- GM faces federal investigation for slow recall that led to 13 deaths
- Iran president reaches out to Oman on friendship tour
- FAA’s pre-Malaysia flight warning: 777s have cracking, corrosion issues
- Facebook HQ locked down; employees searched as police field threat
- Glenn Ford free, after serving 30 years for murder he didn’t commit
- Congressman: McAuliffe victory means gun control a winning message
- Clinton aide admits soliciting disgraced D.C. fundraiser; says actions were legal
- Joel Osteen church victimized in $600K theft
- Obama goes shopping at Gap as minimum-wage thanks
- N.J. woman charged after client dies from black-market butt injections
Scope of proposed D.C. gun bill questioned
Attorney general’s office has doubts
A proposed bill in the District that would decriminalize some gun and ammunition charges for nonresidents will send the wrong message about gun laws in the District, the city’s office of the attorney general said at a hearing Monday.
The bill under consideration would allow some legal gun owners who don’t live in the District and are caught traveling with their guns through the city to pay a fine and be released from custody rather than go to court on charges of possession of an unregistered firearm or unlawful possession of ammunition.
But Andrew Fois, deputy attorney general and head of the agency’s public safety division, told the D.C. Council's Committee on the Judiciary that allowing firearms-related cases to be considered eligible for such resolutions will change the scope of the typically low-level offenses handled outside the courts.
He said administrative dispositions are “not intended, nor appropriate, for firearms-related offenses committed by either nonresidents or residents.”
“Certainly the line has to be drawn somewhere on what sorts of offenses are appropriate for this procedure and which ones are not,” Mr. Fois said.
He also said the bill, called the Administrative Disposition of Weapons Amendment Act of 2012, would have applied, at most, to 18 cases last year.
D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, who sponsored the bill and oversaw Monday’s hearing, said the small number of people potentially affected by the legislation shouldn’t be used as an excuse not to provide an administrative solution to cases in which nonresidents might not be familiar with D.C. laws but find themselves facing serious charges.
“The number of people affected by the legislation I think is not important here,” Mr. Mendelson said. “So the bill is limited. That speaks to the fear that we are going to unleash guns in the city.”
The bill is the latest step in the reformation of the city’s gun laws since a near-total ban on handguns was overturned in the landmark 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court case. The bill also would allow administrative dispositions for those found in possession of a single restricted pistol bullet, or so-called “cop-killer” bullets that can pierce ballistic vests, as long as the person was not also in possession of a firearm.
Others who testified Monday lauded the bill for providing an alternative to the filing of criminal charges. But some complained the way the bill is written could actually lead to more confusion.
“Discerning between residents and nonresidents makes it more confusing” said Patrice Sulton, a member of the D.C. Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Ms. Sulton suggested the administrative disposition should be an option for D.C. residents as well as for those from outside city limits. Laura Hankins, special counsel at the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, questioned whether the disparate treatment of residents and nonresidents could open the city to litigation.
After listening to testimony, Mr. Mendelson said he would look further into the implications of extending administrative dispositions in firearms-related cases to D.C. residents as well.
Firearms cases involving nonresidents currently work through the court system several ways, with the attorney general’s office at times offering deferred sentencing or dropping charges in cases that won’t stand up in court.
“It gives us more ability to decide if it really was the innocent ‘nothing’ it appeared at the time,” Mr. Fois said.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Andrea Noble is a crime and public safety reporter for The Washington Times. She can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
- Gray comes out fighting accusations in fund scheme
- Gray holds cash advantage in D.C. mayor's race
- D.C. elections board gives green light to marijuana legalization initiative
- Prosecutors: Gray had firsthand knowledge of 'shadow campaign'
- Natural gas prices rise for D.C. customers as temperatures drop
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
An America drowning in red ink is the land of the free no more
- Inside the Beltway: A new interest in Rahm Emanuel for 2016?
- HURT: John Kerry The ridiculous face of a ridiculous U.S. diplomacy
- David Jolly wins in Florida, GOP keeps swing district seat
- Brennan: Russia 'absolutely' could invade eastern Ukraine
- Kim Jong-un calls for execution of 33 Christians
- Joel Osteen church victimized in $600K theft
- U.S. pilot scares off Iranians with 'Top Gun'-worthy stunt: 'You really ought to go home'
- Search for missing Malaysian airliner widens as mystery deepens
- Bill Clinton poses for photo with Bunny Ranch prostitutes
- Obamacare 3 million shy of target with 19 days left to sign up
Pope Francis meets his 'mini-me'
Celebrity deaths in 2014
Winter storm hits states — again