Update to the DC gun ban

[robb92]

Lawsuit filed against new D.C. gun regulations
July 28, 2008 - 7:24pm

By BRIAN WESTLEY
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The plaintiff in the Supreme Court case that struck down Washington's 32-year-old handgun ban filed a new federal lawsuit Monday, alleging the city's new gun regulations still violate an individual's right to own a gun for self-defense.

Dick Heller and two other plaintiffs argue that the city's regulations are "highly unusual and unreasonable" in the complaint filed in U.S. District Court.

The lawsuit claims the District of Columbia continues to violate the intent of the Supreme Court's June 26 decision by prohibiting the ownership of most semiautomatic weapons, requiring an "arbitrary" fee to register a firearm and establishing rules that make it all but impossible for residents to keep a gun in the home for immediate self-defense.

The D.C. Council was quickly criticized by gun rights advocates when it unanimously passed emergency firearms legislation July 15. The law will remain in effect for 90 days, and the council expects to begin work in September on permanent legislation.

The regulations maintain the city's ban of machine guns, defined in the law as weapons that shoot more than 12 rounds without reloading. That definition applies to most semiautomatic firearms.

Handguns, as well as other legal firearms such as rifles and shotguns, also must be kept unloaded and disassembled, or equipped with trigger locks in the home unless there is a "reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm."

"A robber basically has to make an appointment" for a resident to be able to prepare the weapon for use, Heller's attorney, Stephen Halbrook, said Monday. Halbrook also called the city's definition of machine guns "bizarre."

"The District's ban on semiautomatic handguns amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of arms that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for the lawful purpose of self defense in the home," the lawsuit alleges.

D.C. interim Attorney General Peter Nickles said the suit came as no surprise and that he expects a long legal fight as the issue makes it way through the courts.

"I think there's a fundamental disagreement with the intent of the Supreme Court's decision," said Nickles, noting that the court's ruling did not give officials much guidance on regulating firearms.

"We don't think the Supreme Court said you can have a loaded gun in the home at all times," Nickles said. He also said the ruling allows the city to regulate weapons that it considers unreasonably dangerous, and he believes that includes semiautomatic handguns.

After the Supreme Court's landmark 5-4 ruling on the Second Amendment, the D.C. Council quickly moved to comply with the ruling, and residents were allowed to begin applying for handguns July 17 for the first time since 1976.

Monday's lawsuit alleges that Heller initially tried to register a semiautomatic Colt pistol, but was denied because D.C. police considered the weapon to be a machine gun.

Besides Heller, the other plaintiffs are Absalom Jordan, whose application to register a .22-caliber pistol was denied, and Amy McVey, who must return to police headquarters two more times to complete the registration of her weapon after being photographed, fingerprinted and undergoing a background check, according to the lawsuit.

Washington's gun ban essentially outlawed private ownership of handguns in a city struggling with violence. But the ban's impact on crime has long been debated, particularly after homicides more than doubled during a crack epidemic in the late 1980s and early '90s.

The city's gun regulations remain among the strictest in the country under the new regulations, according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

[sisu]

Perhaps the President and Mrs. Bush should make an appearance at the police station and get their picture taken, fingerprints, and have a background check done.  See how that plays out...

That is one of the best ideas I've ever heard of regarding this BS. I guess GW and Mrs. GW wouldn't qualify as they are not residents of DC but residents of Texas.
BTW Eleanor Roosevelt carried a piece, and she was a Liberal. wonder how that would play out today with the Libs.

[Jekemi]

I don’t want to get overly political but as the silly season unfolds it becomes increasingly clear that hunters should be concerned by at least one of the candidates running for president and many of the candidates running for the Senate and the house.

1.   For the first time in many years we may have a president and both houses of congress who do not support the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. Even a cursory reading of the Federalist Papers and the correspondence between the various Constitutional framers indicates that individual ownership of arms is guaranteed. The letters between the various Constitutional convention members during the time that the Bill of Rights were being written couldn’t be more clear. Those Supreme Court justices that deny individual ownership either haven’t read those letters or chose to ignore them. Justice Stevens for instance does not believe that the original letters are appropriate to consider in this discussion (not appropriate to consider - knowing the mind of the Constitution's writers isn't important?)

Historically the intent of the Amendment was to make sure that no tyrannical government (such as England prior to the Revolutionary War) could restrict the individual ownership of weapons. Those weapons were used by our pre-revolutionary war, British subjects to protect their homes and family and to secure meat for their table. After the Declaration of Independence was signed the Freedom Fighters used those weapons to defend the Revolution and secure a new nation. They did so by joining either local or regional  Militia or by joining the Continental Army. Once the war was over and America became a nation the warriors went back to their homes and farms and continued to use their weapons to protect their families and provide food for their families. The Constitutional framers wanted to make sure that individual Americans could use their weapons to protect their homes and property, feed their families, and join an organized militia to put down any subsequent tyranny should it arise. The language “when in the course of human events….” found in the Declaration of Independence, indicates that the framers suggested that it is not only the right but the duty of the citizens to overthrow that tyranny.
2.   Overthrow is a very strong word. It’s is exactly what the young Americans just finished doing – they overthrew the British Government and started anew. How can that happen if the Federal government restricts in any way the right of individuals to own a weapon. It is impossible. If the only people who own weapons are Armies, criminals, and police it would be impossible for ordinary citizens to bind together and remove a tyrannical government.
3.   I believe that it is the unstated intention of the far left to make that very thing impossible. A far left government does not want individual citizens to be able to overthrow an oppressive, centralized, collectivist government that they are running. The one thing a tyrannical government can’t have is individuals possessing weapons, not even traditional hunting guns.
4.   The Supreme Court of the United States upheld a 250 year old Constitutional view and practice by ruling that individuals do have the right to own a weapon, thus making the Washington DC law unconstitutional. The vote was 5 to 4 or ONE VOTE!
5.   The next president will have the opportunity to nominate at least two new justices. If those new justices are confirmed by the Senate and they chose to re-visit the individual ownership issue the outcome would likely be very different. If that scenario occurs I can virtually guarantee that the individual use clause throughout the United States, will be overturned. At that point, any use of firearms could be severely restricted.
6.   Currently the Congress is considering a dramatic limitation of any modern firearms center-fire ammunition. Various states are considering restrictions on use of lead in bullets, the requiring the laser stamping of cartridges, limits on the purchase of more than one firearm per month. There are many additional restrictions planned by various anti-gun advocates in state houses all over the country. These restrictions are a clear infringement of the 2nd Amendment. If I can’t purchase ammunition I can’t take advantage of my individual right to own a weapon for personal protection. It’s as though I was attempting to exercise my right to freedom of religion but the Congress ruled that no churches may be built or no hymnals could be printed. I would be forced to worship underground or in homes, which is exactly what happens in some tyrannical regimes.
7.   Finally, if you are concerned about your right to hunt or you want a weapon to protect your home or family with a firearm you should be very concerned and active in this upcoming election. Even if America elects an opponent of the 2nd Amendment as its President, at least we need to make sure that one of the houses of Congress is led by the opposition so that some checks and balances can be maintained. This is essential or I can guarantee, your right to use a firearm to hunt or protect your family WILL BE SEVERELY RESTRICTED. That is the bottom line. Make no mistake about it, there are well organized and very well funded organizations hell-bent on ending every American’s right to own and bear arms, regardless of what the Constitution says or how the Supreme Court has ruled. Based on the highly visible voting record of one of our presidential candidates these vocal and vehement anti-gun groups have the ear of that candidate.

Call me an alarmist! You’re right – I’m sounding the Alarm.

[Hunter4Life]

Dave, I agree with you 100%.  Gunowners, hunters, and all sportsmen need to sound the alarm.  We can not have an anti-gun majority in both houses of Congress and sitting in the White House.  The presidential candidate you are talking about is the most anti-sportsmen candidate in history.  We need to rally to the cause of protecting our rights.

Thomas Jefferson said it best, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

[Jekemi]

My response to the mayor and his email to me:

Mayor Nickels:

Thank you for your response to my email:

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled (finally affirming that which we have known all along) that  individuals have the right to own weapons; as the 2nd Amendment has always been interpreted. A casual reading of the letters and correspondence between the founding fathers who wrote signed the Constitution of the United States clearly indicates that they intended for individuals to own weapons for their protection, for providing food for their family, and for defense of the nation. The 2nd Amendment is my concealed weapons permit. It supersedes any local laws.

There is a process for changing the Constitution; it’s called the Amendment process. It has worked well for America for over 200 years. Executive orders from city mayors, governors, even executive order from the President of the US is not an appropriate method of changing the Constitution. 

The State of Washington does not have  “some of the weakest gun regulations in the country.” That is an absurd statement. Washington is about in the middle of the pack in terms of progressive Gun laws and by progressive I mean laws which strictly adhere to the original intent of the Constitution. Attempts to prevent felons and criminals from possessing guns by penalizing law abiding citizens are largely futile. The experience in Washington DC should make that very clear. As the DC gun laws became more and more restrictive the gun crime increased. The only people who owned guns were criminals and law enforcement – so much for the value of strict gun laws in preventing gun crime. Most of the states in the South, Southwest, and mountain regions have far more progressive, less restrictive gun laws than Washington.

Several cities in the United States, after an increase in gun crimes, are encouraging law-abiding citizens to carry hand guns in the open, in the attempt to thwart gun crimes. So far the results have been extremely positive. Gun crimes have dropped dramatically. It is a common sense approach – potential criminals see well trained, ordinary citizens carrying hand guns and immediately re-adjust their plans regarding bank robbery, assault, etc.

The policies in Seattle need to be very different from the direction you have taken.
1.   Any law-abiding citizen, who is not a convicted felon, known terrorist, or illegal alien has the Constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon anywhere in the US
2.   Anyone who commits a crime using a gun should expect a long prison term – get them off the streets and keep them off the streets
3.   Allow instant background checks in stores where guns are purchased. Their needs to be a centralized national database of felons, those with severe mental health issues, alleged terrorists, and illegal immigrants, which would prevent them from purchasing a firearm (this is something the NRA as advocated for years). In lieu of that the city could certainly use its own database or tap into State and Federal databases.
4.   Re-assure the law-abiding citizenry of their 2nd Amendment rights
5.   Pressure the legislature to exclude fire arms ownership by any convicted felon, the insane, illegal aliens, and alleged terrorists.

Hunters, gun collectors, and well trained – law abiding citizens don’t commit gun crimes. Criminals commit gun crimes; those who flagrantly ignore the laws of the land and threaten our citizens. The role of law enforcement is to use its resources finding, tracking down, and arresting criminals that threaten the citizenry. Stop assuming that someone like me is going to commit a gun crime and begin targeting demographics that are more likely to commit gun crimes. Guess what? If you did that you would prevent most gun crimes from ever being committed.  The good, law abiding citizenry will be able to maintain their essential, Constitutionally guaranteed individual freedoms. Knee-jerk reactions by local officials attempting to circumvent the Constitution is counterproductive.

Dave Stiles
206-390-1722


From: CSB and Mayor (imailagent) [mailto:CSBandMayor@crm.seattle.gov]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:11 AM
To: newcordia@comcast.net
Subject: Gun free policy (Intranet Quorum IMA00555583)

Dear David:


Thank you for your correspondence regarding a “gun free” policy for city property.

The gun regulations in our state are some of the weakest in the country.  :PWhile we have severe penalties for those who commit crimes with guns, state laws do very little to prevent convicted felons, children and the mentally ill from obtaining firearms. For many years the legislature has failed to pass common sense legislation that would protect our citizens by keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. For example, our state allows mentally ill persons who have been involuntarily committed for fewer than 90 days to purchase and possess firearms. This year, the City of Seattle and the State Attorney General supported legislation that would have closed this mental health loophole, but the legislature failed to act on it.

The Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that cities may impose conditions related to firearms use on city property. The court held that certain types of firearms regulations related to city-owned property do not violate the State’s preemption statute.

I have directed city departments to adopt rules and policies related to firearms and other dangerous weapons that are permitted under the state’s preemption law. These rules do not infringe on Second Amendment rights nor do they violate the state’s laws and ordinances regulating firearms. While these new rules may inconvenience some gun owners who wish to bring their guns on city property, they will result in safer activities and events for all residents and visitors to our city.

We are currently studying how to appropriately enforce this order, beginning with signage and other notices of the rules.  No rule, policy or regulation can stop all violent acts from occurring.  However, we do know that by reducing the number of guns and dangerous weapons that are brought onto city property, the less chance there will be for violence to occur.

Thank you again for contacting the City of Seattle.

Sincerely,

GREG NICKELS
Mayor of Seattle

[finnman]

We are currently studying how to appropriately enforce this order, beginning with signage and other notices of the rules.  No rule, policy or regulation can stop all violent acts from occurring.  However, we do know that by reducing the number of guns and dangerous weapons that are brought onto city property, the less chance there will be for violence to occur.

They just don't get it!!!!!
CRIMINALS DON'T FOLLOW THE RULES!!!!!! They don't give a hoot what you print or sign they still are going to pack!!!!!
I say just ban all these retarded festivals and avoid large groups of hippy dope smokers from getting together to sell hemp products!
Problem solved! I am glad I don't live in SEATTLE!!!!!!

[DeKuma]

That guy is truly brain dead, isn't he?