Mr. Gura clears up a few things ...

MAKster said:

Transporting your gun to the police station to have it registered is not breaking the law. The new law enacted this week includes a provision which allows someone to transport an unregistered firearm to the registration office. If you are bringing the gun from out of state you have to go directly to the registration office.

Click to expand...

Does that law make it legal for someone to transport an unregistered gun from the police station as well?

Yes, you can legally take your revolver home with you after you fill out the registration application, take the written test, and they do the ballistic test. There is no catch 22. The gun will actually not be "registered" until the background check is completed which could take up to two weeks. You are fully legal but comically you are not allowed to use it for self-defense until your registration is approved.

MAKster said:

Yes, you can legally take your revolver home with you after you fill out the registration application, take the written test, and they do the ballistic test. There is no catch 22. The gun will actually not be "registered" until the background check is completed which could take up to two weeks. You are fully legal but comically you are not allowed to use it for self-defense until your registration is approved.

Click to expand...

That's not what I'm asking.

The DC authorities seem to be denying guns based on technicalities. I'm sure that new law works great for obviously allowable guns. What happens if you bring in your questionable gun and they deny it? That's actually a rhetorical question. I'm sure they confiscate it for "safe keeping" or whatever the hell they call it.

The new DC regulations still require that the gun is locked or disassembled except for when it is immediately needed for self-defense. An interpretation that this is permissible under Heller is narrow indeed, especially in light of the comments (by Roberts?) in the oral argument.

My guess is 6 months or a year down the road this decision will be enforced in a manner most of us would agree meets the spirit of the decision. Its not going to be perfect, but the legal system almost always gets these kind of things right in the long run.

Didn't they do that with cannibus tax stamps a long time ago?

Click to expand...

Not quite. IIRC, you could buy those stamps regardless if you had the stuff (a novelty for stamp collectors). Having the stamp did NOT make possession legal, it just meant you were not slapped with an additional charge if caught with it. The point of such laws is not to declare something legal, but to make it easier to make something stick and pile on convictions where possible.

He can register a 9-shot revolver, but not an 8-shot semi-auto? Interesting. Each fire a single round with each pull of the trigger. Isn't the cylinder of a revolver technically an integral magazine?

Click to expand...

The DC law states (and I paraphrase) that if a firearm CAN BE MADE to fire more than 12 shots without manual reloading, it is a "machine gun" and thus illegal in DC. This means that even if your semi-auto Colt. 45 was designed for and actually has a 7 round mag and one up the snout, it is a "machine gun" because it CAN BE MADE to fire (significantly) more than the required 12 rounds without reloading - there are, after all, 50 round drum mags that fit any .45 ever made, as impractical as they may be. Even if a mag like that hasn't YET been invented, it COULD BE so it is an "illegal machine gun." Essentially, all semi-autos with detachable mags are verboten in DC. OTOH, something like an SKS with a 10 round fixed mag would be OK (assuming that the SKS hasn't been outlawed there for some other equally stupid and unconstitutional reason).

What would be interesting is if someone tried to register a revolver with a cylinder that held more than 12 rounds. I don't know of any made now, but I do know (and have seen pictures) of some of these - including a revolver with a 20-round cylinder. I believe that DC would deny to register such a gun.

DC needs to be slapped - HARD - by the federal courts.

You can get 20-30 round mags for the SKS.

so any updates?

or will someone defend her home with a glock model22 and go to jail for owning a machine gun?
What is the point if governments can simply ignore the SCOTUS

I understand that the Supreme Court can hand down severe slaps if they feel that their rulings are being ignored. Is this accurate and if it is, what form might such a reprimand take?

or will someone defend her home with a glock model22 and go to jail for owning a machine gun?
What is the point if governments can simply ignore the SCOTUS

Click to expand...

It's not a machine gun. DC can call it a hydrogen bomb if they want to, and it won't be a hydrogen bomb, either. Governments all the time define words to mean things different than their common meanings, or different from how other governments define them. The fact that DC defines a Glock to be a "machine gun" means exactly that DC defines it as a "machine gun", no more and no less. It doesn't cause any federal "machine gun" laws to kick into effect.

All that aside, what I would expect to happen in your hypothetical is that either at the trial court or on some level of appeal, Heller would kick in, and the fact that she had a Glock rather than a .38 Police Special would be thrown out.

I wonder if DC would accept registration of a 10 shot Broomhandle Mauser?

Or a Grendel P-10?

Or a Steyr Model 1914?

M1911Owner said:

It's not a machine gun. DC can call it a hydrogen bomb if they want to, and it won't be a hydrogen bomb, either. Governments all the time define words to mean things different than their common meanings, or different from how other governments define them. The fact that DC defines a Glock to be a "machine gun" means exactly that DC defines it as a "machine gun", no more and no less. It doesn't cause any federal "machine gun" laws to kick into effect.

All that aside, what I would expect to happen in your hypothetical is that either at the trial court or on some level of appeal, Heller would kick in, and the fact that she had a Glock rather than a .38 Police Special would be thrown out.

Click to expand...

Meanwhile, the gun owner's life is seriously disrupted while sitting in jail. I get anarchis's point. Law-abiding, responsible adults want to know beforehand the worst case scenario if they lawfully shoot someone in self-defense.

For example, in Texas, we know that a lawful shooting in self-defense with a Glock 22 would probably yield zero jail time. In DC, I would bet good money there would be some jail time involved. The charges from the DA would be multi-tiered, one charge being something like "unlawful shooting with an illegal firearm."

Depending on what's going in your life, jail time of any more than a month can be a permanent life changing venture. The person may not have the means to post any bail that may be required. The courts could easily take several months to work out such a case.

Jake,

Your points are well taken. Thank you for adding them.