DC talking about new rules

Clearly, no matter what the courts say, they are going to keep finding ways to make the practical ownership and use of a handgun impossible. I think its past time for Congress to fix this.

I know Maryland requires Ballistic fingerprinting..the State Police require a fired shell casing and a ten dollar fee to process it. To date it has led to the arrest and conviction of exactly zero criminals.

The MD State Police petitioned the legislature to do away with the law, but when Gov. O'Malley was elected the protest sort of disappeared...

So, semi-automatic handguns are banned and revolvers are typically not constructed in a manner that makes reassembly quickly possible, and all handguns must be stored unloaded and trigger locked or in a safe. Sounds like a ban on functional handguns usable for self defense to me.

didn't the Scalia decision effectively do away with "safe storage" requirements as contrary to the acknowledged right to self-defense?

California DOJ put out a report if I recall correctly that stated that a database of fired cases was forensically useless. California still has future deadlines for another technology, that of requiring firearms to "microstamp" the fired cartridge. That technology is also well debunked as a fraud, and easily circumvented. None of which discourages the fantasy-land of California legislature.

So exactly which of Congress' 24/25 or so powers authorizes Congress to do squat about Arms?

>>>So exactly which of Congress' 24/25 or so powers authorizes Congress to do squat about Arms?

Why, the "Commerce Clause", doncha know?

Anything that has ever travelled in interstate commerce is subject to congressional authority. Even the raw metal from which a gun, or anything else may have been manufactured.

That's the ridiculous rational that has actually come to justify Congress' plenary authority over virtually everything.

They can even make it illegal for you to have a vegetable garden in your back yard. Why? Because if you grow your own veggies, you might not buy any from the marketplace, and that affects interstate commerce.

Theoretically, I suppose they could decide that the disabled and elderly are a drag on commerce and order them to the ovens.

Here are links to the various reports:

http://doubletap.cs.umd.edu/~purtilo/ibis.pdf

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=136&issue=005

WRT to "Commerce Clause", check this out:

317 US 111 (1942)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

I hate to say... No! I don't mind saying it at all .... I told you so!

The anti-gunners are doing their dead-level best to circumvent Heller. These idiots are determined to take weapons of any kind out of the people's hands. The people cannot be trusted to make their own decisions. The people must be regulated and controlled.

I can only hope that these poor fools will live long enough to regret their actions. They don't seem to be able to learn from others mistakes (ie. England).

Actually WWW, you misinterpreted the thrust of intent. The people CAN be trusted to make their own decisions and that is what cannot be tolerated. Hence, the policy of denying them the effective means of implementing those decisions.

I thought Heller said that "bear" means carry. Doesn't that mean that citizens of DC have a right to carry a loaded gun on the streets? And that wasn't just dicta either was it? Because they had to determine the meaning of "bear arms" since DC was saying people couldn't even carry arms in their own house. But the District can maybe ban concealed carry. Or maybe they can ban open carry if they allow concealed carry. But they can't ban both and still be in compliance with Heller can they?

I've stepped in things my dog left that have more integrity than Adrian Fenty and the DC Council.

The district is acting like a spoiled brat, like a little kid who has been forced to do something he doesn’t want to do. They didn’t get what they wanted, disarmed citizens, so they figure they’ll just make it so difficult and costly that few will attempt the permit process. I hope the NRA is planning on challenging these pointless hurdles.
Question for the legal experts: Is it legal for the government to charge a citizen money in order for the citizen to exercise a civil right?

CRITIC wrote, "I thought Heller said that 'bear' means carry. Doesn't that mean that citizens of DC have a right to carry a loaded gun on the streets? And that wasn't just dicta either was it?"

No. You've got it wrong. Heller was a KEEP case, not a BEAR case. Heller deals with the right to KEEP a usable firearm in one's own home.

But "usable" means usable. ...

We all talk about Brown being the great decider in making things color blind in this country. But we're forgetting that many Southern elected officials made every attempt to ignore Brown, just as Fenty wants to ignore Heller.

Ultimately, it was federal troops that enforced Brown.

I fear that, ultimately, it will take some federal might to enforce Heller on the likes of Fenty. ... Fenty seems to be thumbing his nose at the U.S. Supreme Court.

FWB said:
"Theoretically, I suppose they could decide that the disabled and elderly are a drag on commerce and order them to the ovens."

I do know that in reaction to the increase in the price of corn due to the E85 business, they are planning on replacing those food stuff with a new food called 'soylent green'.

Ultimately? Federal forces should be the FIRST option.

Make an example.

The district’s interpretation of the opinion is incorrect. They are concentrating on the words used to describe what isn’t allowed. But they must also consider the explicit command of the court..."the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."

The concept of "carry" is very well defined. It comprises of having a gun loaded, ready to use, and readily available...all this at all times. On this alone the new laws will fail.

CoBIS or GUN DNA Report:
A waste of millions of dollars,
a waste of police manpower.
http://www.ocshooters.com/Reports/cobis/cobis.htm

It is not 100% up to date but it shows how much money and, I think more importantly, how many police man hours have been wasted by NY. They could have solved more crime by having the people working on the program giving out parking tickets.
george

>Heller was a KEEP case, not a BEAR case.

Are the rest of you out there interpreting Heller that way? The court writes:

"c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guaran­tee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation."

There's a problem with the following part of the courts opinion though:

"In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful fire­arm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must
issue him a license to CARRY it in the home." [emphasis added]

DC seems to have interpreted this to mean that the gun can be rendered operable only when there is an immediate need for self-defense. But I think the court meant that the gun may be rendered operable so that at any time thereafter, it will be ready for use in self-defense immediately (i.e. without the delay of rendering it operable).

The court had to interpret "bear" in order to support its order to give Heller a permit to "carry" in his home, therefore their interpretation of "bear" isn't just dicta. However Heller didn't request that the court uphold his right to carry outside his home, and therefore the court didn't order DC to allow that. Based on the Supreme Court's opinion though, I don't see how lower courts in DC will be able to permit DC to infringe the right of the people of DC to carry around town.

If DC continues to pass laws infringing the 2nd then maybe it will deter them if those who suffer arrest or fines sue for false arrest, attorney's fees, or punitive damages.

I see no reason for DC to limit the definition of machine guns to high capacity semi-autos. A muzzle loader can be considered half of a machine gun. Just strap two muzzle loaders together and tape a twig between the two triggers. Now when you pull on the "trigger" (i.e. the twig) two shots will be fired for a singe trigger pull. That's a machine gun. Hey, it might be fun to strap together several semi-auto 22s and string rubber bands from their triggers back to a common pull point for a poor mans multi-barrel machine gun.

CRITIC: My initial response was only to your comment, "Doesn't that mean that citizens of DC have a right to carry a loaded gun on the streets?"

As you quoted from Scalia's opinion, "the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to CARRY it in the home."

The Court surely seems to have made clear that one has the Constitutional right to keep a firearm in his own home, ready for use, and to move it from room to room. ... However, Heller does not say that people have the right to BEAR arms in public places and on the streets.

If you want to say that the Court says that one may BEAR arms in his own home, I suppose it could be said that the Court said that. However, the term "bear arms" generally doesn't refer to keeping a usable firearm in one's own home and moving it from room to room.

If you've got a hour, I covered the "ballistic fingerprinting" topic in detail in a post a while back. It sounds like in this case they want not just a spent casing, but also a fired bullet.

It won't help.

ANY law or right can be circumvented if you can generate enough red tape.

Go to the press release and its link to the proposed law and regulations, and you'll see a lot more gotchas':

The registration is explicitly "may issue".

Like NYC, they can delay or obstruct by never giving you a form (say, after the spotlight has moved from D.C.).

A test must be passed with 75% proficiency, contents and nature now or in the future unspecified.

Along with the "reasonable" fees.

Only the registrant can carry the pistol from room to room.

And as noted, the threshold for loading is very high, e.g. I'd guess not to check a noise in the middle of the night.

Looks like someone has perhaps learned how NYC plays the game....

- Harold

If the Commerce Clause is so broad as to include the authority to restrict Arms, why were the grants of power over coining money (intimately connected to commerce), bankruptcies, weights and measures, setting the value of the coined money, etc necessary since THAT interpretation of the commerce clause makes all these other delegations of authority wholly unnecessary?

Since the Constitution explicitly states that Congress shall "exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever..." in the district, AND no authority to redelegate delegated authority is to be found in the Constitution, under what authority are ANY laws passed by the DC council considered lawful?

Redelegation of previously delegated authority is a breach of trust.

"If the Commerce Clause is so broad as to include the authority to restrict Arms, why were the grants of power over coining money (intimately connected to commerce), bankruptcies, weights and measures, setting the value of the coined money, etc necessary since THAT interpretation of the commerce clause makes all these other delegations of authority wholly unnecessary?"

FWB, you nailed it in one. That is exactly the issue with a broad and expansive reading of the Commerce Clause, combined with a generous reading of the "necessary and proper" clause. I seem to recall T. Jefferson predicting that very issue if those clauses were too broadly read, or at least if Congress were not restricted to its enumerated powers.

But let's not concern ourselves with such trifles, shall we? I mean, after all, our elected representatives apparently don't.

All this talk of the commerce clause overlooks another important factor:

Washington, D.C., is not a state. It is a federal district. Congress has almost unlimited power (essentially limited only by things the Constitution says it CAN'T do) to regulate the district.

Commerce has nothing to do with it, at least for D.C. Now, federal laws that apply to the states are another matter...

As for all the proposed new regulations to circumvent Heller:

Replace "keep and bear arms" in them with "free speech," "freedom of religion," "voting," or "abortion" and see if they would ever be allowed by a court.

You can have an abortion, but only if you pass a test, with 75% or higher, on the medical terminology and techniques involved.

You can exercise your freedom of speech, but only if, before you do so, you supply the government with a transcript of what, exactly, it is you are going to say, and then do not deviate from the script.

You can vote, but only if you first pass a written test in English on civics and pay a $75 registration fee.

Hmmm... that last one sounds sort of... familiar...

Each and every "regulation" proposed by D.C. needs to be first implemented, then litigated. And God help us if Barack Hussein Obama gets to appoint any new justices or judges...

Gullyborg, I don't think it matters who wins the presidency as regards Supreme Court appointments. McCain is no friend of ours or any other civil rights. Look at his stance on the 1st amendment.

Further, if he were to nominate someone who could actually read the constitution and history and who would uphold them, he would never get them past the Congress. Second with his record of betrayal of politically conservative principles (as opposed to socially conservative), uh, excuse me, I meant his record of "reaching across the aisle, he just might very well nominate the same person of people that Obama would.

I just don't think it matters which of these empty suits we get. And believe me, I am not happy with that thought.

one "of" should have been "or". Poof redeing is my fiend.

It doesn't matter who get's elected, Obama and McCain are practically the same when it comes to guns.

Why is this blog crawling with Republicans? I'm a Libertarian so I don't fall for that "well maybe McCain will help us" lie. He won't.

All this talk of the commerce clause overlooks another important factor:

Washington, D.C., is not a state. It is a federal district. Congress has almost unlimited power (essentially limited only by things the Constitution says it CAN'T do) to regulate the district.

Commerce has nothing to do with it, at least for D.C. Now, federal laws that apply to the states are another matter...

Actually, Congress is restricted BY the Constitution, including ALL the BoR, in the district, all territories, and elsewhere. Without the Constitution and its provisions, Congress does not exist, the authority to exercise exclusive legislation does not exist, the executive does not exist, etc. Congress is subordinate to its superior. At least that is the theory behind our system.

AMB wrote:
>Heller does not say that people have the right to BEAR arms in public places and on the streets.

So you're saying that the following quote only applies to carrying in the home?

"Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guaran­tee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation."

Am I alone here? Would someone else here please post as to whether they interpret Heller to recognize the right to carry in public or only in the home.