Washington D.C. got it's head handed to it by the U.S. Supreme Court over their handgun ban. It was clearly unconstitutional the court said, to deprive people of the right to self-defense and their right to own handguns (as well as other guns).
So here we have the "emergency" D.C. laws, just released by the D.C. city officials. In my view, they are just begging for a federal court to declare them in contempt and inches from having a court declare they have violated their oath of office. See the pamphlet D.C. is handing out here.
The D.C. council needs a swift kick in the ass from the courts. Their "new" restrictions still require guns - to be unloaded, disassembled or trigger locked, except when there is a "threat of immediate harm to a person" in the home.
Acting Attorney General Peter Nickles, said residents could neither keep their guns loaded in anticipation of a problem nor search for an intruder on their property. The porch is off-limits, he said, as well as the yard and any outbuildings.
Well, let's see... Mr. Nickles says you can't have your gun loaded "in anticipation" of a problem. That would seem to rule out a loaded gun on the nightstand or in a secure lockbox (that thousands of people use). Thus, we are back to the situation where one must first see or hear something before loading the gun. By which time it may well be too late.
Seems like a denial of self-defense rights to me. Especially when you consider that D.C. is seeking to limit residents to only revolvers and derringers and that most citizens aren't going to be able to legally practice with speedloaders.
And what does Nickles mean by "search for an intruder on their property?" Does that mean I must remain in whichever room I've loaded the gun? What about my children? Or what about my 85 year old mother watching TV downstairs? Or does Nickles simply mean that going outside with the gun is prohibited? Can I shoot the man on my front lawn about to throw a molotov cocktail at my front door?
To qualify to register a gun in D.C., besides the usual lack of felony convictions (and D.C. adds indictments) you must not suffer from a physical defect which would make it unsafe for you to possess and use a firearm safely and responsibly. Such as? About the only think I might think of here is someone who has no fingers or who is blind. Does arthritis count? What about someone with Parkinson's?
Also, you must not be found negligent in any firearm mishap causing death or injury to another human being. Amazing what "dangerous" things the D.C. council can fabricate out of nothing. I wonder if they will include such "mishaps" that occurred in a war-zone?
To obtain a handgun in D.C. the new regulations require;
- Proof of residency (D.C. Driver's license)
- Criminal Background Check
- A written examination or test
- Pay a fee ($48)
- Fingerprinting
- Provide two (2) passport sized photographs of yourself.
- A ballistics test of the firearm
- Good vision
- No semiautomatic pistols allowed
The first four requirements are, at this juncture, "reasonable" for those who are control freaks. But I do have issues with their restrictions, as would most of you.
For purchases of a new firearm, the purchaser already undergoes an NICS "prohibited person" background check. And a new handgun will not have had a chance to be used in any crime, so both the background and ballistic checks are a waste of taxpayer dollars.
Fingerprinting is a gray area. I object to it from the standpoint that it is largely unnecessary. It'll cost you $35 to be fingerprinted. It treats those wishing to exercise their constitutional rights as a criminal.
Paying a fee should not be necessary to enjoy one's constitutional rights. Poll taxes are illegal. You cannot tax or require a fee to speak out or go to church. D.C. will charge a $13 fee per firearm to register it. So it will cost you an extra $48 to exercise your right in D.C.
A written test for which there are written study materials might be acceptable. But if California is any example, both the test and study materials will contain propaganda, such as "Unloaded and locked firearms in the home save thousands of lives every year." If a lot of people fail the test, we'll know it's merely a method to deny their rights.
D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said the entire process could take "weeks or months." This is despite the fact that the pamphlet issued by her own department say it will take 14 days. Which is it "Chief"? Let us know when you get your lies straight.
"Weeks or months", of course, is unacceptable. A right delayed is a right denied. Especially in the case of a new handgun. In the meantime, the handgun sits where, exactly? At what point does the District become responsible for damage, loss or lack of care? One can imagine it taking 3 months to get through the process, only to find your new, $721 gun covered with rust due to poor air conditioning or neglect by the district.
I wish I could suggest that some D.C. residents "test" the program by purchasing some odd caliber guns. Submitting a .38-40 or .41 Magnum might make testing expensive or difficult for the department. And it might delay their procedure unacceptably. Is anyone moving to D.C. who owns a nice old .455 Webley or perhaps a .41 Long Colt revolver?
No comments:
Post a Comment