D.C. Tries to Finesse Gun Ruling

[audtatious]

Mayor Adrian Fenty and his feisty attorney general, Peter Nickles, stood on the steps of the Wilson Building this week ostensibly to announce how the District will comply with the Supreme Court's rejection of Washington's ban on handguns. But really, they were delivering very much the opposite message: With only the narrowest of exceptions, we're sticking with our gun ban. Don't like it? Sue us.

"I am pretty confident that the people of the District of Columbia want us to err in the direction of trying to restrict guns," Fenty told me, smiling broadly at the suggestion that what he's really trying to do is make it as hard as possible for Washingtonians to keep a loaded gun at home.

Fenty and Nickles reject any interpretation of the court's decision as a clear statement that Americans may, with very few exceptions, keep and bear what Justice Antonin Scalia called "the quintessential self-defense weapon," the handgun. Rather, the D.C. officials read the decision as an almost academic ruling that although there may be a constitutional right to bear arms to protect yourself, that right is pretty much limited to folks whose house is being broken into right this very second.

The court ruled that there is "no doubt" that "the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms." But Nickles, the acting attorney general, said that "it's clear the Supreme Court didn't intend for you to have a loaded gun around the house. I don't think the court thought this was going to become a Wild West scene."

So the mayor and the D.C. Council enacted an emergency law setting up a cumbersome mechanism by which residents who want to own a gun legally may register a weapon if they clear a background check, pass a vision test and a written test on gun safety, pay a fee and wait for the bureaucracy to complete all these steps. "There are circumstances where it could take months," Police Chief Cathy Lanier conceded, and you could almost hear the elected officials around her emitting "heh-hehs" of mischievous delight.

Even then, D.C. gun owners would be prohibited from keeping their gun loaded unless they could demonstrate that, as the city's new gun law says, the firearm is "being used against a reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm."

What does that mean? "Somebody's approaching your home," Nickles offered. Or "an actual threat by somebody you believe is out to hurt you." How about if there's been a break-in next door? That's close, he said.

The District is rejecting the most common reading of the Supreme Court's 5 to 4 ruling: that although government is permitted to regulate access to guns -- barring, for example, felons and the mentally ill -- Americans have the right to arm themselves against any threat, however they may define it.

"I don't think they intended that anybody who had a vague notion of a threat should have access to a gun," Fenty told me.

The District is out to prove that the Supreme Court's is not the last word. In truth, on the most divisive constitutional questions, the court only reframes the nation's debate. Scalia's majority opinion deliberately avoided getting into the particulars of the D.C. gun regulation scheme -- an engraved invitation to all parties to flood the courts with litigation.

Judging from opinion surveys over the years, Fenty is surely right that D.C. residents would like to restore their old gun ban. But these matters are not decided by plebiscite. Even if city lawyers believe there's a smidgeon of a chance that some court might let the District impose singularly tight restrictions on the right to bear arms, this last lawsuit demonstrates that, ultimately, the city would lose.

Those on both sides who relish the prospect of years and years of litigation are not likely to have such fun. Congress, still reveling over its latest stomp on any stirrings of democracy in the District, is gearing up for another go. If the lords of the Hill can impose a new fare system on the city's taxicabs, they will think nothing of nullifying whatever gun regulations Fenty and the council create.

Already, members of Congress are pumping out news releases and lining up cable talk spots so they can present themselves in an election year as saviors of Americans' gun rights. With Republicans smelling blood and Democrats quivering in the corner over the possibility that they might be portrayed as soft on gun rights, this is yet another issue that will end up as a reminder that democracy and the District are wholly separate concepts.

Fenty and the council put on a nice show of defiance, but in the end, Congress will demonstrate once again just how little say Washington residents have in their own governance.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/....html

[rn79870]

It's a pendulum. It's swinging the way of the gun lobby now. It's possible that handguns could still be outlawed if enough problems occur. The answer os for the owners to police their own and see that handguns are sold and used responsibly. I don't know how many more school shootings, or other gun related tragedies it will take before the masses rally behind gun control. When that happens, the pendulem will swing back.

[Cold_Zero]

I would say, Mayor Fenty, be prepared for a lot of lawsuits. And I hope people come out of the wood work to sue the **** out of the District if they are going to engage in this practice. I would think that most cases would be 'slam dunk' after the District of Columbia v. Heller. Furthermore, if they don't comply with this ruling can the District be censured in some manor? Either by the Congress or the US District Attorney's Office?

Quote »I don't think the court thought this was going to become a Wild West scene." [/quote]The best thing that happened after this ruling and the lapse in the 'Assault Weapons Ban" is that this prophecy never came true. This is classic fear mongering.

Typically States do not make it near to impossible to own (in your home or on your property) handguns and firearms, the burden typically comes when citizens want to carry or conceal carry. This gets into the "Shall Issue" and "May Issue" permitting of citizens to carry off their property.

[Cold_Zero]

It's a pendulum. It's swinging the way of the gun lobby now. It's possible that handguns could still be outlawed if enough problems occur.

It would take a constitutional amendment to ban firearms. We can't even get a marriage amendment through Congress how the heck do you think that this country could get a "gun ban" amendment through? That's right liberals would just use the court to force judicial activism to change the laws that we have on the books. This is the same tactic that the National Socialists used first harass, restrict and outlaw Jews from German society in the 1930's. I find it interesting that when conservatives talk about changing Constitutional Freedoms, it is typically always done through the legislative process to amend the Constitution. Liberals typically use the courts to achieve this outcome.

Quote »The answer os for the owners to police their own and see that handguns are sold and used responsibly. I don't know how many more school shootings, or other gun related tragedies it will take before the masses rally behind gun control. When that happens, the pendulem will swing back. [/quote]And yet we have a Federal Bureau (Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms) which was setup to collect the tax revenue on these items, now enforcing gun laws in the United States... And investigating church fires. Not sure where that came from (Clinton Administration). But apparently, now we need more federal enforcement. I got a great ideal, lets enforce the laws we do have, put more cops on the streets, build more jails and keeps criminals in jail for their entire sentence! But I digress...This line of thinking is typical of the anti gun lobby. If we can't ban firearms, we will make it so hard for lawful citizens to own guns that no one will want to go through the process. So what does the anti gun lobby do? Pass laws that are aimed not at Criminals but at abiding citizens, therefore making gun ownership a criminal activity. This is evident in legislation that targets gun owners that have their firearms stolen attempting to make them responsible for crimes committed with the stolen arms. This would be tat amount to holding YOU responsible if your car is stolen and used in a crime. Yet because gun ownership is unpopular in this country, it’s ok to attack lawful gun owners and put unfair and unreasonable restrictions on them. I could go on and on about the **** that the anti gun lobby pulls. I think God that we have the NRA-ILA on our side trying to defend the rights of gun owners and hunters.

[mtcookson]

I don't know how many more school shootings

Gun control is the reason there are school shootings... no one is allowed to have any on campus (the gun control) therefore making it easier for the shooter (who is of course disobeying the no guns on campus rule) to come in and shoot people up with no worry of retaliation till the cops are there. By that time the shooter has already killed a bunch of people and is likely to off himself, which is probably the best part since we don't have to deal with the person and pay for them to live in prison.

[rn79870]

I don't know if I'd agree with armed students, and I'm sure the teachers would rather not have armed students in their class. Maybe more security?It's a tough issue to crack. Either way, I don't think the public will tolerate another VT or Columbine type tragedy.

[mtcookson]

Armed students would be just like armed homeowners, business owners, or even concealed carry owners. The law abiding simply abide by the law and cause no harm... when someone comes in to cause harm, the then equipped students and/or teachers would easily be able to dispatch the criminal.

More security would help... but that's more money. Allowing law abiding students to carry is free.

Also forgot I was going to add that by DC doing this... it is the makings of an anarchy.

[Cold_Zero]

The ponit is this. Students, just like adult teachers would have to abide by the same laws and licensing practices of their state. Typically they must be 18 years or older, have no felony convictions and no mental illness... It wouldnt be a 'free for all."

[mtcookson]

Typically they must be 18 years or older

21 for handguns (federal law) so that would likely cut down on a lot of guns in schools right there... yet again making it easy for a person to go shoot up the school. Having some carry would definitely help though... it would make a person think twice about it.

[Cold_Zero]

Typically it's 21 to buy handguns, but not to possess or carry them. But you are right you are talking about the upper part of High School before anyone could legally carry (conceal) handguns if it were legal on school premises. bud

[mtcookson]

True

[rn79870]

I think having a bunch of armed, (and relatively untrained) students returning fire would be almost as dangerous as the shooter. Now if something more than a few hour training course was required, maybe I'd be a little more comfortable with it.

[mtcookson]

I don't think it is the government's right to make a person train to have a gun, however, I do believe a school would definitely have a right to impose a rule like that. I definitely don't disagree with that, though at the same time, even just allowing them would cut down on a lot of potential shooters. But, for the most part I agree that would be a good idea.

[C-Kwik]

This is evident in legislation that targets gun owners that have their firearms stolen attempting to make them responsible for crimes committed with the stolen arms. This would be tat amount to holding YOU responsible if your car is stolen and used in a crime.

That's comparing apples to oranges. Certainly a car can be stolen to be used ina crime, but the intended use of an automobile is to drive it. Most auto-related thefts are for profit and the vehicle usually ends up in the hands of another or others (if dismantled) where ultimately, it is usually just driven. Guns are designed to be weapons. As such, stolen guns tend to end up in the hands of someone who might have ill-intentions with it. Ironically, a stolen gun may be what a legal gun-owner might have to defend himself against. I'm not against guns in the least. I do think that there are some guns that need not be in the hands of any owner, but ultimately, there are people out there that show little to no responsibility when it comes to gun security.

While I agree that holding a person responsible for the crime that ensues out of having a gun stolen from them is a bit much. But I think the intent is to try and legislate gun responsibility. I think gun enthusiasts need to step up to the plate on this one if they want to change anti-gun outlook on them. Think of it this way. If a particular group has a higher degree of crime rate as all the other groups, then its natural for the other groups to want to stereotype the rest of that group. The way to change everyone else's opinion of that group is to reduce the crime rate in that group so that it is on par with the rest. I do think that some law should be enacted to promote the security of guns. I would think that gun owners would want the same. The tricky part of course is trying to find an effective solution that is only reasonably intrusive to a gun owner...not an easy task as its interpretation is likely going to depend on which side of the issue one is on...

[srellim234]

As the husband of a law enforcement officer I think it IS the government's right to make a person train to have a gun. Much the same as requiring a driver's license to operate a motor vehicle. The founding fathers couldn't have foreseen the ease of use and destructiveness of modern weaponry.

That said, forcing people to keep the guns unloaded in their own homes or locked up by law is wrong. Inside the walls of your own home the government has no business dictating that if the gun was obtained legally and you are properly licensed to have it. You have a responsibility to provide a safe environment but we have things like child endangerment laws and negligence laws on the books already to handle those people who don't handle them properly at home.

[Cold_Zero]

That's comparing apples to oranges. Certainly a car can be stolen to be used ina crime, but the intended use of an automobile is to drive it. Most auto-related thefts are for profit and the vehicle usually ends up in the hands of another or others (if dismantled) where ultimately, it is usually just driven. Guns are designed to be weapons. As such, stolen guns tend to end up in the hands of someone who might have ill-intentions with it. Ironically, a stolen gun may be what a legal gun-owner might have to defend himself against. I'm not against guns in the least. I do think that there are some guns that need not be in the hands of any owner, but ultimately, there are people out there that show little to no responsibility when it comes to gun security.

While I agree that holding a person responsible for the crime that ensues out of having a gun stolen from them is a bit much. But I think the intent is to try and legislate gun responsibility. I think gun enthusiasts need to step up to the plate on this one if they want to change anti-gun outlook on them. Think of it this way. If a particular group has a higher degree of crime rate as all the other groups, then its natural for the other groups to want to stereotype the rest of that group. The way to change everyone else's opinion of that group is to reduce the crime rate in that group so that it is on par with the rest. I do think that some law should be enacted to promote the security of guns. I would think that gun owners would want the same. The tricky part of course is trying to find an effective solution that is only reasonably intrusive to a gun owner...not an easy task as its interpretation is likely going to depend on which side of the issue one is on...

Oh ok, if we want to argue semantics: the said automobile was used in the course of the crime to kill a person (vehicular manslaughter) and the owner forgot to lock said car.

You are right cars are intended to be driven and guns are intended to be shot. What a criminal does with either of them in the course of a crime doesnt change their intention. (Using your own example) Maybe more guns would be sold for profit (like cars) than used for crime, if there werent tracking methods for gun sales at pawn shops and gun stores.

Personally, I dont think gun owners and gun enthusiast need to budge one bit. We have been budging for some time now, with more laws, laws upon the same law, demonization, taxation and harassment. I think its pretty evident around the world, banning firearms does not reduce or eliminate crime. It didnt work in the Soviet Union and it doesnt work in DC.

[hsckris]

I think its pretty evident around the world, banning firearms does not reduce or eliminate crime.

+1. I can't believe DC is being this brash... "lets waste taxpayer money by disobeying a clear ruling!"

Glad I don't live in the District of Communism.

[mtcookson]

As the husband of a law enforcement officer I think it IS the government's right to make a person train to have a gun.

I just can't see the government saying "you have to take a class before you can have a gun" being able to coincide with "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Quote »Much the same as requiring a driver's license to operate a motor vehicle.[/quote]As much as I dislike the whole vehicle licensing deal, the constitution doesn't really have anything on vehicles like it does on guns as said above.

Quote »The founding fathers couldn't have foreseen the ease of use and destructiveness of modern weaponry.[/quote]I don't know about that... but regardless a gun is a gun. The guns of their time may have been inaccurate but could still kill yet they still felt the need to openly allow guns (mostly to keep the government in check). Letting the government make it more difficult for us to acquire guns I'm sure something the founding fathers would be very against.

[Cold_Zero]

As the husband of a law enforcement officer I think it IS the government's right to make a person train to have a gun. Much the same as requiring a driver's license to operate a motor vehicle. The founding fathers couldn't have foreseen the ease of use and destructiveness of modern weaponry.

That said, forcing people to keep the guns unloaded in their own homes or locked up by law is wrong. Inside the walls of your own home the government has no business dictating that if the gun was obtained legally and you are properly licensed to have it. You have a responsibility to provide a safe environment but we have things like child endangerment laws and negligence laws on the books already to handle those people who don't handle them properly at home.

Bearing Arms is a right. Driving a car is a privilege. Conceal carrying a firearm is a privilege. If we want to talk about training classes for people who want to conceal carry their firearms, that is another issue.

Voting is a right, yet no classes are required to execute said right. For the record I think that responsible gun ownership requires you to have a safe and competent skill to handle and operate your firearm. The problem I have with the government getting involved with certifying people to own guns is that the process will be taxed and recorded (tracked). I am not comfortable with my government for either to happen.

Why is this even an issue? Most people growing up are either taught safe firearms handling and operation either by the Boy Scouts, their parents, the military or when hunting is passed down to them. What makes people think that gun owners do not know how to safely operate their firearm?

[HashiriyaS14]

I don't think it is the government's right to make a person train to have a gun

While I'm generally a pretty staunch supporter of the 2nd Ammendment, just personally speaking, I strongly disagree.

The reason they require people to get driver's licenses is because cars, when used improperly, can kill people.

When you think about it, just about anything mechanical that can cause easy accidental death to others requires a license (i.e. aircraft, cars, motorcycles, boats).

Firearms can, quite obviously, cause accidental death to oneself and others when handled improperly, and thus I wholeheartedly support pretty robust training requirements for civilian ownership.

Would this likely require some system like registration, where the Government then knows who all has firearms? Yeah, probably so.

Wouldn't that then run contrary to my 2nd Ammendment stance?

I don't think it does......for this reason:

I do not buy, and have never bought, the argument that firearms are necessary to "protect citizens from a tyrannical government". I think that it would have been applicable in the 1800s or earlier, but not in the age of mechanized warfare.

Own uns to hunt or target shoot? Check.

For personal defense, at home or in society? All Aboard!

But do I think that any number of civilian-owned Glock 17's is going to stop a US government intent on exterminating said civilians? Not in a million motherf**king years.

Let's leave aside the unbelievably low priority that the US Government will turn tyrannical....just for a second. Let's say that it has. What is anyone going to do about it? If the DoD decides that it wants to reduce Indianapolis to an ashtray, they can do it in about six minutes.

I feel that this "excuse" also gets used to justify the private ownership of weapons that private citizens needn't be able to own.

The fact that owning belt-fed weapons makes overly paranoid citizens feel safer in the event of a nearly impossible and if not impossible then hopeless situation is NOT justification to allow said citizens to own said belt-fed weapons.

Sorry.

[WDRacing]

Agreed...

A safety class and a basic marksman class should be a requirement to buy a handgun period. Yes you have the right to own one, but everyone else has the right to proceed through life in relative safety. In this case case the needs of the many far outweigh the needs of the few. It's not like taking a class is a bad thing. And no one is saying you CAN'T have a gun, there are just stipulations involved that are simply a necessity in today's overcrowded society. In fact anyone that looks down on weapons training should probably not be allowed to own a gun...ever.

I would definitely be for tax payer money going towards weapons safety. It's a non issue, keep people safe = win.

WD

[Cold_Zero]

But do I think that any number of civilian-owned Glock 17's is going to stop a US government intent on exterminating said civilians? Not in a million motherf**king years.

Let's leave aside the unbelievably low priority that the US Government will turn tyrannical....just for a second. Let's say that it has. What is anyone going to do about it? If the DoD decides that it wants to reduce Indianapolis to an ashtray, they can do it in about six minutes.

Hash,

1. With your rational how do you reconcile that the all powerful United States Military was worn down to the point of withdraw from Vietnam by the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army? I am sure that the King of England laughed at the Colonist Militias when they stood against the British Army at Bunker Hill. It is also amazing about how few Al Qaeda In Iraq operatives it take to create troubles for the United States Military.

2. I am horrified that you would think that our government would violate posse comitatus in such a way as nuking Indianapolis and the fact that you are ok with that. Further more that you would just roll over to an oppressive government is shocking. I have a great deal of respect for you, but I am beginning to question that.

[Cold_Zero]

Oh and Chuck Schumer made the same argument about the 2nd Amendment. So you are in good company with this line of thinking. Personally, since Chuckie Shumer was not on the Senate floors when he made his comments, he should have been tried for sedition.

[srellim234]

Yes, the right to bear arms is a right. But the right to bear certain arms move over to the realm of privilege as opposed to rights. It's a matter of where you draw the line as to what "arms" should be allowed.

I draw my line at handguns. I don't see anything wrong with requiring a safety class as a prerequisite to getting one. If you are not going to draw the line somewhere, then you must include that the right to bear arms must include fully automatic weapons, loaded grenade launchers, etc. I don't think you are going to defend anyone's right to bear a low-yield nuclear weapon in their home, so part of what we are discussing here is a definition of "arms" according to the founding fathers.

For those who think that we don't need the right to bear some type of arms, look no further than the Middle East. Whether it's your own government or another government moving in, people should have the ability to defend themselves, their homes, their family and their country.

The government already is tracking our votes. Absentee ballot? Your name is associated with it. Any jurisdiction that has electronic voting has the ability to cross reference tracking numbers for recounts. That number is recorded when you vote. We only hope and trust that those records won't be used against us.

[rn79870]

The right to bear arms was a constitutional provision made at a time when a gun was necessary to defend oneself from wild creatures, as well as for feeding the family. They were seen as necessary for the defense of the new country too. I sincerely doubt that the framing fathers even considered whether firearms should be carried in a school setting, or used in an urban environment. Had they seen where the 2nd. amendment was headed, I would b e willing to bet that they added a few restrictions regarding the use of those guns.

Remember, the 2nd. amendment guaranties the right to own the firearm, but society still has the right to regulate how and when it is used.

[skylndrftr]

rn:

you can take your italics and shove it up your ***. As much as i disagree with this supposed right to bear arms (I think Scalia is a nutjob and a farce as a justice), there is no freakin way the government should be regulating my rights.

Sure you can speak freely...but not in manner X

Sure your you can't be searched without probable cause, but this isn't a search its a screening.

I am a gun owner but if I told you it made me feel safer I would be lieing.

[srellim234]

rn:

you can take your italics and shove it up your ***. As much as i disagree with this supposed right to bear arms (I think Scalia is a nutjob and a farce as a justice), there is no freakin way the government should be regulating my rights.

Sure you can speak freely...but not in manner X

Sure your you can't be searched without probable cause, but this isn't a search its a screening.

I am a gun owner but if I told you it made me feel safer I would be lieing.

I would suggest that you look at your first sentence and then go read forum rules #2, 3 and 7 again. That statement is totally uncalled for.

As for free speech, are you indicating that you, in fact, DO have the right to yell , "FIRE!" in a crowded theater? Without consequence? Every right carries with it certain responsibilities. Some limits are necessary.

Which is what I'm advocating here. The individual should have the responsibility to pass a gun handling safety course prior to purchasing a handgun. Much the same way as a hunter safety course is the norm in most of the country for obtaining a hunting license.

I do agree that the Washington politicians are going too far.

[skylndrftr]

thank you for knowing the rules and welcome to politics

yelling FIRE has always been seperate from from free speech. People in this thread have talked about keeping their guns to use when the government starts trampling on their other rights. Unfortunately, their rights are being trampled on and they don't know it. The concept that rights have caveats is unamerican, however the right to own a gun IS given the caveat of the militia as part of that right.

Personal responsibility is a very seperate concept adn there are many laws to deal with the innapropriate use of a firearm seperate from the discussion of the 2nd amendment. What the district is doing here, morally I have no problem with, however in the context of the decreasing power of our rights I do.

What the Supreme court said really worries me. It basically says you can use your rights but its okay to regulate them. So is okay for you to say no to a search but only if I give a reason? Whats next? the scariest part to everyone in this thread is that a man like Scalia who claims to believe in a true reading of the constitution would leave the door open.

And if this isn't okay then where is the line and why is it there? A felon can't own a gun? Why not, hes paid his debt to society, he paid for his crimes and has theoretically been rehabilitated.

[skylndrftr]

possibly a drunk question but can't they just ba nthe posession of ammunition within the city limits?

[WDRacing]

I think that would fall under the same "right to bear arms".