...but the current bill comes with some serious gun provisions.
The Washington Business Journal reports.
Here's a key quote from the article:
To many in the District’s dismay, the measure also would decimate the city’s gun laws, thanks to a rider added by Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev. It would repeal the semiautomatic gun ban, repeal the gun registration requirement, repeal the handgun ammunition ban, remove criminal penalties for possession of unregistered firearms, and remove criminal penalties for carrying a firearm outside the home.
Rather than nitpick about the misuse of decimate, I'm going to just say that I find this more than a little disturbing. I haven't read enough to know if the above mentioned paragraph accurately characterizes what goes before the House next week. I am aware of of some of the gun provisions, but not all of the details. Can anyone more knowledgeable enlighten me? Is the paragraph an exaggeration? Because that's a hell of a tradeoff ("remove criminal penalties for possession of unregistered firearms," ect.).
Here's the NYT editorial.
29 comments:
Where does 2nd amendment say that guns have to be registered?
It doesn't, but the Constitution is a framework. If it covered everything, we wouldn't need to write any other laws. I'm pretty sure speed limits aren't in there either, but I'm pretty glad we have those.
It should be noted that Obama did not necessarily endorse the bill with the Ensign langauge but did endorse "legislation that provides D.C. residents with voting representation and to take steps to improve the Home Rule Charter." I know this might seem pedantic, but the distinction is important...now if only Ensign would hurry up and resign...
We need to get rid of Norton. She is pretty useless these days.
MPD ought to send the crime scene photographs from last month's drive-by shooting to the office of each legislator...including Norton...that ought to show them what an AK-47 can do to a group of kids congregating after a funeral.
not on parker,
good distinction. I changed the post a bit.
@ Anonymous 2:04
The second amendment only applies to the Federal Government, not states or municipalities. Though many amendments have been extended to states through SCUSA interpretations of the 14th amendment, the 2nd amendment is not one of those.
inked, The language is correct though all existing federal regulations would still be intact.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I don't see anywhere it talks about firearms. Arms is interpreted as being firearms. It can also be interpreted as a sword as a right to bear arms. And the security of a free State is either State in the Union or the understanding of a State as in a country. So, we have a well regulated Militia called the U.S. Army, Navy, etc. Each state has the National Guard which only the governor has authority to call up (Bush, through an executive order changed that so the president now can over ride the governor).
Yet, this is my understanding and others here know more about law and actually have a law degree.
Look, the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue. Americans are allowed to have a handgun in their home for self protection. The self regulated militia versus personal ownership has been laid to rest. Also, the court said municipalities and states could have such laws like registration requirements.
Now what Sen. Ensign did was pretty dispecable. The fact that the democrats weren't able to strip the language out or defeat the amendment was even worse.
But lets be honest with ourselves. Criminals in DC already have unregistered handguns. Yes, currently the District can lock people up for having them and I don't want to lose that, but the laws we have on the books are not stopping criminals from getting handguns, getting ammunition, or carrying those guns.
As long as Virginia is our neighbor to the South and they have the gun show loop hole, the District will always be riddled with guns. And if VA outlaws such sales, the criminals will just keep finding them somewhere else. All long as guns are legal in the US, criminals will get them. And if they weren't legal, you would see a "gun trade" just like you see a current "drug trade."
Lets get the vote and pass a new law that overturns Ensign's BS.
D
We need some DC voting rights evenings on H street. Drinking Liberally does this, but always in Dupont Circle.
People who are unfamiliar with firearms and laws concerning them can be "dismayed" all they want, but this isn't unreasonable. It would bring DC's laws into parity with those of the vast majority of other states.
Anon 4:43 is exactly right that "criminals in DC already have unregistered handguns." and that DC could "lock people up for having them." They don't. That's the problem! Not the guns!
As Anon continued, the tough DC laws have not "stopped criminals from getting handguns, getting ammunition, or carrying those guns."
Laws are nothing but words on paper unless they are enforced, and the offenders prosecuted.
Other states with virtually unhampered access to guns have much less problem with gun violence. Because they lock violent offenders up. Those who might consider using guns illegally get that message. Rates of violent crime decline.
It is completely illogical to blame it on VA. Their rates of violent crime using firearms plummeted after they initiated Project Exile. Lock 'em up!
I agree about Norton. I think it's be a lot easier to get voting rights if we didn't have the obviously mentally unstable Norton as the one that would be getting them.
Inked- I wish you would not use your blog for divisive political commentary.
9:22,
I'm a bit concerned about the street impact of this legislation. I think that's a valid local concern.
I wish you would not use your blog for divisive political commentary.
I haven't seen all that much commentary out of Inked, to be honest...and certainly nothing incendiary.
Anon 9:22pm: I wish you'd hurry up and start your own blog, rather than grousing about what other people put in theirs. It's a personal weblog -- by definition, people put whatever they want in it. It's theirs.
Does anyone know what the legislation would actually do?
What type of gun laws / restrictions would we actually end up with?
I'm one of those DC residents that find the love affair with guns to be weird, but I also don't have much faith in the MPD to protect me.
When I moved to DC ten years ago I would have been adamantly pro gun control.
After ten years of watching how policing in DC is actually done (or not done), now I'm not so sure.
I'd be interested in seeing what this would actually result in.
For instance, are we talking about just guns at home? Or public carry laws as well?
Are we talking about doing away with registrations or waiting periods?
Will we get the gun laws back after the Supreme Court re-voids our voting rights?
I think this is a win win. I'm glad we'll be getting our gun rights back. What we really need is concealed carry permits to cut down on robberies on the street though but at least this will help deter burglars from breaking into homes.
As far as the voting rights go, this bothers me that it isn't a constitutional amendment because I think that's what it's going to technically take.
Also, to "not on parker" who commented about the funeral shooting in southeast, you think that AK was legally purchased according to district law or something? Violent criminals don't seem to have any problem getting guns in DC, these ridiculous restrictions and bans only affect us.
arch_nme, did anyone ever identify the type of weapon that was used in that SE drive-by? The Post kept saying inflammatory, vague things like "assault-type," and "AK-47 style," but never any specific model, even though it was apparently recovered.
The majority of those firearms are only available to the military and law enforcement or on the serious black-market. They would not be available to law-abiding citizens even if the DC gun regs were changed - except to the same criminals who ignore the current laws anyway.
In short, nobody will be swaggering down E. Capitol Street with one of these.
I have to second the comments about Norton. I think she would agree to any conditions in order to become a "real" congresswoman.
@anon I said AK because "not on parker" said it was an AK-47. I don't know where he got his information or if it's reliable. However in most states you can legally buy a SEMI-auto AK-47, including MD and VA. I'm not really sure what point if any you are trying to make though, just letting you know.
voting rights and 2nd Amendment rights have a similar genesis: preventing federal gov't control over the people (though, for guns, it has expanded, particularly in light of the recent S.Ct. decision). It's interesting, to me, to see modern values in this debate.
@arch_NME
concealed carry isn't a deterrent to street crime, but i bet open carry would be. not too many muggers are gonna run up on you when they see that 9 milli in the quick draw holster. LOL.
i'm trying to bring my pistol into congress too. c'mon, ensign, let me bring my pistol on the senate floor so we can talk about this gun rights thing man to man. LOL.
@Soul Searcher
I think concealed carry is a better deterrent for the wider population than open carry because then criminals don't know who has a gun and who doesn't. That way you can be somewhat protected by the deterrent benefits without the hassle of having to carry a handgun around constantly. Also, having a gun in plain view might get you a lot of unwanted attention.
The deterrent effects of concealed carry laws are real though and have been documented. You should look at the research done by John Lott on the subject, he published a book about it "More Guns, Less Crime". It's only $8 on Amazon and you might actually learn something.
...you think that AK was legally purchased according to district law or something? Violent criminals don't seem to have any problem getting guns in DC, these ridiculous restrictions and bans only affect us...
Is there a real yearning among our residents to buy firearms? Are there that many residents saying to themselves "I can't wait until they change the gun laws so that I can pick up that compact P220"? Sounds to me like pro-gun residents are enthralled with the freedom to own a weapon but not necessarily the exercise of that freedom.
did anyone ever identify the type of weapon that was used in that SE drive-by? The Post kept saying inflammatory, vague things like "assault-type," and "AK-47 style," but never any specific model, even though it was apparently recovered.
The firearm recovered was a Romanian AKM. The cartridges it uses (M43) is consistent with the shells found at both crime scenes along with the large-sized projectiles found in many of the victims' bodies. I would imagine the firearm was operated in full-automatic mode, as this was a drive-by shooting and not target practice!
The proposed changes would bring DC gun laws in line with the surrounding states - all of which have lower crime rates than DC. I really don't 'get' where people people think these laws make any difference in how criminals behave when no such link has EVER been shown.
The truly disappointing thing here is that the 'leaders' in DC would happily continue to deny citizens voting rights in their zeal to restrict the civil rights of the law-abiding. It's really quite shameful in light of the failure of the laws to make any positive difference.
Post a Comment