Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Rehearing denied in DC challenge (Seegers) | Main | Are all federal shooting ranges open to the public, by law? »

House votes against part of DC gun ban

Posted by David Hardy · 5 July 2005 09:40 AM

The House just passed a restriction on enforcement (not a true repeal) of part of the DC gun ban. IF the WashPo report is correct, it would forbid use of appropriated funds to enforce the requirement that firearms (in this case mostly registered rifles and shotguns, since new registrations of handguns have been forbidden for decades) be kept disassembled or trigger locked while in the home.

I suspect this is more symbolic than anything else. (1) I rather doubt that section of the law is enforced or in most cases enforcable. Back in the 80s I remember Mayor Marion Barry being asked about it during a congressional hearing and essentially responding that, well, there are sections of the law that nobody obeys. (2) While a federal agency has nothing but appropriated funds, so forbidding it to use them for a purpose means there is no way to carry out that purpose, DC has tax and other income. Of course, the bill might be drafted to get around that, i.e., to prohibit use of any funds for that purpose.

· contemporary issues

Leave a comment