Posted on 07/10/2008 8:20:32 AM PDT by neverdem
The District's gun ban had prohibited residents from registering handguns and keeping them in the city. Immediately after the ban was imposed in 1976, the homicide rate dropped and it has leveled off in recent years, after peaking in 1991.
The District government appears to be headed for disaster as it prepares to craft policies to regulate handgun registration and licensing in response to the Supreme Court's decision declaring unconstitutional the city's absolute ban.
A hearing last week clearly showed that most members on the D.C. City Council want regulations tailored to discourage, to the point of infringement, the ownership of guns. That isn't surprising considering the handgun ban lasted 32 years, but the city's legislative body should get used to the new limits. Any regulations they pass will likely be the subject of a court action if they go too far.
The current idea is to legalize only revolvers and not semiautomatic pistols. This makes little sense. The notion that because the majority of criminals use semiautomatics to commit crimes, law-abiding citizens shouldn't have them is backwards thinking. Phil Mendelson, chairman of the Judiciary Committee admitted that the legislation introduced during the July 1 session was full of holes and unanswered questions.
The first hurdle is deciding how the city should change current law, and the easy answer is to simply repeal the ban. The second is determining how far the city should go in regulating how guns are stored and secured in the home, whether they will require the use of trigger locks or some other apparatus to secure the gun. Here the answer is clearly "no." How will they ever enforce that policy? If a homeowner shoots an intruder, are the police really going to be running around the house looking for a trigger lock?
Council members...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Immediately after the ban was imposed in 1976, the homicide rate dropped and it has leveled off in recent years, after peaking in 1991.
I could find no trace of that sentence anywhere in the story.
Where did you get it?
The clear statement of “INDIVIDUAL RIGHT” in the majority opinion, coupled with “shall not be infringed”
should make nearly all gun control laws void.
It’ll take a couple of decisions involving the words “undue burden” and we’ll get there.
DC will have to be slapped down in court several times before it finally sinks in that they’ve lost.
The first suit will be on trigger locks, since Mendelson and others seem to have missed Scalia’s express ruling that they are unconstitutional.
They probably removed it because it makes no sense.
I was wondering too—it’s the caption under the picture of the gun.
The citizens of DC brought this on themselves. The makeup of DC is RAT infested and they voted this bunch of anti-Americans in office. When will they learn.
Registration of any kind is infringement. The government does not need to know which law-abiding citizens are armed.
“require the use of trigger locks or some other apparatus to secure the gun” Heller places significant limits on what DC can legally do. “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.” That said, I predict the council will pass another trigger lock requirement which will have to be litigated. My hope is that the Federal Court will quickly require a special master to supervise DC. It’s no less than their failure to comply deserves. Further, prosecution of the mayor and council members under 18 USC 241 is in order. My 2 ¢’s.
More people were killed in DC than in Iraq. Lets see the factual statistics rather than the wahsington compost spin.
Just another lie or the mother of all lies? When in the he** has the crime rate, let alone the homicide rate, of DC ever dropped since 1976?
Smart criminals use revolvers so there are no dropped shells - plus, a cheap/dirty revolver works every time -— not so much a cheap semi-auto.
That statement is in the caption of a photograph to the right of the article. This might work:
http://media.washingtontimes.com/media/twt/img/icons/enlarge.gif
So this Keltec .32 ACP would be illegal..
And this Taurus .44 Magnum would be legal..
Congratulations for catching it, beaversmom! This new layout for the Washington Times is for the birds. Here's the caption for the small semi-auto piece on the right side:
"The District's gun ban had prohibited residents from registering handguns and keeping them in the city. Immediately after the ban was imposed in 1976, the homicide rate dropped and it has leveled off in recent years, after peaking in 1991."
I picked it up unknowingly. I didn't check the text when I previewed. It doesn't make sense with the rest of the editorial, although I believe it may be factually correct. It reflects unique years since the ban went into effect, not the overall trend when the city was correctly called the first or second in rank for murder Capitol of the U.S.A.
Registration requirements = Infringement.
Carry Permit requirements = Infringement.
FFL requirement = Infringement.
BATF existence = Infringement.
Heller = just the first step down a long road back to Freedom.
I’ll take the Taurus...
I would not turn my nose up at the Keltec either...
It seems thought that it was going to happen this way regardless of how the Supreme Court opinioned on this case...
There was always going to be a “but” in there right after they affirmed out “individual right” to keep and bear arms was read off...
But...[see, what did I tell you]
There was going to be all sorts of wiggle room left in the opinion to allow D.C., and anyone else in this country, to levy restrictions, regulations, conditions, infringements upon any of us now...
And that may include those areas in this country where we might not have these infringements on ourselves at this particular time...
It allows the political climate once again to infringe upon us, unless we keep the liberals/socialists out of elected office...
Thats why I am all for firing every single one of them, from top to bottom...And putting people in those seats that are absolutely not engaged at all to any special interest groups, whether we like them or not...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
