DC Plans To Implement System For Registering Guns, Draft New Legislation

http://www.nbc4.com/news/16716017/detail.html?rss=dc&psp=news




Does one need amnesty from an unconstitutional law? Also, seems like they're going to push the ruling to its limits by banning semi-automatic weapons.

He was on TV stating that ALL, semi-auto handguns will still be banned..

He so much, wants to be bitch slapped by the court again.

trigger locks aren't. I think it's fucking hysterical. Serves the gun nuts right. You're all going to be registered shortly. The thing you dreaded the most.

"It's only a flesh wound!"

As per the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act.


However I think you would find several gun owners willing to assist you in repealing this act...

The relevant bit is Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926 (2) (a)

is the final proof that the gun-grabbers were so fucking wrong about "the thing you dreaded most", the individual right to keep and bear arms!

No governmental entity can deny the individuals right to own firearms now, so registration would be pointless. (Unless they were planning on confiscating them at a later date)

Registration will only happen in very limited places, the "policriminals" would get ousted in 98% of the states, so they won't even try it.

But keep on dreaming if that's what gets you through the day!

Yesterday's SCOTUS decision is already having a big backlash by people who were formerly complacent about gun violence. You'll be seeing a much bigger movement for gun owner registration in this country. We're not going away; in fact, our numbers will soon be much larger.

According to many gun grabbers here at the DU.

David

i guess you must have been born last night

the truth is there will be many people who are angry about this decision...they will write editorials complaining about it....this will go on for about a week and then like usual, it will die out and people will get on with their lives

The only two major cities that had outright bans were Chicago and DC. At least, I think those are the only two. Everyplace else, you could buy and keep handguns. Even Los Angeles and Boston and New York City and San Fransisco.

The ruling didn't outlaw registration requirements, nor mandate the issuence of concealed-carry permits, or overturn magazine limits. The laws regarding handguns in Boston were the same on Wednesday as they are right now.

This ruling affects a geographical area that contains maybe 1.5% of the nation's population.

You're all going to be registered shortly. The thing you dreaded the most.

I disagree. One of the things being upheld by the SCOTUS is this:

"(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation
2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Syllabus
of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22–28."

Emphasis mine. Note that the SCOTUS here recognizes that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to deny congress the ability to compromise the ideal of a citizens' militia. That is, deny Congress the ability to counter the military threat of the citizens' militia.

Firearm registration goes a long way to countering the military threat of the citizens' militia, because it gives the government a convenient shopping list should it decide to undertake confiscation efforts.

I'm not opposed to firearm licenses, so long as they are applied to everyone so as to keep ownership anonymous.

"I'm not opposed to firearm licenses, so long as they are applied to everyone so as to keep ownership anonymous."

How would this scheme work, and do similar systems exist?

It has been proposed in a couple of threads here already - I borrowed heavily from other folks who posted. I'm not aware of any existing system like this.

What was proposed by another poster was that every citizen, at the time of obtaining a drivers' license or state-issued ID, be processed through NICS. If your result comes back as you are eligible to buy a firearm, then a green "F" is printed on the back of your license. This would indicate that you are eligible to possess firearms. You would be subject to another NICS check every time you have to renew your license, and should any license holder have their firearm status revoked the local sheriff would go out to the address on file to revoke the license and confiscate any firearms found in possession of the individual.

In this manner, virtually every citizen would be pre-screened for firearm ownership - whether they own firearms or not. What this does is eliminates a government list of firearm owners, as would result from only registering actual firearm owners.

Then you pass a law that says that for all private firearm transfers the seller must check and record the license number (and only the number - not the name, address, etc.) of the eligible (green F) buyer for 10 years. Sellers, just like FFL dealers today, will very readily submit to this requirement because if a firearm they sell is later used in a crime and is traced back to them there will be very substantial penalties.

But because these records are non-electronic and not submitted to a government database, again the government has no visibility as to who owns which firearms.

Thus we have a system that basically provides a NICS background for ALL firearm owners (in fact for all citizens) and all firearm transfers.

About the only drawback to this scenario is that if your license does NOT have a green F on it, people looking at your license can assume that you either have a mental defect or a criminal background that prevents you from owning guns. So this could be seen as an invasion of privacy. But one possible work-around would be to allow people to opt-out of the "Green F" program. So you could never be sure when you look at a license and it does not have the Green F whether it was a voluntary or involuntary reason why they don't have it. Since the default would be to get the Green F, in all likelihood most people would get it and thus preserve the anonymity of firearm ownership.

To me, this is about as close to ideal as we can get. It prevents people who NICS says should not have firearms from obtaining them legally through private sales, and it preserves anonymous firearm ownership.

Instead of being a tree in the desert, you become the desert; even most Americans who do not own firearms will probably not opt out because they believe in 2A. I suggested an NGO which would perform the NICS test; but this may be superior. The paper trail is safe -- if you keep the paper! Practically, this will be a problem; we may need to come back to an NGO, operating perhaps like the Writers Guild of America (WGA), which for a fee records data then erases same after a certain time.

This needs to be discussed.

The feds don't know who owns what. In most states, it's cash and carry.

everywhere where gun ownership is allowed. Currently they are far more popular than revolvers. I can see legal challenges to any rules prohibiting semi-auto firearms.

But on the positive side, a revolver is a fine self defense weapon. Revolvers are less complicated, more reliable and just as accurate as semi-autos. They just don't hold as much ammo, which reduces the spray and pray tactic of self defense.

the first rule of a gun fight is bring a gun

I keep a revolver for home defense- a small snub nose .38 special

and as my carry gun. It's hard to conceal a semi-auto while wearing summer clothes in Florida. I just drop my S&W model 642 into a pocket holster in the front pocket of my pants and I'm ready to go.

Revolvers are simpler to operate and more reliable than many semi-autos. For self defense I believe in the KISS principle.

For target shooting at the range, I often use several semi-auto handguns. I really enjoy shooting my Ruger .22 target pistol and several Colt .45 autos. But I also own a number of S&W revolvers from .22 cal to .44 mag and I find them very accurate and enjoyable to shoot.

But many shooters use semi-autos for self defense and consider revolvers outdated. Limiting Washington DC to revolvers only will probably result in another legal embarrassment for the city.

Hopefully the city will eventually stop blaming guns for the crime problem and start blaming criminals.

Of course many criminals may decide to leave now that the city is no longer a gun free zone.

commonly used by the 830,000 sworn law-enforcement officers for self-defense.