Plan B
Via Insty, it looks like DC’s .gov is sticking with its plan to add bureaucratic barriers to gun ownership after Heller. However, this item looks like it pretty blatantly goes against the Heller decision:
Firearms in the home must be stored unloaded and disassembled, and secured with either a trigger lock, gun safe, or similar device. The new law will allow an exception for a firearm while it is being used against an intruder in the home.
How is that different from what they alleged their laws were pre-Heller?
And it looks like they’re also sticking with the written test. Kinda like literacy tests? Next they need a poll tax.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:22 am
These pukes remind me of a little kid pushing the limits every freakin’ day.
…and like that little kid, they need to get smacked some.
The anti-gunners on the boards are defending this as much more reasonable. WTF.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Great. Next, DC is going to draft legislation that makes it illegal for a criminal to not wait patiently for five minutes upon invading a home, that way the homeowner has a chance to assemble their firearm and defend themselves when the crime resumes.
Criminal: “Hand over all of your money.”
Homeowner: “Okay. Does … does my five minutes start now? You can help yourself to anything in the fridge in the meantime.”
Criminal: “Thanks. Just let me know when you’re ready. By the way … lovely window treatments!”
July 15th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
That is some grade-A B.S. right there…especially after that part of the old law *(disassembled/unloaded/trigger lock) was ridiculed by the chief justice in oral arguments…
A loaded revolver in a nightstand is a defensive weapon. A trigger locked one unloaded in its case is well nigh useless.
I like the idea of declaring the district in open rebellion, sending in the Army, and having Congress taking over DC directly until they get it through their thick skulls.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Go to the press release through http://tinyurl.com/5ayuv5 and its links to the proposed law and regulations and you’ll see a lot more gotchas’:
The registration is explicitly “may issue”.
Like NYC, they can delay or obstruct by never giving you a form (say, after the spotlight has moved from D.C.).
The currently described as “written” test must be passed with 75% proficiency, contents and nature now or in the future unspecified.
Along with the “reasonable” fees.
Only the registrant can carry the pistol from room to room.
And as everyone is noting, the threshold for loading is very high, e.g. I’d guess not to check just a noise in the middle of the night.
Looks like someone has perhaps learned how NYC plays the game….
July 15th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
The licensing FEE, the fingerprint FEE, the FEE charged to supply a photo, the “balllistic testing” FEE are ALL UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Ever heard of a POLL TAX? Plus a “literacy test” and “Vision test” before you are “eligible” for a LICENSE to exercise an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT? Jim Crow is back, but this time it’s BLACKS creating the laws.
Also the CONTINUED BAN on semi-autos is blatantly unconstitutional. I just hope some legal beagles will get involved and get the district judge to issue a writ of mandamus to require DC to follow the law, with a $1 million fine PER DAY for continued non-compliance.
July 16th, 2008 at 8:49 am
In other news, I talked to my DC friend who works for the Shakespeare Theatre Co. They use their FFL for curios and relic weapons used for stage purposes and for pyrotechnics; apparently they can’t or won’t do transfers and that’s ok.
Different kind of license perhaps?
I don’t know enough about FFLs to speculate, but I am curious to know if we’re going after Josh Sugarmann’s FFL–has it been determined for sure that they’re breaking the rules by not doing transfers?
July 16th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
PGP, I don’t think any FFL is required to do transfers, but they are required to be in the business of selling guns.