D.C. Residents Line Up To Register Guns

32-Year-Old Handgun Ban Nixed After Landmark Supreme Court Case

(AP)  The plaintiff in the Supreme Court case that overturned Washington's strict 32-year-old handgun ban was among the first to arrive as the city started registering firearms.

Dick Heller showed up early Thursday at the police department, but he's still upset with the city even after winning his case.

He says its strict new rules for handguns still violate the spirit of the court's ruling defending the constitutional right to bear arms.

They allow handguns to be kept in the home if they're used only for self-defense and carry fewer than 12 rounds of ammunition.

Gun owners can only register one weapon in the first 90 days. Police say the permitting process could take weeks or months.

[nodemotwit]

He says its strict new rules for handguns still violate the spirit of the court''s ruling defending the constitutional right to bear arms.
- *** Heller

Agreed. Very scary that it was a 5/9 ruling. On one hand you have 4 conservatives (and, in this case, one informed, honest liberal) SC justices who vow to interpret the constitution as literally the basis of our law, from the historical perspective as intended by the founding fathers. As proof of this historical perspective they point to:
a) How the 2nd amendment was implemented from the very day the law went into effect, namely that law abiding Americans were allowed to bear arms for self-protection and hunting, even when not involved in any militia duty, or even past a reasonable age of participating in a militia, and

(cont)

[nodemotwit]

(cont)

b) Direct quotes from the author of the Second Amendment (James Madison) concerning gun ownership:

* In Federalist Paper 46, James Madison wrote:
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

c) How, other than recent attempts by liberals claiming that the 2nd Amendment is a right of the state, it has been universally accepted for centuries that the Bill of Rights are ALL individual rights.

==================

On the other hand you have 4 far-left liberal SC justices who have absolutely ZERO contrarian proof of the opposite. It is an argument they cannot possibly win. For this reason alone they take the position that :
a) Historically, local authorities actually kept all arms under lock and key, and despite this happening millions of times, it was just never, err, uhh, documented in any historical record, and
(cont)

[nodemotwit]

(cont)

b) There were quotes from other sub-authors of the Bill of Rights that support their state-right position, but they have also, err, umm, been lost, and
c) Therefore, the ACTUAL proof that does exist must be ignored
(ref: Liberal Debate Tactics 101)

Hence, divining the founding fathers intentions are completely impossible from this ''perspective'', so the US Constitution must therefore be interpreted as a "living breathing document" by the SC justices who, somehow, have evolved beyond the wisdom of the founding fathers to an "enlightened", "progressive" higher plane. Meaning, literally, that they can ignore the historical record on the founding fathers intentions wrt the 2nd Amendment being an individual right and "legally" disarm all abiding Americans by recreating it as a state right .

One can only ponder the magnitude of judicial hubris and megalomania that must be present to blind them to the slippery-slope threat this presents to the rest of the Bill of Rights.

[gatofeo]

Good for D.C. residents!
However, they should not be required to register any firearms. Registration is infringement because it blocks, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
We need a National Concealed Weapon Permit in this country, with laws standardized across all 50 states. Training to learn these laws should be mandatory, as you''re not requiring the training to own a firearm, but to carry it concealed.
I live in Utah, the singlemost popular state from which to obtain a concealed weapon permit because it''s recognized by about 35 other states.
You do not have to be a resident of Utah to get a concealed weapon permit. However, you do have to be 21, undergo a background check to ensure you''re not convicted of a felony and not been adjudged a mental case.
The University of Utah allows students to carry concealed weapons to class. If a gunman starts firing at the U of U, he''ll be met with a hail of return fire.
And that''s how it should be. Self defense is an innate right that should not be curtailed by specious, feel-good, do-nothing laws!

[whiskyrocker]

Lock and Load. Let the games begin.

[payasyougo]

"What do want to bet that we see the crime rate in DC go down?? They have had one of the most restrictive gun ownership bans in the nation, and concurrently one of the highest crime rates. I would bet money that the personal crime rates go down."
------
I doubt that there will be a dramatic drop in violent crime in DC due to the 2nd amendment. A slight drop in burglaries in certain neighborehoods maybe.

If you look at the demographics and race related statistics in states that already allow gun ownershipt (i.e. VA and MD, etc.) you will see a direct correlation between violence and percentage of population that is black. I''m referreing to the latests census data and the 2006 FBI crime statistics.
Since DC is approximately 58% black, if the statistical analysis holds, the violent crime rate will remain high - in line with that percentage population segment.

The US census and FBI crime data is impossible to dispute.

[kansas1946]

What do want to bet that we see the crime rate in DC go down?? They have had one of the most restrictive gun ownership bans in the nation, and concurrently one of the highest crime rates. I would bet money that the personal crime rates go down.

[elemmire]

Thank you for the defense cfin5. I think you may be judging bustaMcnutty prematurely. On the previous page one UnderMyBoot3 challenged my claim that more law abiding citizens possessing firearms = a reduced rate of violent crime. I believe bustaMcnutty was telling him or her not to be lazy, but to look it up for themselves.

[cfin5]

Posted by bustaMcnutty at 06:00 PM : Jul 17, 2008--- Your just kidding us right? Do you think the mind of the criminal since my last quotes from Thomas Jefferson have gotten less evil? Why do you think he said these words? Or are you wiser than our Founding Fathers? I suggest that YOU prove from repudiated sources the facts otherwise in this nation.

[bustamcnutty]

The greater proportion of a population that owns registered guns, the lower the incidence of violent crime.

Posted by elemmire at 02:42 PM : Jul 17, 2008
------
Any reputable studies to back that up?

google it you''re self dont bo so lazy...........

[cfin5]

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
--- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785.

One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.
--- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796.

We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright

[billorights]

does anyone get permission to drive a 4000 lb vehicle on the streets without some basic qualifications of the user''''s suitability to operate it properly? - Posted by bobnjersey at 03:59 PM : Jul 17, 2008

Let%u2019s not forget that driving a vehicle on the streets is a privilege, not a constitutional right.

Also, you seem to be contradicting yourself. The only impediments to gun ownership should be those already defined: criminal convictions, court orders (subject to due process), mental defect, under age, dishonorable discharge, drug addiction, illegal aliens. It should not be the citizen%u2019s responsibility to prove his eligibility to exercise his constitutional rights. If so, would the same standards be required for the exercise of any other enumerated right? Mechanisms already exist to identify those who fall into any of the categories identified above during the process of a gun sale.

It sounds like a good idea for gun owners to be trained in efficient and safe operation, maintenance and storage of guns. This is described in the 2nd Amendment as a well-regulated militia. Which means, gun owners become proficient though practice and routine use of their firearms.

As an aside, I would bet that many gun and sporting goods retailers would be willing to provide workshops on gun safety and a voluntary certification, free of charge, much like Home Depot and others offer for people who want to learn specific skills. Better results without $ and government in the mix.

[elemmire]

It may vary from state to state. Where I am you have to take a skill and safety class to get a concealed carry permit. I am not sure about having to retest periodically. Of course, where I am, you do not have to retest for your driver''s license, and the period of time between updated ID photos is long enough to render the whole concept of photo ID useless.

To cause more trouble, I would like to add that a far greater percentage of legally approved drivers cause physical harm to their those around them than do concealed carry permit holders.

[punchline3]

Do gun owners have to take a fire arms proficiency test every four years like people have to do with a driver%u2019s license? I''m not trying to start an arguement, I just don''t know.

[bobnjersey]

[... With these facts in mind, the only reason to work for greater restrictions on firearms is to enable society to have greater control over its citizens. And that is either sick, twisted, just plain ignorant, or any combination of the above.]
[Posted by elemmire at 02:42 PM : Jul 17, 2008]

yes ... society should have greater control over citizens who possess weapons that could potentially be misued against other ''honest'' citizens. if they have a history of legal compliance (no record) ... they''re not a psychopath ... and they can comply w/ basic guidelines for the right to own ... then they get the weapon they want.

the process will weed out those who don''t meet the criteria for possessing a weapon ... like those w/ a record, those w/ a pych issue, those that don''t want to follow rules, etc.

i''m all for gun ownership ... i have more than one myself ... but to say that it should be completely unregulated is as riduculous as saying this for the financial industry (greed) ... the construction industry (schedules/safety) ... or for politicians (patronage/corruption).

does anyone get permission to drive a 4000 lb vehicle on the streets without some basic qualifications of the user''s suitability to operate it properly?

[elemmire]

Maybe, underboot, you have heard of a place and time called Washington DC prior to 7/08. Strictest gun control laws in the nation. Gone for a walk there and then lately?

[impeach__w]

The emergency legislation will allow handguns to be kept in the home if they are used only for self-defense and carry fewer than 12 rounds of ammunition. (its the Magazine that carries the live rounds)
Handguns, as well as other legal firearms such as rifles and shotguns, also must be kept unloaded and disassembled, or equipped with trigger locks - unless there is a "reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm" in the home.


So does the gun have to hold less than 12 rounds or does it have to be un-loaded, disassembled and locked???
This is stupid. D.C. needs more guns, Lot''''s more!

"If you take out the killings, Washington actually has a very very low crime rate." -- Marion Barry, Mayor of Washington, DC

"The laws in this city are clearly racist. All laws are racist. The law of gravity is racist." -- Marion Barry, Mayor of Washington, DC

[punchline3]

As I understand it, prospective gun owners are on their own honor to answer the registration form. Who checks the forms for discrepancies, fabrications and false entries? How often are these registrations updated (change in status such as incurred mental illness)? Are there periodic evaluations for gun owners?

[billorights]

so how do you distinguish between the criminal and the honest people? - Posted by bobnjersey at 02:05 PM : Jul 17, 2008

In DC? It%u2019s the crack pipe, silly!

[undrmyboot3]

The greater proportion of a population that owns registered guns, the lower the incidence of violent crime.

Posted by elemmire at 02:42 PM : Jul 17, 2008
------
Any reputable studies to back that up?