EDITORIAL: Gun law shenanigans

I had expected more from the Times. "Owning a gun should bring the same responsible requirements as driving a motor vehicle - a written test in tandem with a required operational safety test." All gun owners should take a course and practice regularly for both safety and the ability to use the weapon effectively. But to mandate a test ala drivers license is to confuse the difference between a right and a privilage. Many anti gun juristictions use exactly that mechanism to deny the right to own and bear a fire arm. You folks need to do more research.

Right, if only DC residents could transport the weapon to a gun range. Are there any in DC? From the looks of it, it will be almost impossible to abide by the new "regulations" even in the home, let alone while transporting a weapon to/from a range where you can practice. Nothing's changed. Glad I don't live in DC (by choice)! I've already turned down job offers from there because of the totally screwed up city administration.

It should come as no surprise that he D.C. government places itself and its powers above the constitutional rights of residents who reside there. DC has chosen to ignore the recent Supreme Courts decision that made profusely clear the right to own and use firearms for lawful purposes is individual and not to be infringed upon in an arbitrarily and capriciously manor by any government entity . Perhaps a review of that decision would prove helpful to them. "The handgun ban and trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that American overwhelming choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any standard of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated Constitutional rights, this prohibition - in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family and property is most acute - would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D.C. licensing requirement is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously the Court assumes that a license satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller register his handgun must issue him a license to carry it in the home.” Pp. 56-64. 478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

Shame on President Bush for pretending to support the 2nd Amendment and allowing his interim Attorney General Peter Nickles to not only take part in crafting this legislation bogus legislation, but to applaud it. Shame on the Republican Party for standing by and watching while the court is mocked for ideals you claim to support on election day. Shame on the City Council for skirting the Supreme Court ruling and ignoring the purpose and intent of the 2nd Amendment. "We have crafted what I believe to be a model for the nation in terms of complying with the Supreme Court's Second Amendment decision and at the same time protecting our citizens," interim Attorney General Peter Nickles said. Washington D.C. is ignoring the Supreme Courts Ruling in Washington D.C. v Heller. They had a chance to write a responsible law and instead they continue to play games. The court made two statements that are key to making a good law. The first is “to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home”. “Traditionally lawful purposes out side of self-defense are being denied by the new law Washington D.C. is proposing. They are forcing the court to say what “traditionally lawful purposes are”, and that is good for the gun lobby. That door may be bigger then they imagine once opened. If they bothered to read Justice Stevens dissent, he points to gun control laws on the books at the time of the founding father. They made it illegal to discharge a firearm in a major city, but it was an offense that was only a fine and had no jail time or weapon seizure. Washington D.C. is being stupid about this by also ignoring the courts statement against trigger locks, “the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for a citizen to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional”. The core lawful purpose of self-defense is the only thing the smarty pants D.C. council thinks they are addressing, but not the only reason to have a firearm since we have a tradition of other lawful purposes in the United States and the new law allows for no other “lawful purposes”. Washington D.C. and the Bush Administration, if you do not like the 2nd Amendment as described by the Justice Scalia, then do the right thing and take advantage of your Article 5 right to propose an Amendment to the Constitution that strikes down the 2nd Amendment. That is the correct way to deal with this instead of back door, legal tricks and lower court garbage. I would hope your example is not used in the future to take away the rest of the Bill of Rights such as the 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech.

Sounds like the author of this opinion piece should review the original intent of George Mason when he wrote the Second Amendment.

Whatever George Mason' intert was it is now the law of the land that the right is Individual.

1) The SCOTUS has determined that gun ownership is an individual. 2) Poll taxes and test for exercising voting rights is an unconstitutional infringement on voting rights. One would logically conclude that any tests or fees associated with firearms registration would be unconstitutional. The District could impose a registration scheme on it's residents but the cost should be borne the tax payers as a whole just like voter registration.

The SCOTUS determined that gun ownership is a right of the individual in his own home - not beyond. I think that's an important point. I think the D.C. government is fight a bit of a losing battle and they new laws will be challenged via the courts. I certainly think that registration of a valid requirement but the law as written probably won't stand the test of the courts. They certainly could have drafted a more citizen-friendly law that both meets the court's decision and provide for the public safety.

travelinbob and others got it right--driving is a privilege. Owning a gun is a constitutional right. The drivers test analogy was fatally flawed.

I hope your elected officials and lawmaker will have the fortitude to study what has been done in Canada and just how ineffective such measures have been. Handguns have been registered and tightly control ed since the 1930's, yet all that paperwork has yet to solve (never mind prevent) one single crime. Over the last fifteen years Canada has spent well over 2 billion dollars trying to implement, license and monitor long guns. Not to mention new licensing schemes for the 200,000 trustworthy firearm owners. Have all these changes make any difference? Of course not. It should be obvious to anybody that someone with criminal intent couldn't be bothered to obey rules and regulations.

Fenty,Daley,Bloomberg, et.al. have good cause to worry about the effects of losing their draconian, unconstitutional, gun bans. Violent crime will decline in their respective cities, reflecting the ability of citizens to defend themselves, just as in most states, cities and towns where 2nd ammendment rights have been upheld and/or restored over the past couple of decades. What then will these lying demagogic social engineers tell the families of murder victims who might have had a chance to defend their lives? What about lethal home invasions, rapes and muggings that wouldn't have happened and are now relatively rare occurances where street thugs have some fear of an armed response? What will they do to evade responsibility, and hide their bloody hands? Every deceptive trick and manuver they can pull on an electorate so ignorant as to follow a self serving shakedown artist (ie.Rev Jesse Jackboot). These polititions would rather see you on the ground, outlined in chalk, than to yield a modicum of control over your personal safety, or perhapps more accurately, vulnerability. They need to be held to political, if not legal account NOW!

I believe it is time to move the capital of the USA to a city that represents the true freedoms of this great country.Washington D.C. is nothing but one big joke. I wouldn't visit it let alone live there. I believe in the second amendment and concealed carry.

"Owning a gun should bring the same responsible requirements as driving a motor vehicle - a written test in tandem with a required operational safety test." === http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=28888 Robert Ellis --- In the good old days of segregation in the American South, every barrier was put in the way of black Americans who attempted to exercise their constitutional right to register as voters. For example, the usual barrier was a literacy test, which, given the general low standard of education, most blacks failed. One day a black professor turned up at the courthouse to register. The literacy test was no problem for him, so he was asked a number of complicated questions on state constitutional law, which he could also answer. To stump him, he was given a piece by German philosopher Emmanuel Kant to translate, and when he could do that he was given a piece by Voltaire, which he could also translate. Finally, he was given the front page of a Chinese newspaper and asked to explain what it said. "No problem," he replied. "It says I ain't gonna vote today." ----- It took decades for our nation to finally wipe the stain of Jim Crow laws from the books. Let's hope that Mayor Fenty's 21st-Century Jim Crow for gun owners won't take as long to dismantle.

saintex, the ruling DID NOT limit the 2nd amendment to the confines of ones home. If you recall, when SCOTUS first said they would take the case, they said the question they would rule on would be "Does the 2nd Amendment protect an individual right to keep and bear arms apart from membership in a militia, and does it protect the right to keep a handgun in ones home for the purpose of self-defense. (or something to that effect). This was the scope of the original case of Parker vs DC. It was determined that of the 5 individuals in Parker, only Heller had a legitimate complaint because the others had not attempted (and been denied) a license. The most important aspect of the ruling is that it protects an individual right to keep and bear arms apart from being associated with any militia. Also, by ruling that Heller had a legitimate right to keep a handgun in his home for self-defense, it does NOT mean that HOME is the only place anyone can BEAR arms. It will take awhile for the courts to sift things out, but in the end, the right to keep and bear arms will be upheld and people will be allowed to bear arms for self-defense, not just in their HOME.

"The man with a gun is a citizen. The man without a gun is a servant."