DC amends legal handgun list


PDA






swinokur
June 20, 2009, 08:06 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/19/AR2009061901822.html?wprss=rss_metro

This was done to prevent the Heller plaintiffs from filing an additional suit against the city.

If you enjoyed reading about "DC amends legal handgun list" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
psyopspec
June 20, 2009, 08:36 AM
Short version: If legal in MA, MD, or CA, it's now eligible to be registered (and thus legal) in DC. Semi-automatic handguns are now okay for residents, but the article doesn't say if the "emergency regulations" include a magazine capacity ban. Anyone know?

Correction made, thanks Mak.

MAKster
June 20, 2009, 01:42 PM
D.C. residents can now buy handguns on the approved lists from California, Massachusetts, and Maryland. (Not New Jersey).

Old Fuff
June 20, 2009, 06:14 PM
I notice that they didn't include Arizona on their list of "approved" states. I wonder why? :rolleyes: :banghead:

Chicago is missing too - could this be an oversight?

Obviously to be a role model a state must be one that restricts residents to only the make and models of approved guns. I wonder why they don't apply the same method to churches and publications? :uhoh:

If they knew the Founding Fathers would have :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:

Fetus
June 20, 2009, 06:16 PM
makster -- there is no new jersey approved list


any handgun that holds under 15 rounds is ok

MAKster
June 20, 2009, 06:48 PM
My mention of New Jersey was in response to an earlier poster who has since corrected his post.

FlaChef
June 21, 2009, 08:05 PM
Just read the article. Gee they were getting sued again for not having "reasonable restrictions". What I find telling is they capitulated on the issue that the CA approved list is too restrictive.

Anyone wanna take a shot at getting the CA list struck down now?

SCKimberFan
June 21, 2009, 09:15 PM
Anyone wanna take a shot at getting the CA list struck down now?

The 9th Circuit should hear that one. They are the one's who said the 2A should be incorporated.

"These new rules are part of our continuing effort to develop reasonable laws and regulations governing gun ownership in the District," Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) said in a statement.

Bull. They just got caught being too damn restrictive.

Rmeju
June 21, 2009, 09:38 PM
Does anyone else think that article was hilarious?

outerlimit
June 21, 2009, 09:47 PM
"People are not allowed to carry guns outside their homes."


Here we go down the road of "reasonable restrictions." :rolleyes:

Mike OTDP
June 21, 2009, 09:55 PM
Don't worry...DC is still vulnerable as hell. Get a top-flight target pistol NOT on the lists (the Walther SSP comes to mind, or the new Pardini free pistol), try to register, be denied...and sue away.

Yellowfin
June 22, 2009, 12:58 AM
Fenty seriously needs a smacking of some sort, like a contempt of court charge for all the games he's been playing. At very least the plaintiffs and/or their lawyers can sue DC for estoppel at this point- they're stuck with a legal bill because DC made them do it.

legaleagle_45
June 22, 2009, 07:15 PM
This was a very interesting case... It was going to be a slam dunk for Alan Gura.

The case name is Hanson v. DC. The issue arose because Ms Hanson tried to apply to register a Springfield Armory XD-45 Tactical 5" Bi-Tone stainless steel/black handgun and was refused because it was not on the approved list adopted by California. However the Springfield Armory XD-45 Tactical 5" black handgun was on the approved list adopted by California. The only difference between the 2 models is the color.

The problem is the California list, which require the gun mfr to apply ANNUALLY to put a gun on the approved list. The application must be accompanied by a $200 fee, also payable annually. The gun mfgr had not attempted to place the bi tone model on the list and did not pay an application fee for it, so it was not on Californias list.

So essentially, the difference between a gun approved by DC (and California) and a gun which is obviously bad and evil incarnate, comes down to the color scheme adopted.

After Alan filed a motion for summary judgment, DC capitulated and the result is reported in the WaPo.

Deltaboy
June 22, 2009, 07:21 PM
I want the Court to send the US Marshals to DC and arrest the Mayor, SC and that idiot Police Chief for contempt of Court.

ServiceSoon
June 23, 2009, 09:43 PM
I want the Court to send the US Marshals to DC and arrest the Mayor, SC and that idiot Police Chief for contempt of Court.Agreed.

Oro
June 24, 2009, 03:08 AM
The 9th Circuit should hear that one. They are the one's who said the 2A should be incorporated.

No, that would be a bad idea. In the Nordyke ruling the court said a city could ban guns on it's property where people might show up. It's in the decision - don't just read the "they incorporated" headline and think they did gun owners any favor in the ruling. They accepted the inevitable and then went on to shred the second amendment.

legaleagle_45
June 24, 2009, 11:31 AM
No, that would be a bad idea.

Too late, case has already been filed in Federal District Court for the Eastern District of California. Here is the complaint:
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/pena/Pena-v-Cid-complaint.pdf

The attorneys are Alan Gura and Don Kilmer. Kilmer was the attorney in Nordyke.

ArmedBear
June 24, 2009, 12:50 PM
This is interesting.

Why would a state's laws have any bearing on DC? Why would DC choose to do this?

California can change their list whenever they want. DC has no control over this. Ditto for Massachusetts.

If this is strictly legal, it still sounds like a stupid idea (for any law, not just handguns).

What's next?

DC's laws automatically make California emissions standards DC's? Perhaps DC should, by law, also automatically use South Dakota's laws governing abortion, New Mexico's fireworks regulations, and Arizona's liquor licensing laws?

Where is the logic to this?

Quiet
June 24, 2009, 02:39 PM
The 9th Circuit Court's Nordyke ruling accept the SCOTUS restriction of guns in "senstive places". Since, the area in question in the Nordyke ruling was deemed to be a "senstive place" by the county government, the 9th Circuit Court upheld the county's ban. However, the ruling also exempted CCW permit holders from the "senstive place".

Quiet
June 24, 2009, 02:41 PM
No, that would be a bad idea. In the Nordyke ruling the court said a city could ban guns on it's property where people might show up. It's in the decision - don't just read the "they incorporated" headline and think they did gun owners any favor in the ruling. They accepted the inevitable and then went on to shred the second amendment.
The 9th Circuit Court's Nordyke ruling accepted SCOTUS' restriction of guns in "senstive places". Since, the area in question in the Nordyke ruling was deemed to be a "senstive place" by the county government, the 9th Circuit Court upheld the county's ban. However, the ruling also exempted CCW permit holders from the "senstive place".

Anyone wanna take a shot at getting the CA list struck down now?
Already in progress. Lawsuit was filed 4-30-2009.
SAF and the Calguns Foundation filed the lawsuit, Alan Gura is attorney representing the plaintives. (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/news/70-saf-calguns-foundation-challenges-california-handgun-ban-scheme)

If you enjoyed reading about "DC amends legal handgun list" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!