And The “Reasonable Restrictions” Start…

June 26, 2008
2:45 PM CST

From the poxy Washington Post [my emphasis added]:

The question for city officials is: What now? In a recent interview (before the court ruled), Interim D.C. Attorney General Peter J. Nickles was asked what would happen if the city lost the case.

He said that residents will not be able to buy a handgun and bring it to the city immediately following the high court’s ruling. There will be a period of continued legal arguments before a lower court judge to hash out specifics around the high court’s opinion, Nickles said.
In the meantime, Nickles said, Mayor Adrian M. Fenty’s administration will instruct the police department to issue new regulations within 30 days detailing the process for registering handguns. (The city has gun regulations already on the books, which have been largely moot because of the gun ban, but those rules likely would be updated and revised, he said.)

“All handguns have to be registered,” Nickles said.

Among the likely regulations: Gun owners would have to be 18 or older and could not have been convicted of a felony or any weapon-related charge or have been in a mental hospital for the past five years. Registrants also will be finger-printed and required to pass a written test to be sure they understand the city’s gun laws, Nickles said.

At least initially, he added, residents would be limited to one handgun apiece. The city will set up a hotline for firearm registrations.

Nickles said he did not expect the court to undo the ban on automatic weapons.

One major question, he said, was whether the court would undo the city’s trigger lock requirement that all shotguns in homes remain unloaded with locks on the triggers. If the court overturns that provision, Nickles said, the mayor’s office likely would propose new legislation to the D.C. Council that would require that guns remain unloaded in the home expect in the case of self-defense.

Handguns would only be allowed in the home, Nickles added, with residents banned from carrying them on the streets or into other buildings.

For those folks who already own guns--against current law--Nickles said the city would offer an amnesty program in which they could come forward and register the gun, assuming it had not been used in a crime.

These fuckers need to get acquainted with the business end of a baseball bat.

Note to D.C. government: You lost. Quit trying to stall, or impede, the rights of the people under the Constitution. Try addressing serious crime, improving your schools, and fixing your out-of-control budget, instead of wasting time on bullshit.

Comments

Bottom of Comments | Original Post

At least initially, he added, residents would be limited to one handgun apiece. The city will set up a hotline for firearm registrations.

Well, in his defense it does say The right to keep and bear an arm and not “the right to keep and bear arms”

Wait a second....

Author ID: 9622 | 6/26/2008 03:02 PM CST | #124155


This is to be expected.  The lords of the District of Columbia have held much power over the people for a long time, and they’ll be fighting to retain as much of it as they possibly can.  I expect the rulers of Chicago and NYC to do the same when the courts force them to end their prohibitions.

Never let up, never surrender.

Author ID: 1257 | 6/26/2008 03:13 PM CST | #124157


Noted elsewhere: as well as automatic weapons (expected), Mayor Fenty said semi-automatic handguns will continue to be illegal (stupid and probably wrong).

OK, now someone please explain just how a seven-shot semi-auto is so much more dangerous to own than a six-shot revolver that the former must be banned while the latter is [now] acceptable?

As to semi-auto long guns, if they try a ban again can someone point out that would be a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act for people who would have trouble working a bolt-action? 

Author ID: 7924 | 6/26/2008 03:19 PM CST | #124159


Kim, I’m pretty sure “Wasting time on Bullshit” is in the preamble to the DC City Charter. 

In fact, for all I know they latinized it and made it the city’s motto. 

Author ID: 7544 | 6/26/2008 03:22 PM CST | #124160


Don’t ever forget this. Gun bans are not about protecting the citizenry from criminals. They are about protecting the government from the citizenry. That is why there are so many laws banning certain types of weapons such as “sawed-off” shot guns and “assault” rifles and automatic weapons. It’s not about what’s good for the citizenry, it’s about what’s good for the government.

Author ID: 7701 | 6/26/2008 03:23 PM CST | #124161


It’s a start. We won this so let’s use our foothold to get up the beach. We have bunkers to bust. And until we get a sufficiency of “originalist” justices, we’re going to have to do it without air cover. We have been the Navy, off shore shelling the cliffs so the Army can get on the ground. Air drop some Marines in behind enemy lines to conduct a disruptive action behind the lines, and when we have an Air Force to bomb from high altitude we’ve got the war won.

Author ID: 6430 | 6/26/2008 03:25 PM CST | #124162


And Ralph? Excellent point!

Author ID: 6430 | 6/26/2008 03:26 PM CST | #124164


Sounds exactly like the Houston DA who, after the Texas code changed giving those with guns in their cars the ‘presumption of travelling’ to comply with that silly anachronism of our law, told the cops to continue arresting people with guns in their cars anyway.  In spite of the law.

Why is he not behind bars for such a blatant disregard of the law?

At any rate, the state legislature saw this was occurring and just did away with the ‘travel’ provision.  So DC’s a-holes in suits will continue to play the ‘lets screw gunowners anyway’ game.

I’m curious; if the Supremes said that DC could not ban handguns, then you got somehow arrested for having one in your house without benefit of the almost certain lengthy legal ‘factfinding’ that they intend to do to figure out how to comply as minimally as possible, what could possibly happen to you?  What could they charge you with?

Author ID: 8057 | 6/26/2008 03:27 PM CST | #124165


I just wonder if they are going to fall afoul the the “arbi-
trarily and capriciously” part of the decision with all the restrictions that they are going to throw up…

K

Author ID: 8411 | 6/26/2008 03:58 PM CST | #124167


I think I just logically layed out the next argument over at my place. The last two posts I just made were re: this.

Author ID: 6430 | 6/26/2008 04:49 PM CST | #124169


This is actually REALLY stupid on DCs part. By keeping as many laws as they can on the books they more or less immediately open themselves back up to another case, and DC is the fastest area to get a case before SCOTUS, which means by doing so they shoot themselves in the foot by giving gun owners another crack at it. Of course, the point is moot if Obama gets the nomination of the next set of judges.

Author ID: 10376 | 6/26/2008 04:53 PM CST | #124170


We all know what the solution is. The district should be abolished.

I’m perfectly happy to have our nation’s capitol called Washington, Maryland. Of course, Maryland is no picnic, either.

Author ID: 8050 | 6/26/2008 06:02 PM CST | #124172


Ralph,

Thomas Jeffersion, icon of libtards who call themselves “progressives”, said:

“The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”—Draft Constitution for Virginia (June 1776)

I became a pro-2A convert after the 1992 Los Angeles riots when the goblins vastly outnumbered the cops and the bulletless National Guard (so much for a militia!).

I’d love to learn if it’s possible for the citizens of an urban neighborhood to form a legal militia.

Author ID: 8004 | 6/26/2008 06:14 PM CST | #124174


I think Nickles is just a masochist.

He so enjoyed being publicly bitch slapped by the Supremes he’s going to see if he can get a matching hand print on the other side of his face.

The great part about this is places like DC, Chicago and NYFC are going to be spending so much time trying to weasel word their current laws in to something the SCOTUS will accept they won’t have much energy left over for new totalitarian BS.

Author ID: 85 | 6/26/2008 06:22 PM CST | #124176


Why is it that poll taxes and civics tests are illegal in regards to voting, but firearms fees, tests to determine proficiency and the like are perfectly legal to RESTRICT a right that (SCOTUS admits) predates the Constitution?

Just wondering.

Author ID: 9952 | 6/26/2008 06:24 PM CST | #124177


Aaron,

“Legal” militias get raided by the BATFE and their weapons confiscated just a much as “illegal” ones.

Author ID: 8569 | 6/26/2008 06:28 PM CST | #124178


Yeah, just because we passed the 13th Amendment doesn’t mean you slaves can stop working.  There’s going have to be a transition period until we can get our Jim Crow laws in place, so the whippings are just going to have to continue for a while.

Author ID: 8135 | 6/26/2008 06:28 PM CST | #124179


Good news indeed, but it is scary to know that 4 justices ruled against the Constitution.  To celebrate I just re-uped for GOA and JPFO, and tomorrow it will be time to add a new firearm to the collection.

Author ID: 10479 | 6/26/2008 06:56 PM CST | #124181


They have not lost yet. This decision has opened a giant doorway where the side with the most political momentum will decide what the 2nd Amendment is all about. So much for individual rights subject to ‘reasonable’ restrictions.

Author ID: 9624 | 6/26/2008 07:10 PM CST | #124186


OK, the MSM prints 5-4 decision. Yes - and no. I fell for it, shame on me.  Actual count

9-0 “individual right”!

Yes, all nine wrote in their opinions that the 2nd describes an individual right rather than a collective one and like the 1st is meant to limit government.

The split? Whether SCOTUS should stop there (four) and send the case back to lower court, or (five) should do away with DC’s total ban itself.

Far from great, but a bit better than I expected and a LOT better than is being said. Pity that instead of saying it applies to all (Brown v Board of Education?) they basically played the Kelo card with vague hopes that non-Federal governing bodies would adjust their laws.

Author ID: 7924 | 6/26/2008 08:07 PM CST | #124190


Isn’t it interesting that the four Justices that were in dissent of Heller voted in the majority to give terrorists trial rights.  Just another in the millions of reasons to keep liberals out of the White House.

Fenty, Bloomberg, Daley, and Nagan have ALL wiped their butts with Jurisprudence in favor of gun rights.  When liberals don’t like the court’s ruling… ignore it!

Remember what Churchill said, “Never, never, never give up!” The law abiding citizens of the United States have not seen their “finest hour” yet.

Author ID: 11460 | 6/26/2008 08:26 PM CST | #124191


I am still trying to find a place to read Scalea’s entire opinion, but instead, I get antigun media selected quotes. Scalea did say, from what I have found out, that there are limitations to the RKBA, but not what the media and the GFWs seem to claim. I would think, Scalea’s setting of the Bar at felonious activity, would imply the end of certain laws which end lifetime owner rights based on the commission of “misdemeanors” or no conviction of a crime at all, but as a result of a civil case, which resulted in the arrest of Dr. Emerson. I haven’t seen yet where it is said Scalea leaves the door open for bans of semiautomatics either, or legal justification for bans on atomatics.

Author ID: 7801 | 6/26/2008 08:42 PM CST | #124195


Why is it that poll taxes and civics tests are illegal in regards to voting, but firearms fees, tests to determine proficiency and the like are perfectly legal to RESTRICT a right that (SCOTUS admits) predates the Constitution?

Just wondering.

Just as Scalia mentions that the Second Amendment articulated an existing right of Englishmen, there was also a history and precedent, long before guns came into existence, and our training of the militias (which was assigned to State Governors to design and validate).  That is the reason for the training/proficiency clause of “well regulated.”

Distinct States, amalgamated into one as to their foreign concerns, but single and independent as to their internal administration, regularly organized with a legislature and governor resting on the choice of the people and enlightened by a free press, can never be so fascinated by the arts of one man as to submit voluntarily to his usurpation. Nor can they be constrained to it by any force he can possess. While that may paralyze the single State in which it happens to be encamped, [the] others, spread over a country of two thousand miles diameter, rise up on every side, ready organized for deliberation by a constitutional legislature and for action by their governor, constitutionally the commander of the militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms.
--Thomas Jefferson, 1811

It was based on the much longer history and precedent of the Long Bowmen.  In the English tradition they didn’t have state governors, of course.  They had Lords and Barons.  Each were required to call together the villagers on their respective property for training in archery.  It was believed that a boy had to begin his training before he was 10 or he’d never be good at it.

They’d meet regularly (such as monthly) on the “green” to practice.  It had a festival like atmosphere, and the Lord or Baron was responsible for making sure that the village men were “trained and equipped” for war, and were mentoring the boys in the art.

This was the tradition brought forward and modified only slightly when we came to America, and modified with respect to guns instead of longbows.  At first it was the responsibility of the Magistrate, but later (when the nation was founded) it was assigned to the state governors and other civil magistrates.

Their duty was to make sure that the people of the state were “well regulated” (ie, trained and equipped) and possessed the arms as required by U.S. Code (all able bodied men, age 17 to 46).

It has also been a long tradition that felons (the category of crimes considered the most serious) could no longer be trusted with rights, because they had abused their freedom by committing a felony.

Felons forfeit their right to arms as well as their right to vote.  Those are the consequences for violating the people’s trust and demonstrating their inability to live in a free society, ie, free society strips from them the protection of their rights.  So while poll taxes and poll tests are not allowed, proficiency with arms is, because that WAS the tradition and precedent.

It is society that protects an individual’s rights, in a social compact.  If you violate the compact (by committing a felony), you forfeit your rights.

Society [has] a right to erase from the roll of its members any one who rendered his own existence inconsistent with theirs; to withdraw from him the protection of their laws, and to remove him from among them by exile, or even by death if necessary.
--Thomas Jefferson, 1815

So to suggest that rights cannot be restricted (or surrendered) would require a wholly different definition of the source of rights, the protection of them, and the associated duties they require on those so protected.

It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States, that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors; that there are certain portions of right not necessary to enable them to carry on an effective government, and which experience has nevertheless proved they will be constantly encroaching on, if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious against wrong, and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion; of the second, trial by jury, habeas corpus laws, free presses.
--Thomas Jefferson to Noah Webster, 1790

It has long been the practice that felons forfeited (outright) any rights to arms, and it also long been the practice that validating that someone is “well regulated” (trained and equipped) before they can be certified as complying with their duties of citizens, as specified by the state legislatures, verified by the civil magistrates, and ultimately the responsibility of state governors.

There is nothing unConstitutional about doing that (as well as verifying that someone is not a felon and not insane).  Calling it registrations or licensing is just a modern method of the civil magistrate knocking on your door (as was the common practice) to inspect your arms and invite you to demonstrate your proficiency.

If the registration or licensing is discriminatory, unnecessarily bureaucratic, or onerous, it would violate the intent of the Second.  But if registration and licensing is the method by which the states do their duty with respect to guaranteeing that citizens are ‘well regulated’ then we should not have a problem with it.

Vigilance would always be required, but the traditions (principled and historical) should not be thrown out completely (or chastised unfairly) simply because SOME politicians go beyond their intent and purpose.

And ALL of the above is why the Nation of Rifleman exists, so that we can continue the tradition of the long bowmen, passing on the art of soldiering and shooting to the next generation, and assisting others with complying with their duties and responsibilities, one citizen at a time.  Some day, maybe, the state governors will again perform this duty, but until they do, we all have to make sure it is still happening.

0 Author ID: 2 | 6/26/2008 10:19 PM CST | #124199


This is to be expected.  The lords of the District of Columbia have held much power over the people for a long time, and they’ll be fighting to retain as much of it as they possibly can.

The District WAS originally created out of a slave state, so I suppose the urge to continue in that manner was irresistable.

Aaron, the libtard leftists only trot that Jefferson quote out when the Republicans are in power.

Author ID: 2303 | 6/26/2008 10:43 PM CST | #124204


It may be necessary for the President to send in federal troops to ensure that federal law is upheld in the District of Columbia with equal force as in the rest of the United States.

I believe, since at least 1954, there’s some precedent for this action.


Talk about a mission most military folks could sink their teeth into…

Author ID: 9097 | 6/27/2008 12:51 AM CST | #124207


Sorry for the length of the post, but I include below in its entirety an email on Heller I received from my DC Councilman this morning via the neighborhood listserve:

I am disappointed in today’s Supreme Court action which ruled that the
DC law banning private handgun possession at home violates the Second
Amendment. For more than 30 years, the District of Columbia has had a
very strict handgun law and this morning’s decision will likely
introduce more handguns into the District of Columbia.

District of Columbia laws have regulated the purchase, sale, possession,
ownership, registration, transportation, importation, and manufacture of
handguns. The DC Council, along with the Metropolitan Police Department
(MPD), will continue to meet their obligation to protect the residents
of the District of Columbia. Today’s ruling will allow the legal
possession of handguns in private homes but this possession will be
strictly regulated, including the registration and finger printing of
hand gun owners, and until so doing, all DC laws remain in effect.

Today’s Supreme Court decision does not impact our laws prohibiting the
possession and use of guns outside of the home. There is no right to
carry handguns on the streets in the District. That has not changed.
Automatic and semi-automatic weapons will continue to be banned
throughout the City.

Along with the registration requirement for handguns, DC Council will
also adopt safe storage provisions and the Metropolitan Police
Department will provide free trigger locks. MPD will be issuing
regulations to establish a process for registering handguns within 21
days. Components of the regulations may include registration
requirements, minimum qualifications, criminal and mental background
checks, medical clearance, training or test requirements, appropriate
waiting periods, and procedures for transporting guns outside of the
home.

In agreement with resident’s sentiments, I will work with my DC Council
colleagues, the Mayor, the Metropolitan Police Department, and the
Attorney General’s office, to preserve the most restrictive handgun
regulations within the parameters of this ruling.

Residents with questions about the registration of hand guns can all the
Metropolitan Police Department at 202-727-4275 from 7 AM to 3 PM -
Monday through Friday for more information. There will also be much
more information available in the days to come at: http://www.dc.gov.

1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 406, Washington, DC 20004
202-724-8052 phone 202-741-0908 fax

Kristen Barden
Communications Director
Councilmember Muriel Bowser - Ward 4
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Suite 406
Washington, DC 20004
202-724-8052
202-741-0908 fax


Author ID: 7971 | 6/27/2008 04:45 AM CST | #124208


Connie.

The problem with that, is that there was a history and a tradition of testing/poll taxes, but they were demined recently to be unconstitutional.  Under this same logic, I know something I should not expect from the G-men, any sort of testing/taxing/training is also unconstitutional. 

Remember people every ban starts as a registration, and every mass murder starts as a ban. 

Also if they allow this sort of restriction/training/what ever as strict scrutiny of the second they can do it to the 1st, and blogs like this, and any sort of free speech can be removed, sorry not removed but ‘regulated.’ Sorry calling getting kicked in the teeth ‘regulation’ does not make my tooth grow back.

Others.

Yes I do understand that this ruling is just a start in the process, and it is a long, long, fight ahead of us.  This is one we can not allow to lose.

Author ID: 7651 | 6/27/2008 04:49 AM CST | #124209


Here’s a guestion.  In DC, if handguns are only allowed in the home...how will they get to the home from the gun store if they are not allow in vehicles?

Author ID: 104 | 6/27/2008 05:49 AM CST | #124217


But we KNOW the reasons for the poll taxes and tests.  The history of them was short and they were ruled unConstitutional, because their entire purpose was SOLELY to create onerous burdens to prevent people from exercising their right to vote.  They weren’t put in place to assure that all voters were competent and solvent.  They were put in place to prevent blacks from being able to vote.

Ditto for anti-gun legislation.

They were deemed unConstitutional because there is no way to test, or to create tests, that don’t prejudice specific people.

Who is to say, for example, that someone must be able to read to vote?  There are many reasons why some people can’t read.  Some of the reasons are because they have very low IQs, but unless we are willing to exclude those people from taxation, they also have the right to participate in choosing their representatives.

0 Author ID: 2 | 6/27/2008 07:50 AM CST | #124261