D.C. on verge of new gun law

The Washington Times ^ | 7-15-08 | David C. Lipscomb and Gary Emerling

[JZelle]

The District, rebuffed by the Supreme Court last month in a landmark decision on its 32-year-old gun ban, could soon be headed back to court over a new gun law that could take effect as early as Wednesday.

The D.C. Council will vote Tuesday on emergency legislation that will require handgun owners to keep their weapons disassembled or under lock and key in what gun rights advocates see as direct defiance of the Supreme Court ruling.

That ruling said the District could not bar residents from "rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."

Some interpreted that language at the time as prohibiting any requirement for gun locks.

"They're doing everything that they can to not comply with the Supreme Court ruling," said Chris Cox, chief lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, who dismissed the proposed legislation as "a joke."

"Unless the criminal calls you beforehand and lets you know he's coming over ... you're going to be left defenseless," Mr. Cox said.

D.C. interim Attorney General Peter J. Nickles acknowledged that officials expected strong reactions to the emergency legislation, which will be in effect for only 90 days.

"We expect a lot of public input, [and] we probably expect also a lawsuit," he said. "We will learn from what it is we see, and it may be appropriate to change some of the measures."

In the majority Supreme Court opinion that struck down the District's gun ban, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that "the District´s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."

[JZelle]

Incredible arrogance!

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Hit em with another suit.

[Dilbert San Diego]

Can’t they be held in contempt of court for considering this type of legislation?

If Congress was in Republican hands, perhaps their budget could be held up by Congress for not complying with the Supreme Court ruling, perhaps. That would never happen with Dems. in charge.

Point is, there must be some way to get compliance with Supreme Court orders.

[Ratblaster]

If they were honest, they'd just say that they don't trust Negroes with guns.

[Panzerlied]

“We will learn from what it is we see, and it may be appropriate to change some of the measures.”

Or get your a$$ in the slammer for contempt of court!

[Reagan Man]

Gestapo tactics.

[traderrob6]

Related...

http://exposingtheleft.blogspot.com/2008/07/district-leaders-announce-new-handgun.html

[ladtx]

I guess the only solution would be to buy the biggest, heaviest handgun available. At least you would have a heavy steel frame to throw at the burglars because you sure wouldn’t have time to assemble and load it.

[wideawake]

It's a delaying action - there is no way that this can hold up in the light of the ruling.

The next step should be for some crime victims in Washington DC to sue the city in civil court for violating their civil rights under the Second Amendment.

Perhaps a fat award would give them some religion.

[Secret Agent Man]

The Executive Branch is about enforcement of laws. It cannot make laws, or interpret laws. It can determine how much enforcement is put behind laws.

The Supreme Court interprets laws. It cannot make laws nor enforce them.

The Congress makes laws. It should understand what they pass (often don’t), but cannot determine constitutionality in the sense the Supreme Court can, nor enforce them as the Executive Branch can.

[RexBeach]

No, it’s ignorance. The DC Government could screw up a two car funeral...and has!

Well, perhaps DC residents can fling bullets at home invaders?

The DC City Council is loaded with retards.

[Phlyer]

Can’t they be held in contempt of court for considering this type of legislation?

Since it's DC, I suppose it's possible, but that's not the way this will be handled. It's too direct.

People - including probably Heller - will keep his gun in his home without a trigger lock. Someone will defend himself, and the police will arrest the homeowner (or more likely, apartment renter) for not having had his gun locked.

It will go to trial, and he will be found guilty in DC, but on appeal (perhaps all the way to the Supreme Court), the law will be found unconstitutional and so the charges will be dropped.

Except . . .

The poor guy will be out his life savings for legal fees. Even if the lawyers handle it pro bono or it's funded by ACLJ, etc. he'll still be out tons of money for time lost at work, etc.

And what are the odds that a new Supreme Court, with justices nominated by Obama and confirmed by a Socialist (i.e. Democrat) Senate will just overturn DC v. Heller and make the 2nd Amendment go away? They waited a very long time to hear a case on the 2nd Amendment that addressed whether it is an individual or collective right. That's no guarantee that a new Supreme Court wouldn't hear a new case as soon as the opportunity arose, and then just overturn "their" prior decision.

After all, the only 'settled law' is that which supports the socialists.

[romanesq]

Yeah, I really like the civil rights litigation for this. Someone goes down and tries to satisfy their Second Amendment Rights and are rejected.

They then lose a family member in a crime at their home.

Sue the city for $150 million. Triple damages.

That should get their attention.

[Osage Orange]

Until they start to go door to door..and search house to house...I don't know how gun-locks can be enforced.

MOLON LABE

[Osage Orange]

Actually...I don't think it makes a difference.

"They" want everyone "gun-free"...........

MOLON LABE

[Osage Orange]

People - including probably Heller - will keep his gun in his home without a trigger lock. Someone will defend himself, and the police will arrest the homeowner (or more likely, apartment renter) for not having had his gun locked.

How would they prove that?

[tcostell]

you have hit on the central thesis of modern gun control. they don't care if a rich white guy from the suburbs wants to but a $10,000 over under shotgun. It's really about keeping minorities disarmed.

[Dionysius]

So long as someone has a lock, they can’t prove the gun wasn’t first locked and them unlocked just in time to deep six the perp.

[beltfed308]

D.C. interim Attorney General Peter J. Nickles acknowledged that officials expected strong reactions to the emergency legislation, which will be in effect for only 90 days.

Their confidence that it will stand up in court is only matched by their sheer arrogance.

Rope....it's the only way to be sure. What movie was that? Nevermind.

[KDD]

This is a law breaking action by DC and will never make it to the USSC...they have already ruled on it and the first court it appears in will toss it. In fact, Justice Dept. lawers should be drawing up indictments against any city or State official that declares their intention to break the law as set down by the USSC and the Constitution.