http://www.qando.net/ - DC Council works to subvert Heller

Who was it that said that?

DC Council Chairman Vincent Gray. The intent, of course, is to find a way to subvert the intent of the Supreme Court case in which the right of self-defense with a hand gun was affirmed as an individual right.

But, as is obvious, those that govern the nation's capital have no desire or intention of allowing that if they can help it.

Who is helping them craft their new law? Who would you expect?

The rules announced yesterday bring the District closer to gun restrictions in cities such as Chicago, said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

His staff huddled with the District on the regulations, but Helmke said it is uncertain which parts would withstand constitutional muster. Firearms may be banned, the majority opinion in the Heller case maintained, only if the weapons are "unusual and dangerous."

And ban they did. For instance, they banned the possession of semi-automatic handguns - which are neither "unusual" or more dangerous than any other handgun.

Additionally, after initially giving unanimous preliminary approval to legislation that would allow gun owners to keep weapons in their homes without trigger locks as long as they were for "immediate self-defense" the council changed its mind. Instead it opted for more restrictions:

But yesterday, several council members said they agreed with tougher language that requires weapons to be unloaded, disassembled or trigger locked, except when there is a "threat of immediate harm to a person" in the home.

Nickles said residents could neither keep their guns loaded in anticipation of a problem nor search for an intruder on their property. The porch is off-limits, he said, as well as the yard and any outbuildings.

Tell me, when is the last time an "immediate" situation which threatened your life to the point that you had to use a gun to protect it wait for you to assemble the gun, take off the trigger guard and load the weapon?

Of course these "public servants" know precisely what they're doing and make no apology for it:

Council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) said in a statement that the emergency legislation is a start. "But, because we really haven' t changed the storage rule from the prior unconstitutional law and because of other features, I do agree that this is a lawsuit waiting to happen," she said. "But we'll be prepared."

[Acting Attorney General Peter] Nickles was more direct: "We figured it out until the court tells us we haven't." The new legislation would be in effect for 90 days, and council members expect to start work on permanent legislation in mid-September, Gray said.

2nd Amendment - what 2nd Amendment?

TrackBacks

Return to Main Blog Page

Comments For This Post

Previous Comments to this Post

Comments

This type of crap where a few tiny details on legislation are changed is suppose to be knocked down by the lower courts.

I mean DC can pass the ban, fight it for years, only to have to suspend the ban for a few months while a new tweak is introduced.

Unfortunately the lower courts are so contaminated with activists, it might require another trip to the SCOTUS to knock it down. Not that it shouldn’t go to SCOTUS, but judges should usually err against sustain such legislation until it does.

Something has to be done to revamp the courts. But as long as most of these judges side with the left, the problem will never be a ’problem’.

Written By: jpm100
URL: http://

So a guy breaks into my house and I pull out my Model 1911, chamber a round, empty the magazine into his face, call Servepro then dial 911, telling them there’s no hurry.

When the cops arrive, I tell them I heard a noise, removed the trigger lock, inserted a magazine, loaded and shot because I felt my life was being threatened. The guy with the seven 230 grain slugs in his cranium will be unable to refute my claim. Prove I lied or let the clean up crew make it like it never happened.

Written By: Arch
URL: http://

A cynical view of things Arch, but one I can not find fault with...

Save maybe for the fact that if you trigger-lock it, I don’t think you need to keep it unloaded...

Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://

Why stop with citizens? I join Mike at Coldfury and propose that DC police officers lead by example and keep their firearms unloaded, locked and disassembled right up to the moment they are necessary to defend themselves and others around them. They will no doubt be happy to comply with this new regulation, and will not argue that such restrictions will make it unduly difficult for them to defend themselves and those around them.

Written By: Bryan Pick
URL: http://www.qando.net

Once you start ignoring the Consitution, it gets easier each time.
DC has ignored it for so long they no longer have any idea what it says except something about how they deserve to get stuff.

Written By: Veeshir
URL: http://

"Who was it that said that?"

Well, I’m the one who said that that’s how it would play, last month:

"What I see here is the Supreme Court acting as a focus-group for legislators and administrators: the Court is telling them how to tweak the program."

Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php

But yesterday, several council members said they agreed with tougher language that requires weapons to be unloaded, disassembled or trigger locked, except when there is a "threat of immediate harm to a person" in the home.

The other day I heard a short interview with one of the DC Council Members responsible for drafting the new legislation, and he specifically stated his (mis)understanding of the Heller ruling. According to the Councilman’s thinking, what the SCOTUS had a problem with regarding the trigger-lock/unloaded provisions was that immediately upon using the gun in self-defense a homeowner is in violation of the law. So that’s the only limitation that was lifted. However, I think that’s a gross misreading of the opinion.

Of course, the cynic in me hears the council channeling Andrew Jackson: "Justice Scalia has made his ruling. Now let’s see him enforce it."

Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://qando.net

A well placed Section 1983 civil action against these conscientious representatives of the people might have some prophylactic effect.

Written By: vnjagvet
URL: http://www.yargb.blogspot.com

A well placed Section 1983 civil action against these conscientious representatives of the people might have some prophylactic effect.

Hmmm ... that’s an interesting thought. Concerted effort to deny civil rights, under color of law, and sovereign immunity has been pretty well negated by the statute and the rulings interpreting it. Of course, there’s also a Bivens action, but I don’t know if you can get attorney’s fees under such a claim.

Vnjagvet, I like it. Tell me more!

Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com

Add Your Comment

	NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
	Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Comment:
	Remember Me

Vicious Capitalism

Buy Dale's Book!