Z-Michigan
Member
Well, you can go back to the court and seek to hold the losing party in contempt. You can also file a civil rights lawsuit under 42 USC 1983 or other applicable laws.
DC Plans To Implement System For Registering Guns, Draft New Legislation
- Thread starter Bubbles
- Start date
- Status
Well, you can go back to the court and seek to hold the losing party in contempt. You can also file a civil rights lawsuit under 42 USC 1983 or other applicable laws.
lacoochee
Member
I don't think there are any, I found this on the interweb
ctdonath
Member
Ironically, the one known FFL in DC is the Violence Policy Center - profoundly anti-gun.
You are now entering the twilight zone.
Any gun dealer willing to uphold the ruling in D.C. will find themselves at odds with the local mayor and DA, but can do so now until arrested and prosecuted by the local DA for violation of some technicality.
Since 'reasonable restrictions' are allowed under the ruling, tons of technicalities that are difficult to keep track of can be made.
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
Attaboy, Adrian. Ignore the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Go for it. Don't let them push you around.
You can always appeal their decision to higher authority: Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
News Release for Immediate Release
June 26, 2008
District Government Reacts to Heller Ruling
(Washington, DC) -- Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, Interim Attorney General Peter Nickles and Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy Lanier announced their disappointment in today’s ruling of the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Court ruled that District of Columbia statutes banning private handgun possession at home and requiring safe storage of firearms at home violate the Second Amendment.
“I’m disappointed in the Court’s ruling and believe introducing more handguns into the District will mean more handgun violence,” said Mayor Fenty. “But I want to emphasize that at this moment, our gun laws remain in effect. It may be several weeks before there are changes to announce.
“In the meantime, I have directed the Metropolitan Police Department to implement an orderly process for allowing qualified citizens to register handguns for lawful possession in their homes.
Fenty, Nickles and Lanier emphasized that they will continue vigorously enforcing other gun-control laws that the court did not disturb—including the law that all firearms including handguns must be properly registered with the Metropolitan Police Department—and considering other ways to lessen gun violence in the District.
“I commend the efforts of our legal team in presenting our side of this difficult and contentious issue,” said Interim Attorney General Nickles. “I will continue to direct the Office of the Attorney General to fight hard for the people of the District. While we were not successful regarding the handgun and safe storage laws, I am pleased that the court recognized that local jurisdictions like the District can adopt common-sense, reasonable regulations to protect their citizens against gun violence, and that the court left intact the District’s law requiring licensing of those who would carry handguns.”
The Mayor, Attorney General and Chief emphasized that the Supreme Court’s ruling is limited and leaves intact various other laws that apply to private citizens who would purchase handguns or other firearms for home possession. First, all firearms must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department’s Firearms Registration Section before they may be lawfully possessed. Second, automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal and may not be registered. Third, the Supreme Court’s ruling is limited to handguns in the home and does not entitle anyone to carry firearms outside his or her own home. In addition, although the Court struck the safe storage provision on the ground that it was too broadly written, firearms at home should be kept either unloaded and disassembled or else locked except for use in self-defense in emergencies.
“We will comply with the Court’s reading of the Second Amendment in its letter and spirit,” said Chief Lanier. “At the same time, we will continue vigorously enforcing the District’s other gun-control laws and are considering other ways to protect the District’s citizens against the scourge of gun violence.”
Under its rules, the Supreme Court will not formally issue its mandate for about a month to allow the parties to file rehearing petitions. After that period passes, the court of appeals will send the case to the district court to enter an injunction, though the district court will have to decide exactly how the injunction should be phrased. The injunction is the court order that will officially prevent the District from enforcing the handgun ban. That process may yet take several weeks.
In the meanwhile, the Metropolitan Police Department within three weeks days will issue the text of regulations to establish a process for registering handguns, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision. MPD will make clear how those who wish to register handguns should do so and what handguns may be registered. MPD will establish an amnesty period during which residents who already own handguns that were not registered previously can register them without fear of criminal liability under District law. Registration will proceed as expeditiously as possible but may need to await lower court orders implementing the Supreme Court decision.
MPD will keep the public informed of the date on which citizens officially can begin registering handguns. Citizens with specific questions are encouraged to contact the Firearms Registration Section at (202) 727-4275.
June 26, 2008
District Government Reacts to Heller Ruling
(Washington, DC) -- Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, Interim Attorney General Peter Nickles and Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy Lanier announced their disappointment in today’s ruling of the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Court ruled that District of Columbia statutes banning private handgun possession at home and requiring safe storage of firearms at home violate the Second Amendment.
“I’m disappointed in the Court’s ruling and believe introducing more handguns into the District will mean more handgun violence,” said Mayor Fenty. “But I want to emphasize that at this moment, our gun laws remain in effect. It may be several weeks before there are changes to announce.
“In the meantime, I have directed the Metropolitan Police Department to implement an orderly process for allowing qualified citizens to register handguns for lawful possession in their homes.
Fenty, Nickles and Lanier emphasized that they will continue vigorously enforcing other gun-control laws that the court did not disturb—including the law that all firearms including handguns must be properly registered with the Metropolitan Police Department—and considering other ways to lessen gun violence in the District.
“I commend the efforts of our legal team in presenting our side of this difficult and contentious issue,” said Interim Attorney General Nickles. “I will continue to direct the Office of the Attorney General to fight hard for the people of the District. While we were not successful regarding the handgun and safe storage laws, I am pleased that the court recognized that local jurisdictions like the District can adopt common-sense, reasonable regulations to protect their citizens against gun violence, and that the court left intact the District’s law requiring licensing of those who would carry handguns.”
The Mayor, Attorney General and Chief emphasized that the Supreme Court’s ruling is limited and leaves intact various other laws that apply to private citizens who would purchase handguns or other firearms for home possession. First, all firearms must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department’s Firearms Registration Section before they may be lawfully possessed. Second, automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal and may not be registered. Third, the Supreme Court’s ruling is limited to handguns in the home and does not entitle anyone to carry firearms outside his or her own home. In addition, although the Court struck the safe storage provision on the ground that it was too broadly written, firearms at home should be kept either unloaded and disassembled or else locked except for use in self-defense in emergencies.
“We will comply with the Court’s reading of the Second Amendment in its letter and spirit,” said Chief Lanier. “At the same time, we will continue vigorously enforcing the District’s other gun-control laws and are considering other ways to protect the District’s citizens against the scourge of gun violence.”
Under its rules, the Supreme Court will not formally issue its mandate for about a month to allow the parties to file rehearing petitions. After that period passes, the court of appeals will send the case to the district court to enter an injunction, though the district court will have to decide exactly how the injunction should be phrased. The injunction is the court order that will officially prevent the District from enforcing the handgun ban. That process may yet take several weeks.
In the meanwhile, the Metropolitan Police Department within three weeks days will issue the text of regulations to establish a process for registering handguns, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision. MPD will make clear how those who wish to register handguns should do so and what handguns may be registered. MPD will establish an amnesty period during which residents who already own handguns that were not registered previously can register them without fear of criminal liability under District law. Registration will proceed as expeditiously as possible but may need to await lower court orders implementing the Supreme Court decision.
MPD will keep the public informed of the date on which citizens officially can begin registering handguns. Citizens with specific questions are encouraged to contact the Firearms Registration Section at (202) 727-4275.
There are actually quite a good deal. It's just most of them are shifty looking fellows on street corners dealing out of the trunk of a car.
The Violence Prevention Center has an FFL because FFL holders are allowed to own and transport firearms - in other words, it's a work-around for the limit on the right to carry. Yes, here in DC our anti-gun activists have guns. How else would they defend themselves from all the crazy, armed criminals?
Deanimator
Member
Good luck with that.
Eventually, we'll be talking contempt citations, Federal marshalls, jail time and punitive damages. I don't think Fenty wants to go there. Or maybe he does. Perhaps he's always wanted to check out the gay lifestyle... in prison.
berettaprofessor
Member
Haven't seen much discussion about it, but, I was happy that the Court's opinion seems to also knock down trigger-lock requirements. That one has much broader implications than merely DC as well.
AntiqueCollector
Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2007
- Messages
- 842
A person in DC could get a C&R I suspect and get C&R handguns until there are any dealers...
Any mandated requirement that puts the firearm in an unusable state seems to be challenged by this. No being forced to lock it up, take it apart or other action that prevents it from being available for defense.
You as a free citizen can still practice storage methods you feel are best suited to your home and environment. Whether that is taken apart, locked in a safe, with or without various locks or on your hip is up to you.
HonorsDaddy
Member
Can someone REALLY be that dense?
Fenty said:
“I’m disappointed in the Court’s ruling and believe introducing more handguns into the District will mean more handgun violence,” said Mayor Fenty. “But I want to emphasize that at this moment, our gun laws remain in effect. It may be several weeks before there are changes to announce.
Does this moron REALLY not realize the District's law is not only not in effect, but has been effectively ruled to never exist? The city needs to be going through its paperwork to find anyone convicted for violating that law and let them the hell out of jail, not trying to pretend it is still there.
What does one have to do to request the arrest of a public official who has publicly stated he will not follow the absolute law of the land?
Fenty said:
“I’m disappointed in the Court’s ruling and believe introducing more handguns into the District will mean more handgun violence,” said Mayor Fenty. “But I want to emphasize that at this moment, our gun laws remain in effect. It may be several weeks before there are changes to announce.
Does this moron REALLY not realize the District's law is not only not in effect, but has been effectively ruled to never exist? The city needs to be going through its paperwork to find anyone convicted for violating that law and let them the hell out of jail, not trying to pretend it is still there.
What does one have to do to request the arrest of a public official who has publicly stated he will not follow the absolute law of the land?
Seminole
Member
Fenty:
He WISHES!
He WISHES!
sendarope
Member
This whole situation and the response by the tyrants in DC are a classic illustration of what happens when government runs amok.
More reasons why the founders added the 2nd amendment to the bill of rights to remind the government that they should be careful how much restrictions they put on the people. After all the entire constitution is the people telling the idiots in the gov what their limits are.
More reasons why the founders added the 2nd amendment to the bill of rights to remind the government that they should be careful how much restrictions they put on the people. After all the entire constitution is the people telling the idiots in the gov what their limits are.
Macpherson
Member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Messages
- 161
He's actually right...as was already mentioned the court has not "officially" issued the injunction to stop enforcing the ban. There is a time allowance for the relevant parties to get their policies and procedures in order; DC isn't going to just start handing out licenses as soon as the ruling is published.
What scares me is what Zoogster mentioned; what if DC decides to put up all kinds of unreasonable restrictions on issuing licenses, or puts up other roadblocks that make it extremely difficult or prohibitively expensive to own a gun? Sure we can challenge it in court, spend millions in legal fees, take years to resolve and in the end *if* we win, they will just find some other loophole and start the process over again. When the people who are supposed to be enforcing the laws despise them to the extent that Fenty and Co. appear to, the citizens of DC will not have relief. The solution is to remove Fenty and put people in who actually care about the rule of law and not of politics.
What scares me is what Zoogster mentioned; what if DC decides to put up all kinds of unreasonable restrictions on issuing licenses, or puts up other roadblocks that make it extremely difficult or prohibitively expensive to own a gun? Sure we can challenge it in court, spend millions in legal fees, take years to resolve and in the end *if* we win, they will just find some other loophole and start the process over again. When the people who are supposed to be enforcing the laws despise them to the extent that Fenty and Co. appear to, the citizens of DC will not have relief. The solution is to remove Fenty and put people in who actually care about the rule of law and not of politics.
lacoochee
Member
Would it really be necessary to go through the whole process again? Wouldn't you just apply for relief based on the prior ruling?
In fact, isn't the executive branch now required to enforce the court ruling?
The Government certainly seemed to think so after Brown...
In fact, isn't the executive branch now required to enforce the court ruling?
The Government certainly seemed to think so after Brown...
Only if those enforcing it believe it is the same issue. If they are however inclined to view it as a seperate issue because the parties say they are following the SCOTUS decision as they understand it then a long legal battle can develop.
It is not the same as them simply stating they are going to defy the SCOTUS. Instead they say that thier interpretation that in reality does ignore the SCOTUS ruling actualy is in compliance with it.
The ruling in brown was clear.
The ruling in Heller said some infringement is not okay, and some infringement is okay, and was not absolutely specific on all forms of each.
There is some reference to each, but it is not all inclusive, and leaves both open ended.
All we know is a way to aquire a handgun must be available. That storage requirements cannot infringe on the ability to use it for self defense.
How available though, and what someone must do to qualify as long as the option is still in some way available still could be argued and interpreted in an anti way.
A lot of founding father arguments were referenced, and most of those have a strong RKBA leaning for many types of arms that should be upheld in lower courts. However there is also the reference to "resonable restrictions". Many infringements and restrictions previously not legitimized by the Supreme Court and merely in local, state and federal law are in fact legitimized by this decision since in it he cites some of those infringements.
So the argument is no longer the 2nd states "shall not be infringed" but how much infringement is okay under the ruling. That is now open to debate in lawsuits.
So it is not a clear absolute "Shall not be infringed" ruling that common men with guns can uphold without question when a team of lawyers says it actualy is in compliance and they cite portions, even some taken out of context.
Then it once again is a slow tedious unsure battle in court where lawyers argue the merits of both sides, appeal to higher courts and continue the whole process.
Yet it makes you wonder what the whole point of a ruling at all is if it can just be endlessly questioned indirectly until a favorable answer is achieved, perhaps once the court replaces some justices.
Another very bad thing this case does is legitimize registration, licensing, and similar forms of documentation. While it does not "decide" they are okay Scalia does in fact say that Heller must be allowed a license and to register his firearm without striking them down as infringements.
We all know that a government that can document all arms is much closer to removing them gradualy or rapidly if they so decide.
Last edited:
ctdonath
Member
Scalia says that Heller must be allowed a license because that's what he asked for, implying that if he had asked for unlicensed possession/carry he would have gotten it.
usmarine0352_2005
member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,796
Damn.
So now we all have to get licensed?
In every state?
.
Jorg Nysgerrig
Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 7,822
Yes, but it's only a reading comprehension test. Sorry man.
Gray Peterson
Member
There's actually some FFL's in DC. I asked the ATFE for that information, but I never followed up. Oops. I'll get cracking on it.
-Lonnie
-Lonnie
JohnMcD348
Member
Just thinking out load here but the comment about the Semi-Auto(and Auto) ban could be enforced to a dgree. People could still buy and keep Colts, S&W, Taurus revolvers to name a few. But? Instead of opening it up to potential lawsuits from 2A type groups, would it possibly be brought on by companies like Glock, H&K, Springfield Armory, etc, who do not manufacture revolver type firearms. Aren't there commerce laws on the books that could be used to persue the inclusion of their specific style of firearms?
The problem is that DC's laws catagorize any weapon that can hold more than 12 rounds (regardless of if that is with the stock magazine or an aftermarket one) as a machine gun, and is thus banned.
A police officer tried to register his M1 Carbine with a 5rd magazine and was rejected because 15 and 30rd mags are available. 1911s would also be banned due to those 50rd drums everyone laughs at, etc, etc. Practically the only semiauto you could buy would be a Broomhandle or something similar with a permanently fixed magazine.
A police officer tried to register his M1 Carbine with a 5rd magazine and was rejected because 15 and 30rd mags are available. 1911s would also be banned due to those 50rd drums everyone laughs at, etc, etc. Practically the only semiauto you could buy would be a Broomhandle or something similar with a permanently fixed magazine.
- Status
Similar threads
