Well, as long as there are actually instructors available for training new owners, and the training is not prohibitively expensive, the training requirement does not strike me as bad. Maybe even a good idea.

However, the re-registration requirement could easily be made quite onerous.

another win for compromises.

and more work for the NRA's legal team?

I'm very sorry to see this. It seems to be the outworking of a growing lack of respect for law in this country. From my vantage point, biased though my perspective may be, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Second Amendment. The city council, on the other hand, does not want to loosen requirements on anything which would allow, gasp, people to actually have guns in their homes for self-defense.

Mace used to be legal in CA.
Then you had to have training to buy it.
Then you had to be cerified by the State to provide training.
Then the only people certified were LEOs.
Then the only people they trained were LEOs.
Then the only people who could have Mace were LEOs.

See? Want me to do it again? OK, but watch closely:

CCWs used to issued only to cronies in the City of LA.
Then the NRA won a lawsuit that exposed the system, and the City was ordered to issue more CCWs.
Then they didn't.
Then the NRA didn't follow up.
Now, CCWs are issued only to cronies in the City of LA.

See how it works?
Then the

You readers have very little faith. Just because a total ban didn't reduce gun crime doesn't mean that onerous restriction's won't.

Funny thing is ... if violence goes down now to a "normal" level, or just better, they'll still credit their onerous gun laws, even though the total ban accomplished nothing in it's 30 year run.

You have to realize that DC has very important safety concerns. If a woman is threatened by an abusive ex-boyfriend then there's a chance that he could be hurt or killed if she's able to get a gun before he can get to her. It's also very, very important to make sure that grandmothers sitting in their own homes in bad neighborhoods must pass a stringent training requirement, lest some home invader be cut down in the prime of his life before he has a chance to turn his life around, go to medical school, and cure cancer. One should also understand that forcing DC to keep track of official records for as long as three years is already straining credulity; odds are that no one really knows where that paper went within a fortnight.

Где то я это уже видела

Wonder what the politicos would think about a training requirement before voting.

These changes reflect the DCs desire to steer clear of Heller's follow-up suit. Remember that Heller v DC lawsuit was taking on the ban on semiautos (now generally gone) and the ballistics test requirement (now also gone). Instead, the city is mandating training and other arguably onerous registration requirements.

It is clear that DC wants to restrict arms ownership up to the very edge of what they can get away with. How progressive.

None of my [existing] registration papers have expiration dates on them... Anyone care to comment from a legal perspective?

David M:

Actually I would like to see training before they could become a politician. I don't maybe 3 years hard labor? Or is that too short :)

Ridiculous. Training is always a great idea, but should not be mandated. What if someone wants to get a gun due to some new threat, such as a stalker? How many months will it take to obtain training and licensure?

Here in NH, that person could walk into a gun store, show their driver's license and walk out with a hand gun. Have a friend show them the basics until they got more training or range time.

Training isn't required for your 1st Amendment rights....

I'm all FOR training. We already have a state controlled institution in place that could easily train anyone under the age of (roughly) 18 and adding it back into the mix may actually encourage more students to stay in school. We already PAY for it.

Yes, school. I'm not cool with the fact that training is a requirement and will place further monetary restrictions on a right, kind of like a poll tax. Just another policy of "those folks" to keep the poor(er) disarmed.

How nice to see that we can "elect" a "black" president and continue the racist gun control schemes.

I'm all FOR training. We already have a state controlled institution in place that could easily train anyone under the age of (roughly) 18 and adding it back into the mix may actually encourage more students to stay in school. We already PAY for it.

Yes, school. I'm not cool with the fact that training is a requirement and will place further monetary restrictions on a right, kind of like a poll tax. Just another policy of "those folks" to keep the poor(er) disarmed.

How nice to see that we can "elect" a "black" president and continue the racist gun control schemes.

The DC City Council has no legal authority to pass ANY legislation.

The Constitution for the United States of America emphatically, explicitly, and undeniably states:

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square)"

in Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 17

The key point is that CONGRESS was given power to "exercise exclusive legislation" in the District. It is not "absolute", meaning that the power is not above and beyond all controls. The power cannot be above the Constitution or amendments of the Constitution because without the Constitututional grant the power does not exist. The term, "exclusive", is in reference to and applies to other legislative bodies such as state legislatures and/or local councils.

Congress has no constitutional authority to delegate any already delegated power, and thus cannot transfer delegated powers to another group legitimately. And IF Congress had transferred authority over DC to the council, which it did, the transfer would be in direct conflict with the "exclusive legislation" provision, because IF the DC Council can legislate over DC, the Congress cannot act "exclusively" in the area.

Why didn't the SC take this up in Heller? Because not a single individual involved was bright enough to note that this Constitutional requirement controlled the situation. And those in power will fight to the death to keep their power, whether the power was obtained legitimately or illegitimately.

Does anyone actually believe that any part of the government (L,E, and J) is on the People's side?

Dominus providebit!

Of the three places I received firearms training the left hates two - The Boy Scouts and ROTC, the third was my father who I don't think they knew about.

Training is always good but mandated training can be twisted so many ways no one passes and no one gets the permit. Which maybe the end goal.

Carl in Chicago wrote:
"Remember that Heller v DC lawsuit was taking on the ban on semiautos (now generally gone) and the ballistics test requirement (now also gone). Instead, the city is mandating training and other arguably onerous registration requirements."

Actually Carl, you underestimate the D.C. Council. The ballistics test requirement is still there. Along with some other nasty little tidbits in the bill that haven't been as widely reported, including a broad "assault weapons" ban, a ban on the sale or transfer within D.C. of new semiautomatic handguns after January 1, 2011 that are not "microstamp-ready," and a prohibition on the sale or transfer after January 1, 2009 of any firearm that is not on California's "Roster of Handguns Determined Not to be Unsafe."

Really. The legislation is here (scroll down past the old strikeout version to the current; the D.C. gov. website hasn't put up a clean version yet):

http://www.dccouncil.us/images/00001/20081210115303.pdf

Everyone has a right to free movement, which by extension means a right to move using a vehicle, but we require proof of training before issuing a license to exercise that right on public streets. If I want to play devil's advocate, then you can say any right that can be exercised that directly affects the physical saftey of others can require training. Voting doesn't qualify, walking down the street doesn't, yelling on a soapbox doesn't because none of those rights actually can hurt someone else. However choosing to exercise your right to move using a vehicle can, carrying or owning a gun could, and so forth and so on. At least there would be principles backing up that sort of approach, although, the no compromise crowd can never be satisfied on either side.

I suppose it all depends on what you mean by "hurt"

"Voting doesn't qualify" WRONG! Try again.

"yelling on a soapbox" wrong.

"walking down the street doesn't" nope, not that one either.

Of course since you're just playing antis advocate I don't have to explain the difference between a right and a privilege or explain responsibilities. Oh, sorry, is that still something that can be mentioned? "Responsibility" that is.

Deavis

SC ruled in the early 1900's (if I remember correctly) that driving a car is not a right but a "privilege" thus a license could be required by the state.

I am not aware of any other "right" in the Constitution that requires formal traing before an individual can exercise that right.

The court will need to do a lot of twisting and turning to justify any traing requirement. imo

Wolfwood, I saw video (NRA News IIRC) of a DC councilwoman making almost exactly your first point. She basically claimed that there was no moral difference between injuring/killing someone in self-defense & the criminal attacker. Self defense only added 'more violence' to the situation.

The idiocy amazes me.

Steve: From what I saw of D.C. politics when I lived in Arlington, Virginia it's not necessarily idiocy. A good fraction of the local politicians are tacitly or openly on the side of the criminals in the city.

And the District is certainly an example of anarcho-tyranny, a new variant of the old pattern of the upper and lower classes combining against the middle. In this version, there is a tacit alliance between the ruling class and criminals. E.g. if a part of the city doesn't vote correctly, they lose police protection, which is why it's so important to keep the people as disarmed as possible.

Deavis: The Left likes to use the car analogy, but if taken to its fullest, they wouldn't like that at all.

You don't need a license to own a car, you can just buy one. No waiting period. You can have, and use it on your property without any license. If you want to take it off your property, you need a license, and need to pass a test, but no training is required. Almost everyone passes this test, and almost everyone has this license. Once you have the license you can use it in all areas of all states.

Yeah, the liberals might accept that....

Anyway, gun ownership is a right, not a privelage.