WASHINGTON, July 5, 2008
After Gun Ban Ruling, D.C. Seeks New Rules
As Residents Head To Gun Shops, Officials Scramble To Draft New Regulations
-
Photo
Supreme Court police officer A.J. Mackie stands on the steps of the court in Washington, Thursday June 26, 2008. Americans can keep guns at home for self-defense, the court ruled Thursday in the justices' first-ever pronouncement on the meaning of gun rights under the Second Amendment. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
-
Interactive
Guns In America
State-by-state gun laws and death rates, maps of recent school and workplace shootings and facts on who's at risk.
"I'd like to sell anything I have," said Metta. But he won't just yet - not until the city draws up new regulations.
The Supreme Court's decision June 26 rebuffed the strictest gun law in the nation.
The National Rifle Association called it "a great moment in American history." But prospective gun buyers and sellers said they remain on hold, awaiting the response of D.C. officials who are scrambling to draft new handgun regulations that comply with the court ruling.
"There's nothing we can do until we know what they will do," Metta said.
Metta, manager of Atlantic Guns in Silver Spring, Md., said his store fielded about 75 calls from D.C. residents after the ruling. Other gun shops outside the city - which has no shops of its own - also received calls. They, too, were turning prospective buyers away.
Writing for a 5-4 majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said: "We hold 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."
Washington's gun ban took effect in 1976 and essentially outlawed private ownership of handguns in a city struggling with violence.
In 1974, two years before the ban took effect, more than half of all homicides were committed with handguns. But what impact the ban has had on crime has long been debated, particularly after homicides more than doubled during a crack epidemic in the late 1980s and early 90s.
Supporters of the ban lamented the court ruling, but vowed to maintain the strictest handgun measures allowed.
"The Supreme Court's decision last week was regrettable; nonetheless, it is the law of the land," D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson said. He introduced legislation Tuesday to repeal the handgun ban and propose new requirements.
Besides banning handguns, D.C. law required that rifles and shotguns be kept unloaded and disassembled, or equipped with trigger locks - restrictions Mendelson's bill would still retain. But, bowing to the high court, he offered a broad exemption for guns kept at home for "immediate self-defense."
Gun rights advocates called the bill's wording too narrow, questioning how someone would interpret an immediate need for protection.
"That's a troublesome approach," said John Snyder, of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. He accused the city of trying to make it "as difficult as possible for people to defend themselves."
Mendelson's bill also would require a ballistics record for handguns and a waiting period for registration to be determined by the police chief.
Critics, meanwhile, charged the proposal doesn't address the city's unusual regulation of machine guns, which D.C. defines as weapons that shoot at least 12 rounds without reloading. That restriction applies to many popular semiautomatic firearms.
It remains uncertain how quickly the D.C. Council will move to enact new regulations. Mendelson said, if needed, he will propose emergency action July 15, before the group's summer recess starts.
The city's ban was to remain in effect at least three weeks after the Supreme Court's ruling, until a lower court issues an injunction. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty's administration also is drafting new regulations.
Many are waiting anxiously.
Allan Lucas, a licensed firearms instructor in D.C., is among those concerned about how new regulations will affect him.
He has been trying for two years to open an indoor shooting range in the city to train security guards and other clients. Because the city currently has no zoning category for such a business, he takes his clients to ranges in the suburbs.
"It's pretty ridiculous to think of so many people qualifying to register for firearms and not having a range to practice on," he said.
John McRae, who has lived in Washington for 40 of his 64 years, is among those thinking of buying a gun once the rules are settled. He said he wants to protect himself from armed criminals.
"If they come into my house, I can't use a broomstick," McRae said.
© MMVIII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 72 CommentsPosted by SistaTee at 11:56 PM : Jul 05, 2008
+ report abuse
***************************
not everybody in DC that wants a handgun are criminals..OF COURSE THAT IS HOW A LIBERAL SEES THINGS..
The SUpreme COurt did insinuate that certain "infringement" of rights may be quite legal.
The Courts ruling did not make owning a gun any easier; it did not make brandishing a gun by anyone at anytime and in any contex constitutional in any way.
So , you really think just anyone that understands English can simply read a document written in english and understand it? You have to have someone interpret it. The statement "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" needs to be interpreted. It could mean almost anything but does not clearly state the citizens can keep and carry "arms". If only the constitutional meaning could be clearly understood by reading.
Consider these CHANGES/DIRECTIONS and think again, please." Posted by JTait2
Sounds good to me, now only of even half of them were true...
No one seems to realize that the language of the Constitution is literal and deliberate, it mentions "arms", firearms are only one type of armament, baseball bats, clubs, tazers, poison, even swords, knives and sharp sticks.
A not unreasonable interpretation could be to limit what types of arms are permitted, without prohibiting arms in general, and the prohibition of vertain types of firearms would not violate the constitution in any way.
Posted by S_Temper at 04:24 AM : Jul 06, 2008
While I''m all for citizens owning guns and therefore protecting themselves and their homes, but to believe it will keep our corrupt government from victiming us is simply wishful thinking.
Or haven''t you been paying attention to the news for the last 8 yrs?
Bush sponsered $5.00 a gallon gas - I''d call that victimizing us.
Bush sponsored illegal wiretaps - I''d have to call that victimizing us too.
Bush sponsored war for oil profits via 962 lies - I''m sorry but all the dead soldiers probably feel victimized as well.
Us owning guns didnt stop any of that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Scratch0058
HAHA. Nice....
Posted by JTait2 at 07:53 AM : Jul 06, 2008
Hillary STILL lost. Nothing has changed.
By the way, I have a little secret for you - the super delegates CANNOT endorse a candidate that has CONCEDED defeat, and has withdrawn from the nomination process.
Do you have ANY IDEA of how the process works? Has our school systems become such as abysmal failure, as to produce such uneducated people as yourself?
No wonder our country is in such trouble!!
Posted by mo005 at 09:28 AM : Jul 06, 2008
Correct. A criminal will shoot and kill you, and take the gun from your "cold dead fingers". Then he will have two guns.
THIS "definition" is where DC is going to "getcha".
Posted by tootall10142 at 08:38 AM : Jul 06, 2008
This is indeed an argument for having guns on your person, at home or on the street. So why not put that in the Constitution, an amendment to own weapons for self-defense or even for any purpose the individual may determine?
Posted by sidvicious75
How many of these locked up crimunals are released and then reoffend?
Not sure where your neighborhood is .. but I seriously doubt you ever stepped out in say .. south central LA, Houstons Walnut Bend, South Dallas, Dorchester, Roxbury, Springfield MA,
There are tons of crime ridden communities in this country .. and the notion that if one does not have the right to defend thier family or thier property is preposterous ...
Many of us "sheltered" Americans who are not living in crime ridden, drug, gang infested communities or have been subjected to a violent crime can sit in judgement and pooh pooh the reality .. this is not a video game you can just turn off ..
You are naive .... and if you get on the web or watch the news (if it bleeds it leads) and research crime you might be more open minded about what your ranting about ..
The intullectually challengedd libs in this country still try to thrwart there ideas into anything they can despite a supreme court ruling, typical lib freedom haters. DC residence, go buy your new hand guns and defend yourself. Your 32 years behind the times.
Posted by zgomer at 11:51 AM : Jul 06, 2008
GOD BLESS YOU GOMER!! Every man women and child should have a gun issued to them with their drivers license. We live in a dangerous nation where you can not trust your neighbor, you best friend or your WIFE!! I have had a few run ins with cranky seniors and had I had a pistol within arms length, well needless to say I would have won that argument over who was first in line at the grocery checkout!!! LIBZZZ!!
Relying upon the police to protect you and your family from harm is a fool''s game.
You don''t sound like you should be out of jail.
That is two crimes that never got started and one life not spoiled. It amuses me when adult men get on here and say what a woman with a gun can''t do.
Yet millions of them are out and about, quietly doing it every day.
Posted by sidvicious75 at 12:43 PM : Jul 06, 2008
I fear people exactly like you; the crazies who might at any moment walk into a store I am in and start shooting. So what kind of society are YOU making?
That is why I carry a concealed weapon. I hope I never have to use it, but will gladly dispatch a crazy person who is attacking me or others around me. That scenario doesnt happen often, but you read about it happening in Texas occasionally.
One thing is for sure...If you want to do a crime, DONT COME TO TEXAS. You never know WHO has a gun!!!!
"The unarmed man is not just defenseless, he is also contemptible." Machiavelli
"Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." Jeff Cooper,
The Art of The Rifle
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt, they have more need of masters." Benjamin Franklin.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 72 Comments