DC To Vote On New Gun Law

[red states rule]

The anti gun nuts in DC have crafted a new gun bill that is making it very hard for law abiding citizens to protect themselves

First only revolvers are permitted. No other type of gun

You may only have the gun in your home. So if you own a liquor store on K Street - you are not permitted to defend your buisness or employees

In your home the gun must have a trigger lock or disassembled. So lets hope the criminal call you in advance to tell you they are coming over so you wil be ready to defend your home

Seems libs never learn. They still want to make life miserable for law abiding citizens, and make things easier for the criminals


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-14-dc-gun-law_N.htm

[Little-Acorn]

First only revolvers are permitted. No other type of gun
I didn't see that anywhere in the article.


You may only have the gun in your home. So if you own a liquor store on K Street - you are not permitted to defend your buisness or employees
That might be. The Supreme Court only ruled against the DC law banning guns in the home.


In your home the gun must have a trigger lock or disassembled.
Also didn't see that in the article, for handguns. Only long guns. The Supremes have already specifically ruled in the Heller case that this is unconstitutional. Looks like the DC City Council will need it pounded into them. That's OK - we're happy to oblige.

One of the humorous parts in the article, was where it said DC officials were "scrambling to comply". They aren't, of course - they're scrambling to evade the ruling and restrict guns anyway.

Funniest part is the exception to the disassembly rule for a "reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm." How long do you think you have, between seeing that someone is threatening you, and needing your gun? One second, maybe? And here DC graciously says that, once you perceive this threat, you can then take the dime to get your disassembled or locked gun, reassemble or unlock it, and then use it. How many people can do that in one second? Those DC officials have quite a sense of humor.

Those things aside, this is nothing unusual. The anti-gun-rights people will try every trick in the book, restricting revery little thing and forcing normal people to fight for every little bit of their rights in court, before they yield. But that's OK - they are painting themselves into a corner. Once the Supremes rule some restriction is unconstitutional, the anti-rights folks can't get it back. Little by little, we will get our Constitutional rights back.

-------------------------------------------

D.C. to vote on new gun bill following Supreme Court ruling
Updated 18h 25m ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The District of Columbia Council planned to vote Tuesday on emergency legislation to allow handguns if they are used only for self-defense in the home and carry fewer than 12 rounds of ammunition.
The legislation announced Monday comes as officials scramble to comply with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last month striking down the city's 32-year-old ban.

The proposal, which maintains some of the city's strict gun ownership rules and adds more regulations, was immediately criticized by gun rights advocates threatening more legal action.

The nation's capital would still require rifles and shotguns be kept in the home unloaded and disassembled, or equipped with trigger locks. There would be an exception for guns used against the "reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm."

The proposed legislation also maintains the city's unusual regulation of machine guns, defined as weapons that shoot at least 12 rounds without reloading. That applies to most semiautomatic firearms.

[red states rule]

I heard all the details of the bill from WMAL on the Chris Plante show

http://www.wmal.com/

There is a link there to more on the DC gun bill

Why a business can't protect itself is beyond me. The gun nuts think anyone with a gun is a criminal, even law abiding citizens

[retiredman]

my guess is that their attorneys will carefully craft the new bill to pass muster given the new supreme court ruling.

[red states rule]

my guess is that their attorneys will carefully craft the new bill to pass muster given the new supreme court ruling.

Yep, they will make it hard for law abiding people to protect their lives and property. I am sure the criminals will obey the new law as they always do

With libs, rights and protections for terrorists, while the law abiding citizens have to hope for the best


snip

Among the likely regulations: Gun owners would have to be 21 or older, and could not have been convicted of a felony or any weapon-related charge or have been in a mental hospital for the past five years. Registrants also will be finger-printed and required to pass a written test to be sure they understand the city's gun laws, Nickles said.

At least initially, he added, residents would be limited to one handgun apiece. The city will set up a hotline for firearm registrations.

Nickles said he did not expect the court to undo the ban on automatic weapons.

One major question, he said, was whether the court would undo the city's trigger lock requirement that all shotguns in homes remain unloaded with locks on the triggers. If the court overturns that provision, Nickles said, the mayor's office likely would propose new legislation to the D.C. Council that would require that guns remain unloaded in the home expect in the case of self-defense.

Handguns would only be allowed in the home, Nickles added, with residents banned from carrying them on the streets or into other buildings.

For those folks who already own guns--against current law--Nickles said the city would offer an amnesty program in which they could come forward and register the gun, assuming it had not been used in a crime

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dc/2008/06/dc_attorney_general_all_guns_m.html

[retiredman]

If you don't like the law in DC, you probably should not live there.

[red states rule]

If you don't like the law in DC, you probably should not live there.

Typical arrogance from the resident hack. You scream for rights of fucking terrorists, but US citizens have to take whatever the government decides to give them

[retiredman]

Typical arrogance from the resident hack. You scream for rights of fucking terrorists, but US citizens have to take whatever the government decides to give them


I have never screamed for ANY rights for terrorists. that is a lie. and an insult.

[red states rule]

I have never screamed for ANY rights for terrorists. that is a lie. and an insult.

Oh sure. Don't be harsh with the terrorists, do not violate their rights, even if we have to let the attacks happen

But guns in the hands of law abiding people must be controled tightly by the government

Liberal logic at its "best"

[retiredman]

Oh sure. Don't be harsh with the terrorists, do not violate their rights, even if we have to let the attacks happen

But guns in the hands of law abiding people must be controled tightly by the government

Liberal logic at its "best"

I have never said to not be harsh with terrorists. I have never suggested that they had any rights to violate. I have ONLY suggested that we obey the supreme law of the land and that our military support and defend the constitution and not violate it, and always act in a lawful manner, as their oath requires them to do.

[red states rule]

I have never said to not be harsh with terrorists. I have never suggested that they had any rights to violate. I have ONLY suggested that we obey the supreme law of the land and that our military support and defend the constitution and not violate it, and always act in a lawful manner, as their oath requires them to do.

You are such a liar. You would rather have dead Americans then stop the attack

Your same attitude shows on the DC gun law. Screw the people who obey the law, the government knows best

LIbs need to get the message the USSC sent them


http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/sec750.gif

[Hobbit]

MFM, you've already been outed as a near pathological liar. Deny all you want. Spin all you want. We ain't buyin' it.

[Joe Steel]

my guess is that their attorneys will carefully craft the new bill to pass muster given the new supreme court ruling.

I think they just have to say Heller was a "prefatory" opinion and they'll be able to ignore most of it.

[red states rule]

I think they just have to say Heller was a "prefatory" opinion and they'll be able to ignore most of it.

Yep, libs always ignore laws they do not agree with. It is part of being a liberal

You clods pick and choose what laws you will obey - but demand we follow all the insane laws you pass

[retiredman]

Yep, libs always ignore laws they do not agree with.

and you don't?????:laugh2:

[red states rule]

and you don't?????:laugh2:

I do not break any laws. Libs just ignore them because they think they are smarter then the Judges on the USSC

[retiredman]

I do not break any laws. Libs just ignore them because they think they are smarter then the Judges on the USSC


liar.

you certainly DO advocate breaking laws... you advocate breaking the supreme law of the land!

[red states rule]

liar.

you certainly DO advocate breaking laws... you advocate breaking the supreme law of the land!

As another poster pointe dout - you have been unmasked as serial liar. You are well known ion these parts

Back to the topic


http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/rect-atf-black.jpg

[emmett]

[QUOTE=Little-Acorn;271733]I didn't see that anywhere in the article.








Funniest part is the exception to the disassembly rule for a "reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm." How long do you think you have, between seeing that someone is threatening you, and needing your gun? One second, maybe? And here DC graciously says that, once you perceive this threat, you can then take the dime to get your disassembled or locked gun, reassemble or unlock it, and then use it. How many people can do that in one second? Those DC officials have quite a sense of humor.



-------------------------------------------

Merely living in DC is a threat so keeping it assembled 24-7 by their own interpretation would be legal

[red states rule]

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/diversity750.jpg