(DC) District Leaders Announce New Handgun Regulations (HELLER)

[Hazcat]

By Robert E. Pierre and Marcia Davis
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, July 14, 2008; 4:39 PM

District residents will be able to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense but that right would be limited to the home and not outside it, city leaders said today, announcing new gun regulations in response to the Supreme Court's recent ruling striking down the city's handgun ban.

Gun owners will have to pass vision and written tests, provide a photo with their application to register a gun, and submit their weapon for ballistics testing. Guns will also still require trigger locks. 

Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) and interim Attorney General Peter J. Nickles announced the regulations alongside D.C. Council Chairman Vincent G. Gray (D), Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) and several other council members.

The regulations are an effort to maintain some gun control while complying with the Supreme Court's 5 to 4 ruling last month.

"We think we have struck the delicate legal balance," Fenty said. "While we will have lawsuits, we think we stand on solid legal ground."

In a news release announcing the restrictions, Fenty said: "We continue to take every step we can to minimize handgun violence in the District. We must prevent handguns from falling into the wrong hands or being misused."

Nickles said he expects the city to face lawsuits over the new regulations.

The council is expected to pass emergency legislation tomorrow, before recessing until September, officials said. Permanent legislation will come up for review in September.

The District's police department is prepared to begin the registration process for people as soon as the emergency legislation is passed.

Officials also said for the first 90 days, individuals will be limited to one gun a person.

Those who already own a gun will have a six-month amnesty period to register their weapon but will have to follow the same process as a new gun owner, city officials said.

The council had recently voted to unanimously support Mendelson's legislation that provided broader room for gun owners, allowing them to keep a weapon in their home without a trigger lock as long as it was for "immediate self-defense."

The bill specifically addressed the majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, that said: "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."

Nickles had argued that the city should do its best to maintain trigger locks and a strict interpretation of the high court's decision.

But today's news conference signaled that the city's executive and legislative branch had reached agreement about the way forward.

Comments at link http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/14/AR2008071401332.html?nav=rss_email/components

One thing I noticed is they still require trigger locks which was pointed too as bad during the original SCOTUS hearing.  The SOBs just won't learn.  Now there must be more laws suits costing more taxpayer money.

************UPDATE******************

Here is a link to the actual 'emergency legislation'

http://www.dc.gov/mayor/news/release.asp?id=1333&mon=200807

[twyacht]

Heard a DC councilweasel interviewed on NPR radio, HOW will DC "regulate" the SCOTUS decision. He was so anti-gun it had me yelling at the radio in my truck. "Well we can comply with SCOTUS, but the "gray area" was left to the local administration"
Which translates to: DC residents are screwed! "Keeping a loaded firearm in the home is not safe" That's what HE said!!

(Decorum prohibits me from "venting" with a mouth like a sailor)

Lawsuits are coming,,,, Mac was right,.. generations of good 'ol lawyers will be fighting this for some time. What if I live in DC and am driving to Va. to shoot at a range? Get pulled over, disclose the ammo box in the seat and firearm in a case? Burned out taillight turns into really bad really quickly.

They will fight it tooth and nail, and I hope the NRA and others fight them back.

In a news release announcing the restrictions, Fenty said: "We continue to take every step we can to minimize handgun violence in the District. We must prevent handguns from falling into the wrong hands or being misused."

They are already in the wrong hands! Violence would go down if they are in the right hands,... What an idiot.

[SwoopSJ]

Gun owners will have to pass vision and written tests, provide a photo with their application to register a gun, and submit their weapon for ballistics testing. Guns will also still require trigger locks. 

In a news release announcing the restrictions, Fenty said: "We continue to take every step we can to minimize handgun violence in the District. We must prevent handguns from falling into the wrong hands or being misused."

Why is it so difficult for these D.C. puds to understand that the overwhelming majority of guns used in crimes are not obtained legally?  I am not sure who to credit with this analogy, but it stuck with me and seems appropriate:  Guns laws are like trying to eliminate drunk driving by making it harder for sober people to buy cars.  You want to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands or being misused... eliminate the black market!  I know this is easier said than done, but it would help if we put an end to the domestic "war" on drugs.  Before, I'm crucified by other members of this forum, yes, drugs are bad, but look at the expense we absorb to tell other citizens what is bad for them.  We could drastically reduce the number of inmates we are paying to house, eliminate a lot of gang activity, make money through taxation, and allow police officers to spend their time doing something more valuable to our society than babysitting.  Of course, thats just my opinion, take it for what it's worth.  (Not much.)

Swoop

 

[tombogan03884]

Why is it so difficult for these D.C. puds to understand that the overwhelming majority of guns used in crimes are not obtained legally?  I am not sure who to credit with this analogy, but it stuck with me and seems appropriate:  Guns laws are like trying to eliminate drunk driving by making it harder for sober people to buy cars.  You want to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands or being misused... eliminate the black market!  I know this is easier said than done, but it would help if we put an end to the domestic "war" on drugs.  Before, I'm crucified by other members of this forum, yes, drugs are bad, but look at the expense we absorb to tell other citizens what is bad for them.  We could drastically reduce the number of inmates we are paying to house, eliminate a lot of gang activity, make money through taxation, and allow police officers to spend their time doing something more valuable to our society than babysitting.  Of course, thats just my opinion, take it for what it's worth.  (Not much.)

Swoop

 

I agree completely Swoop, Check out the "Urine test thread".