Holy Crap
Mayor Barry says drop the DC handgun ban. No, really.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
February 7th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Not for long, only for 90 days, long enough to allow existing gun owners to go legal, then start screwing anyone who wants to get a gun after that period. Basically, he wants to do with gun owners what Bush wants to do with illegal aliens.
February 7th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
February 7th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Nope, theyre trying to kill Parker v DC on mootness grounds. They know theyre going to lose the DC ban, the question is how much else it drags down.
February 7th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Marion Barry is going to get invited to far fewer dinners in Chicago and NYC if his obviously unconstitutional law ends up being the grounds for the test case that brings the whole house of cards down.
February 7th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
See what happens when you stop smoking crack?
February 7th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
I have a strange feeling about this. What if they look at the firearms crimes for some time period (of their choosing) before and after their “amnesty” and can say “See – loosening up on the restrictions does not reduce crime”. We can’t trust the sneaky bastards, as we well know. Jack.
February 7th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Sounds like a gun grab to me, 90 days is long enough to register all the guns that are going to be registered. After 90 days they will discover that the crime has gone up and they will ban them again. Of course now they will have a handy little list so that they can get those nasty guns off the street.
February 7th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Since there is absolutely NO place in the District to legally purchase a handgun, I don’t see how this could even work. Something really stinks about this. The only legal handguns in the District are already registered. If I had an unregistered gun in D.C., and were suddenly told that I could register it, would I? Not on your life. And a resident of the District can’t purchase a handgun in Maryland or Virginia. I wonder what Marion Barry has up his sleeve?
February 7th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
What’s up his Nose??! is the better question!!!
February 8th, 2007 at 9:29 am
Actually, the only reason he’s dropping the ban for 90 days is to register the guns. Then, the ban goes back into effect and now the ‘good guys’ (if the government can be called that these days) will know where ‘all’ the guns are.
All the easier to eat you with, my Dear!
February 8th, 2007 at 10:01 am
[…] I mentioned how the mayor of DC may have put down the crack pipe and said the DC should drop its gun ban. In comments there, folks have opined that this is a trap and serves to either: […]
February 8th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Actually, if he were to do something like that I might consider moving to the District. There are some nice areas in upper Georgetown that I would love to live in except for 1) I can’t bring my guns with me and 2) the schools.
Now, for a lot less than I can sell my place in McLean, VA I could get a much bigger house in DC in as safe a neighborhood with much more charecter to it and use just a portion of the difference to send my kid to private school (like the Clintons and Kerry’s and Gores). However, unlike them I can’t have a gun to protect whats mine. This would allow me to do just that.
February 8th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Or take that money and buy yourself a ranch sitting on a few hundred acres somewhere out west and get far away from the metro-madness of big city life.
February 9th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner,
You need to understand that the way the law is written, it is NOT illegal for a DC resident to OWN a handgun, it IS illegal for any private citizen to POSSESS a handgun within the District. A person who legally owns handguns and then moves to DC is not forced to sell them, the handguns must simply be stored outside the city. There are local ranges that will happily charge for storage.
That said, you are correct that the lack of dealers means there is no way for a DC resident to legally purchase a handgun, but as always it is perfectly legal to receive one as a gift.
Even if the ban were lifted, of course, no local business license would ever be granted for a retail dealer. However, a DC resident could apply for a Federal Curio and Relic license, then legally purchase any number of handguns that way – provided the C&R was processed inside the 90 day window.
February 9th, 2007 at 10:57 am
Continuing…
Even if the ban on registration of handguns were lifted, the other laws on the books are onerous enough to prevent the registration of all pistols. Only revolvers would be allowed under the other laws as currently written and enforced. Despite the fact that semi-auto firearms (long guns) with a cartridge capacity of 12 (presumably 11+1) are allowed by law; the Police refuse to register anything with a detachable magazine. This rule is enforced even for firearms for which high capacity magazines are NOT available. I know this through first-hand experience. The Police officers staffing the firearms registration unit think nothing of abusing their power & authority in this way.
February 9th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Actually, that’s a no. A firearm “capable of firing semi-automatically more than 12 shots without reloading” (or very similar wording) is a “machine gun.” No, I’m not making that up. Your 1911 is actually a machine gun as defined by DC law.
February 9th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Left off a sentance…
And, combine that with the assumption that any gun with a detachable magazine can use one that holds 12 rounds, and you get the assumption that all semi-autos with detachable magazines are machine guns.
February 9th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
AughtSix, what exactly, is a ‘no’?
You are correct in your assertion of what DC law defines as a machine gun, but then what are you saying ‘no’ to?
DC law does reference semi-autos “capable of firing semi-automatically MORE THAN 12 shots without reloading” as machine guns, as you state…
So up to and including 12 (presumably 11+1) are legal. But, as I pointed out, the DC Firearms Registration Unit will not register anything with a detachable magazine; even when hi-capacity mags are NOT available, and the ‘capable’ wording does not come into play under any reasonable reading of the law.
This leads to amusing foolishness as follows:
An M1 Garand (30-06 with an 8 round fixed capacity) is legal and registerable,
but a Browning Buckmark Rifle (10 round .22lr) cannot be registered (even though it meets all legal requirements*) because the police abuse their authority.
So in DC, 8 rounds of 30-06 is okey dokey, but 10 rounds of 22lr is too much firepower!
Even when hi-caps are available other jurisdictions control the mags, not the guns. By DC police logic, they could also refuse to register cars capable of exceeding the speed limit, or capable of running a red light. These are of course pathetically laughable, as is DC law.
*This assumes that magazines greater than 10 rounds are not available for the Buckmark Rifle – and I have not found any in an extensive search of the internet.
February 9th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Also, I would posit that the ’12’ was chosen so that 10 round mags were to be legal when the law was written, but the current powers that be have chosen to change the reading of the law to outlaw detachable mags under the ‘capable’ wording – even though the law does not directly reference ‘detachable’ mags.
I would also point out that the DC police refuse to register _any_ shotgun with a pistol grip – and there is no reference to ‘pistol grips’ at all in the written law.
February 10th, 2007 at 8:16 am
The “no” meant that semi-autos with capacity of greater than 12 (capable of firing more than 12 shots semi-automatically without reloading) is a no-no. So, even without a detachable magazine (or without being a handgun), your Marlin model 60 is a machine gun. But, I wasn’t disagreeing so much as extending what you had to say (and a touch of nit-picking to do so).
It’s a real mess over there… a guy who shoots some of the informal matches at the range with me lives in DC and had one heck of a time registering a MAS-36 (I think I got the designation right, the French bolt-action rifle). Basically, they balked because it used a detachable magazine and *could* conceivably hold more than 10–even though it’s a bolt-action. But, none have ever been made that either he, or the powers that be, could find. And, it has a bayonet. Also a problem for him. Eventually, he managed to get it registered. But all the hoops he went through to show that there weren’t any 10+ rounders would be enough to disqualify any semi-auto with detachable magazine. (Or a semi-auto with a tube)
In any event, it’s nice to live on the free side of the Potomac. đŸ™‚
February 12th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
AughtSix, thanks for the clarification. Sounds like my plan to buy & register a Remington 7615P will be met with some resistance! (despite it’s perfectly legal status)
February 12th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
More power to you if you can pull it off. And if you need a place to shoot it you’d be welcome to be my guest at Izaak Walton some time.