as well as the Heller decision, in interpreting the constitutionality of any new laws. Sure, the mayor can appeal past them again to the SC, but the SC is highly unlikely to agree to hear another, similar case and be toyed with.

With this appelate decision hanging over them already, there won't be a curb to their regulations until they allow carry - the "bear arms" that the DC Circuit Appellate has already said is a 2nd Amendment right.

[RDak]

The holding Al posted pretty plainly indicates the semi-auto ban and disassembly/trigger lock requirement are in violation of the decision.

Those requirements in the new statute will be overturned and why DC is implementing those requirements into the statute when the holding states otherwise is confusing me.

Stalling for time is one thing but implementing two requirements that are in direct violation of the holding seems somewhat stupid to me.

We all know the holding in the decision is what you look at to see what must be done, etc. DC read the holding, yet came up with those two requirements?!

Maybe Musketeer is correct? Maybe we shouldn't "look a gift horse in the mouth".

[zukiphile]

Above, someone asked why Gura chose the DC law to challenge. He did so in order to avoid the question of whether the 2d Am. is subject to incorporation.

This court is going to follow both this precedent, as well as the Heller decision, in interpreting the constitutionality of any new laws. Sure, the mayor can appeal past them again to the SC, but the SC is highly unlikely to agree to hear another, similar case and be toyed with.

Unless the composition of the court changes, and they want to revisit the question in order to give a different answer.

[applesanity]

Originally Posted by Antipitas

Except for one tiny procedure. The ballistic testing procedure will be used on all handguns, new or used.
[...]
So while this might be the only real point of litigation, it very well can be proven to be both arbitrary and capricious, which once again, runs afoul of the holding.

All of this can be filed for a writ of injunctive relief the moment it is signed into law.

What about the registration fees and the written firearms test? Aren't there court cases saying that such things are inherently an infringement of rights? Or are these two things not as easy to challenge as the ballistics testing?

[Socrates]

The problem with such laws is someone actually has to have standing to challenge the law.Has ANYONE been prosecuted for violating the past statutes in D.C.? You would have to have probable cause to come in, and find the assembled gun. The owner would then say,
"I heard the guy entering, so I assembled the gun, and took the trigger lock off."

I wonder for the reasons put into the Dicta of the opinion. Without a majority, and, the basic 2A right for the individual, challenging gun laws is like trying to shoot mesquitos in a swamp, with a shotgun. Without the basic right, and, a level of scrutiny, such as strict scrutiny, it's very difficult. I think the majority intended to give us this right, but, they had to make the decision establishing the right not seem as radical as it is. When you think about it, 2A law is one of the most absurd situations ever. You have two big bodies of law, federal and state, that are all now on the chopping block for being overturned. You have a Federal Agency, the BATF, that is now going to be essentially out of a job. Instead of faking shotgun barrels being cut under the legal limit, harassing FFL holders to reduce Kali's gunshops from 6000 to 1500, they are going to have to go back to harassing bars, and try some garbage like they did with third party liability.

State governments that could write laws, and figure they would be on the books for a long time, prior to being challenged, now have to consider that such stuff will fast lane to federal court, since they are screwing with a fundemental right, that I think, hope, pray, will be evaluated under strict scrutiny.

To give you some idea: I'm looking for a law firm to work for, in Kali, that defends the second amendment. Currently, one of our members works to support the write to vote, and, knows only ONE law firm that is in the 2A business in Kali. Everyone else is a single lawyer, working alone.

The ABA wrote a amicus brief supporting D.C. based on the fact that establishing the 2A as an individual law would
overturn massive amounts of established law.

So, my hope is that the way it's written is to make the decision seem less radical then it is, and, to let everyone get used to the idea. Once that's done, fools will write laws that challenge it, SC, or even the appellate SC wannabes in D.C. will write that the laws are unconstitutional, and, all the SC has to do is refuse to hear ONE appeal by D.C., and the Appellate court ruling becomes the law of the land...until the judges in the 9th circuit write an opinion that supports the laws, then we have conflict of law, and the SC steps in...