Mendelson to Introduce Bill to Repeal Gun Ban (DC City Council)

The Washington Post ^ | 10:59 AM ET, 06/30/2008 | Marcia Davis

[The KG9 Kid]

Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) has decided to introduce legislation tomorrow that will address the Supreme Court ruling on the city's gun ban. The bill would repeal the prohibition on handguns.

He made the announcement at the council's news briefing held in preparation for tomorrow's meeting.

It would still require that a firearm be disassembled, unloaded and trigger-locked in the home but would tweak the current law to allow an exception for self-defense.

A draft of the bill will not be available until this afternoon, he said.

Mendelson said he would still wait until the fall to introduce more comprehensive legislation, which would address the city' registration law.

Jason Shedlock, Mendelson's special assistant, said the council member wanted to introduce legislation to give the council a starting point in responding to the landmark ruling that struck down the District's 32-year-old ban. The council would not vote until the fall.

Mendelson said he does not believe it is necessary to move as emergency legislation but will use Wednesday's public roundtable for guidance.

[The KG9 Kid]

"... It would still require that a firearm be disassembled, unloaded and trigger-locked in the home but would tweak the current law to allow an exception for self-defense."

Brilliant.

Congress should move to retract 'home rule' from DC. I haven't seen one single human being in a leadership position in the DC government that isn't either an obtuse cretin, a dingie blonde, an inner city graft machine, a race-baiting poverty pimp, or a doddering old crackhead.

These people are too stupid to have such responsibility for our nation's capitol. Remove it from them.

[Myrddin]

This proposed change only addresses the "keep" part of the 2nd amendment. The "bear" part of the amendment means the "arm" must be usable for its intended purpose. A disassembled, unloaded, trigger locked firearm is suitable for nothing but a paperweight or a club. Unless that provision is removed, the city law is still in violation of the 2nd amendment.

[justlurking]

t would still require that a firearm be disassembled, unloaded and trigger-locked in the home but would tweak the current law to allow an exception for self-defense.

Go directly to Jail, do not pass Go or collect $200.

The Court explicitly ruled that laws mandating disassembly and/or trigger locks were unconstitutional.

Frankly, I think we need a Federal law that makes it a crime to vote for a law that is blatantly unconstitutional.

[Eastbound]

"It would still require that a firearm be disassembled, unloaded and trigger-locked in the home . . . "

Note to all: The Second Amendment does not have any provisos or qualififications attached to it. Why don't all you gun-grabbing nuts who just can't give up the notion that you were born to insure the proper handling and distribution of guns just silently crawl back in the slimy holes you were spawmed from and let the people manage their own affairs? You won't really be missed. Honest. Thank you very much.

[murron]

So, legally, what does this mean to the Washington DC residents? Now that the Supreme Court has voted against the ban, doesn’t it automatically become illegal, just as the abortion laws that were on the books when Roe v Wade was decided? If I want to purchase and keep a gun in my house in DC, and the police decide to bust me, would they be able to do this?

[jack_napier]

"I am not conceding that...we make an open-ended exception" for trigger locks, Cheh said.
Open ended? I'm not sure what she means here, but Scalia was pretty direct about them not being acceptable. As a DC resident, I *would* enjoy seeing them ground into dust, but the money spent losing cases to the NRA will be funded by my tax money.

[The KG9 Kid]

I would just ignore the dis-assembly and trigger locks rules completely if I were you. If you're ever charged, hit them with a civil rights suit. You'll certainly win. They might settle out of court for $50k plus your legal fees.

So, are you now actively pursuing your rights in DC?

[nonsporting]

Scalia writes (p.3):

...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.

Since ALL firearms are capable tools to be used for self-defense, any requirement to render any inoperable is unconstitutional.

[mr_hammer]

Honestly, you would think these people had the authority to write whatever law they liked and the Constitution be damned.

Somewhere along the line someone is going to have to be pinched for a civil rights violation.

[wastedyears]

A Democrat??? In DC???

[jack_napier]

Working on it; waiting to see what rules Fenty comes up with here in two weeks.

I’m not saying I *would* ignore disassembly and trigger lock rules, but I am saying that if I did, that the day it comes to light is the day I have much larger concerns. I’m law abiding, my apartment has no reason to be searched by law enforcement. It’s unlikely anyone will break into my apartment for a variety of reasons. The most likely reason I’d need it is a riot or a disaster; at which point I hope the police realize they have better things to do than pester me.

[g_gunter]

“I’m law abiding, my apartment has no reason to be searched by law enforcement. It’s unlikely anyone will break into my apartment for a variety of reasons. The most likely reason I’d need it is a riot or a disaster; at which point I hope the police realize they have better things to do than pester me.”

Tell that to the citizens of St. Tammany Parish and New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina when law enforcement invaded their homes and property and illegaly confiscated their personal firearms.