District begins licensing pistols

I hope the NRA will file suit to stop this obvious attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling on the Second Ammendment. The clarification of "Reasonable Laws" to limit gun ownership need to be made. It is obvious that the DC Council is still trying to limit gun ownership. Why not the 1911 semi-auto pistol. the clip only holds 7 rds and it is not a full auto weapon. The court never makes issues "Black and White." Ambiguity is name of the game. Leaves the interpretation up to the biases of those who implement their decisions.

Don't know who's more of a joke, Fenty Lanier or Eleanor "it's my husbands fault'Holmes!...Three Stooges! Hope the NRA sues!

These Reasonable Restrictions D.C. puts on it's residents to register a weapon is ridiculous. Why these people put up with it I can not fathom. The classifying of Mr. Heller's AutoLoader pistol as 'machinegun like' to deny him is equally ridiculous. As gun bans do nothing to reduce violence or crime neither will this registration. It is just one more database government has on the citizens to better control them. Shameful; shame on the people of D.C. for voting for such foolish and dishonest officials.

The gun control groups are starting the process that will eliminate most if not all gun laws in the US. If they had any brains they would set down and come up with restrictions that apply to the criminals instead of the honest citizens. The fact that they won't do this shows that they have a pathological fear of the honest citizens being armed, they really need to seek help for this problem.

Besides the fact that what the Gestapo in DC is doing is blatantly still unconstitutional and smacks of pure fascism, the biggest joke in this story is so-called "law student" Jordan Schwartz. The story states that he "thinks submitting an application is important because it allows him and others to exercise their Second Amendment rights." How does having to fill out an application for permission from the government to do something which humans have a fundamental right to do, protect a Constitutional right? What part of "shall not be infringed" does this aspiring lawyer NOT understand? A sensible prerequisite to owning and handling a deadly weapon is having a functioning brain. Maybe Mr. Schwartz should study harder at "law school." And read some history while he's at it.

What the moron below fails to understand is that the Constitution places reasonable limits on our freedom. For example, while the First Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech, you cannot go into a crowded theater and yell "FIRE" or threaten the life of another individual. Those would be tortuous actions that threaten the liberty of others. Similarly, while the Second Amendment guarantees that the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed", as the idiot below notes, one surely cannot go around town waving a semi-automatic. A reasonable limitation on the right to bear arms is forcing an individual to get a gun permit. But of course, I wouldn't have expected "unvarnished_truth" to be concerned with the law. He strikes me as the sort of individual that will carry a gun to a baseball game just to prove a point. Well, buddy, you want to make fun of the guy in the article? How about reading some Supreme Court law on the Second Amendment. Oh wait, the Supreme Court has very few opinions on the Second Amendment. Jordan Schwartz was trying to point out the importance of the recent decision, but I guess you were too stupid to understand. Enjoy working at McDonalds.