After Gun Ban Ruling, D.C. Seeks New Rules

As Residents Head To Gun Shops, Officials Scramble To Draft New Regulations

(AP)  Dale Metta, who manages a gun shop just outside the District of Columbia limits in Maryland, has had to turn away dozens of city residents wanting to buy handguns in recent days. Never mind that the U.S. Supreme Court just struck down Washington's 32-year-old ban on possessing handguns.

"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.

[libsluv2spit]

Things are a little different now wouldn''''t you say?


Posted by Keithle1 at 06:06 PM : Jul 08, 2008
+ report abuse

********

what?? there are no criminals anymore??

[keithle1]

But that was long BEFORE we had the Army, Navy, Air Force Marines & National Guard, ronin10. Back then the "right to bear arms" made sense. Things are a little different now wouldn''t you say?

[o2bewealthy]

I believe in the adage "to whom much is given, much is expected." Gun ownership is a huge responsibility. I know that the second amendment is open to much interpretation - to me it means that states have the right to operate militias, and in order for that to happen, ordinary citizens have the right to bear arms in order for those militias to exist. Instead - this amendment has become all about me, me, me and my individual rights - typical mindset for Baby Boomers and Gen Xers. This amendment, IMO, was never about individual rights, but states'' rights, collectively. It''ll be interesting to see what happens in the next 20 years.

[patriot12436]

I used to teach a womans self defense class. The first thing i taught was awareness of your surroundings. If you are aware you will not put yourself in jeopardy. A criminal looks for an easy target, being aware makes you not easy, they will look for another victim. Anyone can be caught off guard when distracted. The self defense training comes in handy when you have no choice but to fight. I also believe in carrying a weaopon for people who are sure they would use it whren the time comes and are properly trained in use and safety.

[patriot12436]

D.C. had it chance on banning guns for 32 years and all it proved was the crime rate ioncreased

[libsluv2spit]

Posted by dragonwagon5 at 12:18 PM : Jul 07, 2008
+ report abuse

*******************

oh i am so sure that you feel so safe behind a pacafist liberal..oh forget it..they wont even spit it at you even if you are on fire..

[toolmangler-2009]

Well I have never seen the united nations disarm criminals or oppressive governments. So if what you fear happens, at least we know these two groups will still be ok.

Posted by kindrox at 04:02 PM : Jul 07, 2008



A slight modification of your statement is needed for better understanding.

"the united nations has never disarmed criminals or oppressive governments. So if what you fear happens, at least we know we will still be ok." (modified)

[kindrox]

* he wants to fall more in line with the united nations way of thinking. *

Well I have never seen the united nations disarm criminals or oppressive governments. So if what you fear happens, at least we know these two groups will still be ok.

[guysdigdirt]

The scary thing to me is that obama has stated he wants to fall more in line with the united nations way of thinking. this will allow foreign countries to dictate our laws and the constitution will be thrashed if he gets his way. then all the guns will go away, compliments of mr. soros.

[kindrox]

* city and state governments tighten up gun control laws on citizenry that DO follow laws *

Why? Because:

1. Its easy! Controlling citizens is easy, controlling criminals is hard.

2. It feels good to the idiots. Something was done! Yippie! And the idiot feels safer, for a while. It''s like the Ostridge putting his head in the sand. He''s actually less safe because he cannot protect himself. But he "feels" safer!

[kindrox]

* That would almost lead one to believe that this well regulated militia isn''''t all that well regulated. *
Dragon,

You are one of the more obtuse idiots on the board. If %u201Cmore guns%u201D is not the answer, why does anyone with power and influence hire armed bodyguards?

I would like to know the last time an actual NRA member went on a shooting spree. Never? When is the last time an NRA convention suffered a single act of violence? Never?

I am not defending the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. You are just stupid.

[triplet-man]

Sooo... let''s take away all of the "law abiding citizens" guns, furnish the government with a DNA sample at birth, fingerprint (national database) for drivers liscense, and put some "eye in the sky" so that they can further lock in on us.

Dismissing privacy concerns, a federal judge overseeing a $1 billion copyright-infringement lawsuit against YouTube has ordered the popular online video-sharing service to disclose who watches which video clips and when.

Take away some more of our "civil liberties", and privacys -

ALL in the name of "Homeland Security" And that makes it OKAY? Right?

[jackp32]

Ever notice that those anti gun politicians are surrounded by armed body guards when they appear in public? The regular folks who cannot afford to hire body guards are vulnurable to every criminal who takes a notion to attack them. Oh, I am so glad they have our safety at the top of their agenda. That in itself makes me feel so safe.

[questionnews]

Only 26% favored the DC gun ban.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dc/2008/06/dc_gun_ban_decision_poll_and_c.html

[keithle1]

Take away the young black men in Washington, DC, & the crime rate goes way, way down. I guess you can say that about most big cities.

[coppertales]

It is not about guns, but about total control. The liberal politicians cannot control an armed citizenry.

[kindrox]

*Yeah, not nearly as safe as Killadelphia.*

Philadelphia still has a lower murder rate than Washington DC.

[jj67rs]

To Frank Bowers...Obviously, you have no clue about what you are talking about-i.e. banning all the ammo. If you were to actually read and understand the Supreme Courts decision you would learn that a law that would ban all ammo would be essentially the same as the one the court just knocked down, reason being that firearm would be unuseable without ammo-just as they were unuseable when the law abiding citizens had to keep them dismantled in their homes. So therefore your law would be also deemed ILLEGAL, thats right-even though the 2nd ammendment says nothing about ammo!

[kindrox]

* I''''ve been held up twice at gunpoint. The quicker you realize the other person has your life in their hands the better. *

Let me guess. You live in a place where only criminals have guns?

[kindrox]

* Now it can go back to being Washington Deceased, instead of just Washington D.C. *

Yeah cuz right now it''s such a safe town. No crime at all!