I wasn't going to buy a gun, because, hey, what would I do with it? But the chicken guano rules that DC is imposing make me want to buy a handgun just to annoy the twopenny tyrants who thought them up:
Here's what they're proposing:* Allowing an exception for handgun ownership for self-defense use inside the home.
* If you want to keep a handgun in your home, the MPD will have to perform ballistic testing on it before it can be legally registered.* There will be a limit to one handgun per person for the first 90 days after the legislation becomes law.
* Firearms in the home must be stored unloaded and disassembled, and secured with either a trigger lock, gun safe, or similar device. The new law will allow an exception for a firearm while it is being used against an intruder in the home.
* Residents who legally register handguns in the District will not be required to have licenses to carry them inside their own homes.
May I really carry it inside my home without a license, just as if I were a free citizen in a country that respects individual liberty? I am overcome with gratitude, really overwhelmed with the state's generosity . . . permission to cry, sir?
I love the part where you can keep a gun in the home for self-defense, but you must store it unloaded, disassembled AND secured with a trigger lock. "Wait Mr. Home invader, while I unlock my gun safe, find the key to my trigger lock, unlock it, reassemble my gun and load it." Sheesh.
Let the lawsuits begin!
Obviously, the last regulation is silly, and deserves to be mocked.
But #2 & #3?? I don't see too much wrong with those...
Ballistics testing and registration...I don't have a problem with that...do you suggest we don't register our cars or give the VIN numbers to DMV?
And oh, I'm sorry, only ONE gun for the first 90 days after legislation becomes law...what, pray tell, would you do with multiple? Roll through your apartment like Lara Croft with a gun in each hand?
Could someone who knows more about this weigh in on the ballistic testing? I heard that it was a lot more bogus than they make it appear on those CSI shows. Also, how would it even be possible to state a requirement that pertains to the storage of something you own, in your own home? Doesn't a law have to meet a certain standard of viability? I'm not being completely sarcastic either - if enforcement of the regulation would require unannounced home visits, doesn't that make the regulation irrelevant (since such home visits would not be lawful)?
I hit 'post' too soon...so let's say an invader is shot, could his defense team claim that the time it took for the homeowner to realize someone was breaking in and the time he shot at the invader, was too small for the homeowner to reassemble, unlock, and load the gun? I honestly don't get it - how can there be an exception for a firearm used against an intruder, since the gun doesn't magically appear in one's hands at the moment an intruder appears - at time T1, there is no intruder and so the gun has to be stored as the regulation requires, so how can you make an exception to that for time T2 when the intruder appears? Someone help me out with bureaucratic logic.
Stephanie,
I think that what's wrong with the 90 day rule is less a matter of asking why do you need to buy more than 1 gun than it is of what is the point of this rule? I can shoot a home invader just as dead with 1 gun as I can with 6, so they are not protecting anyone with this. What they are doing is trying to make inconvenient a perfectly legal act. This is nothing more than a spiteful rear-guard action on the part of those who refuse to accept Heller. It should be opposed.
Civil disobedience is the proper response here. I would encourage all Washingtonians that want firearms to buy them elsewhere and keep and carry them as they wish. The muggers already do this and seem to be unbothered by the politicians and police, so why shouldn't otherwise law-abiding citizens do the same?
I've got a suggestion!
Ballistics testing and registration...I don't have a problem with that...do you suggest we don't register our cars or give the VIN numbers to DMV?
1. Yes, I would certainly suggest that this ought not to be a law. (In fact, it isn't. You only need to register a car to drive it on public roads, not to own it.)
2. Ballistics registration doesn't work. There was a massive study in California (which the state tried to bury because it was an embarrassment) which showed that it simply isn't accurate or reliable.
John Mc
Whether you were for or against the DC gun ban (and I don't live in DC, so this doesn't affect me personally) besides the libertarians cheering at the personal liberty, I'm sure there are a lot of people who live in DC that are nervous about the gun ban being lifted (though, I could be wrong, I guess).
There may or may not be good reason for that - the ban has obviously not kept guns out of criminals hands...but the point is that I don't, you don't, and people who are nervous don't know quite what the gun ban DID do, besides annoy libertarians and disallow a constitutional right (note, I'm not in favor of gun bans).
But if for 90 days they just want to watch to see what happens, including with sales/interest (don't forget, since our gun registration system is so crapass, this is a great way to see how many individuals are buying guns, assuming this regulation sticks), and probably, in case violence for some wacky reason, skyrockets, there will be possibly, some good data there. And maybe if the DC cops get their acts together, some time to react to that data (not likely).
Whether those are good reasons or not doesn't really matter, and there's probably more...but the point is the ban is being lifted, soon you'll be able to own as many damn handguns as you please, just start with one...I guess I don't see why it's a big deal.
I guess also, that while I agree the 2nd amendment protects individual gun ownership rights, I don't read it as saying you can own all the firearms you want...
David,
If ballistics isn't useful, then I agree that it's fine to do away with it...and go ahead and get annoyed at and start to mock the need for ballistics to register a gun.
And you're right - I conflated owning a car with driving it. Sorry about that...I guess I was thinking about the similarities of registering something in order to be able to use it, which I still don't see a problem with.
Stephanie,
Registering a car is more akin to carrying a weapon, either concealed or open, in public. There registration for that privilege, and no one seems to be saying there shouldn't be.
Ballistic fingerprinting on a new gun is utterly useless. After the owner takes the new gun down to the pistol range and practices with it for a couple of magazines, the characteristics will be entirely different than it was when first tested.
Now, after the gun has had some wear over time? Okay, now it might work, because the early-wear changes are all already through, but you still get changes over time even then.
The case where ballistic fingerprinting reliably works is when there are very few shots between the two firings that you're looking at . . . that is, you have a bullet or casing found at a crime scene, and you get the gun relatively few shots later, and then you can match the results.
(Assuming the shooter didn't do something simple like polish the inside of his barrel with a simple abrasive, like toothpaste. Though if he did that, you at least have evidence that he deliberately screwed up any ballistic matching.)
There's also the peril ballistic testing could become a de facto ban. "Sure, you can own a gun as soon as we can test it. We don't know when we're going to begin testing, but we fully intend to have a testing center operational as soon as reasonably practical. Thank you for your patience. Don't call us, we'll call you."
At last, an issue around which a security-state libertarian like McArdle can rally! Huzza! But, Meg, you've already got your 2X4's. Why do you need a gun?
Good luck buying a handgun. You can't buy one in a gun store outside DC because you're not a resident of whatever state the gun store is in. And you can't buy one in a gun store in DC, because there aren't any and there probably won't be any. If they haven't done it already, they'll probably pass Obama-type legislation outlawing gun stores within five miles of a school or park, which means everywhere. And remember, you can't have a semiautomatic handgun (or long gun, for that matter) because, according to DC law, they're "machine guns."
A commenter mentioned registering cars. I wish they would do that for guns. Then I could carry my Indiana gun in DC, just as I can drive my Indiana car there.
At last, an issue around which a security-state libertarian like McArdle can rally! Huzza! But, Meg, you've already got your 2X4's. Why do you need a gun?
Because some lippy quippies like to fire vapid insults while standing outside of 2x4 range.
Do they require ballistic testing anytime you change the barrel or just the first time you buy the gun?
As far as people being nervous, I'm sure they are, but every single time that concealed carry laws are passed, the local crime rate decreases or grows slower than the national average. Based on looking at the correlation between gun control laws and crime, it's very hard to argue that gun control laws reduce crime...
So there is a lot of reason for DC residents to be optimistic.
As far as the lack of gun stores in DC goes, some big sporting good stores might start selling guns in DC. I'm not sure how hard it would be for them to start.
McC: I think the 90-day rule could be defended as a way to serve as many different applicants as possible while they're getting the bureaucracy up to speed, but if the real purpose is the one you suggest (and I have no reason to believe it isn't), then it is indeed despicable obstructionism. To me, the most ridiculous part (and the part that blatantly thumbs its nose at the Supremes) is the retention, with only a completely ineffective exception, of the "unloaded and disassembled" requirement.
Oh, and Stephanie? I think Megan McArdle as Taller Lara Croft is just a fascinating suggestion.
To answer your question – if we ever got to the point where automobile registration was ever used as a tool for general confiscation as firearms registration has been, then yes, I would be very hesitant about registering your automobile with the government.
Given that DC first tried to prevent its citizens from being able to lawfully own and use firearms and now seeks to enact as many restrictions as possible to make it as difficult as possible to legally own and use a firearm, I see no reason why they should be given the benefit of the doubt as to what they actually intend the registration to be used for.
DC government behaved like a ship of fools for years in regards to gun control, so it's hardly surprising that their behavior after the Heller torpedo amounts to a creative pretense that their badly-listing vessel is simply taking on a slightly different equillibrium position.
What will probably have to happen is that they pass inane laws exactly like the ones under discussion, harass a couple citizens thereunder, get hit up for a couple expensive civil liberties lawsuits, and then quietly backing down on the scope of the new laws with some sort of mealy-mouthed logic that refuses to admit that the first incarnation ever had a problem.
Oh, and Stephanie? DC has a violent crime problem that includes knives. For your own good, your Beneveolent State has determined that you will only be allowed to have one knife in the home for any purpose, and that it must be kept in a locked safe at any time when you are not actively cooking dinner. Your desire to own multiple knives for any home or hobby purpose are irrelevant and subservient to the public good on this matter. Now fall in line!
"behaves like"? That's at least 10 characters too many.
The plan here is pretty obvious. The DC government will make it impossible to own a gun under the new regulations and wait to get sued. When they get sued they will have a sypathetic DC District court judge, and there are plenty of them, ignore Heller and affirm the law. The appeal process will then take years by which time a President Obama will have changed the balance of the Supreme Court and Heller will be overturned. Face it, we have the rights our liberal betters tell us we have. Period.
Wow, talk about levels of stupid. Keeping a gun like that makes it useless in home defense. Plus, DC doesn't have "stand your ground" laws, so you'll almost certainly be in a position where the time it takes to get the gun ready will be less than the time it takes for you to run away, and so anything other than running away will get your sorry self prosecuted.
Moreover, while I see a home-use exception, I don't see a transport-to-home-when-you-bought exception. No, it's not an oversight, no it's not implicit, and yes it will be abused. DC police will monitor gunstores, even if out of the district, wait for the driver to enter DC, pull them over on probable cause, catch them with a gun outside the home, and then you'll be in deep trouble.
Don't think they won't try this.
Ask all the owners of "assault rifles" in California where the registrations were used as a seizure list what their opinions of registration are.
You have the rights you are willing to fight and die for or those that you can convince others to fight and die for on your behalf. That is how rights work. If you aren't getting the rights you feel you deserve under the latter (government) plan then a reasonable answer is to get them under the former (threaten with/revolt) plan. Never forget that... it's how we became a nation in the first place.
>The new law will allow an exception for a firearm >while it is being used against an intruder in the >home.
Well... it's at least nice to know you'll be allowed to assemble your firearm before using it. They do tend to work better that way. Otherwise you end up throwing gun parts at an intruder and I'm not sure that's gonna work.
Just go to Virginia and buy a gun and bring it home.
This whole fuss about DC gun laws is silly as long as Virginia will sell you a gun. You know Virginia is right across the river and there are no metal detectors on the bridges and last I knew there weren't any on the subway either.
Just make sure you turn off your radar detector in Virginia. Otherwise you could get into a lot of trouble.
"You have the rights you are willing to fight and die for or those that you can convince others to fight and die for on your behalf. That is how rights work. If you aren't getting the rights you feel you deserve under the latter (government) plan then a reasonable answer is to get them under the former (threaten with/revolt) plan. Never forget that... it's how we became a nation in the first place."
I agree. I think the answer to this nonsense is a mass peaceful demonstration by DC residents where by a few thousand of them get together and openly carry firearms at a rally. Make them come and arrest you and then make a constitutional claim and a 1983 suit against them.
Just go to Virginia and buy a gun and bring it home.
You can't (legally) buy handguns outside of your state of residence, and whether or not you can buy long guns depends on whether your state or residence allows you to buy them out of state.
Make them come and arrest you and then make a constitutional claim and a 1983 suit against them.
And lose.
The best part of this is that the American Civil LIBERTIES Union came out against a ruling that supports a liberty bestowed by the Second Amendment.
As the joke goes, how does an ACLU lawyer count to 10? 1,3,4,5...
And we care about what's legal why? Again, we are demonstrating that we will no longer be bound by unconstitutional laws. If our rights will not be respected by our government, we will no longer allow our government to rule us.
Oh no, we'd win just by showing up. At that point our government would know that it no longer holds a monopoly on force and that we, free citizens of the nation, are willing to revoke the governments license to rule over us.
The government serves the citizens at the citizen's discretion, not at the government's.
If I remember correctly, the text of Heller specifically cites the trigger lock/disassembly requirement as inconsistent with the Second Amendment's protection of the right to keep a firearm for the purpose of self-defense in the home. Which it is. I would also assume that, at least with the present court, using zoning law in an ass-backward way to prevent DC residents from being able to buy a pistol would be ruled unconstitutional.
The trigger lock/gun safe AND disassembly requirement actually has no discernible purpose but to make defensive gun usage hard to impossible. The previous regulation governing long guns specified EITHER a trigger lock/gun safe OR disassembly. Either is sufficient to render the weapon unusable on short notice. Locking a disassembled gun is completely redundant and serves no purpose except to increase the time needed to get the gun ready to fire. As for the unloaded point, it's an entirely unenforceable law, and it doesn't have a huge impact on defensive usage in the home if you store your ammo near your gun. And, for that matter, storing a gun loaded is incredibly dumb from a gun safety standpoint, although it really ought to be up to the individual owner whether or not to take that risk.
But, this is disappointing. Aside from the implications for civil liberties, I liked the possibility of being able to own a handgun, and for somebody of my moderate interest in pistols the red tape involved is too much. I'd assumed that the new laws would be crafted by people with a visceral dislike for guns, but the actual provisions also suggest a near total lack of knowledge about them. Though these two usually go together.
"Make them come and arrest you and then make a constitutional claim and a 1983 suit against them.
And lose"
Why would you lose? There is a direct highly publicized Supreme Court case ruling the DC gun ban unconstitutional. The decision clearly states that law abiding citizens who are not felons or insane have a constitutional right to possess a personal firearm. To arrest people for peacefully possessing such a fire arm would be in direct contradiction to an established court precident and constitutional right. That is a textbook 1983 deprivation claim. Any cop who arrested you would lose his qualified immunity and be subject to personal liability.
we care about what's legal why?
Principally because a purchase and sale requires two willing parties to the transaction. If you don't want to be buying a stolen gun, then it might prove tricky to find a willing seller in VA. On the other hand, if you don't care about the source, there's no need to leave DC at all.
"I'd assumed that the new laws would be crafted by people with a visceral dislike for guns, but the actual provisions also suggest a near total lack of knowledge about them. Though these two usually go together."
They know plenty about guns. These regulations are crafted by people with a viceral dislike of guns and any Supreme Court precident or right that gets in their way.
Why would you lose?
Because the Heller opinion itself says that it's not about carrying guns.
Hmmmm.
@ Rob Lyman
"Because the Heller opinion itself says that it's not about carrying guns."
I think you're wrong on that.
Heller included the use of firearms for self-defense.
It's rather hard to *use* a firearm for self-defense without *carrying* it in the home.
I await your ability to describe a means for using a firearm in self-defense without carrying it. Perhaps a Rube Goldberg sort of situation?
Hmmmmm.
If you're at home with a legally registered firearm disassembled and mucked up like the prospective DC law wants it to be and you're attacked by an intruder ... is there a violation of Constitutional rights lawsuit against DC and it's government there?
Hmmmm.
@ Stephanie
"And oh, I'm sorry, only ONE gun for the first 90 days after legislation becomes law...what, pray tell, would you do with multiple? Roll through your apartment like Lara Croft with a gun in each hand?"
Oh I don't know? Collect them? Perhaps go hunting with them? I know it would be rather difficult to go quail hunting with a 30-06 or whitetail deer hunting .410 shotgun. Paper target shooting with .22 revolver is fun but you need a Colt SAA .45 long if you're really into Cowboy Action Shooting.
After all why not apply this to shoes. It's not like you can wear more than one pair at a time.
memomachine, John was talking about a demonstration in a public place with openly carried firearms. Heller is explicitly not about that sort of thing, so his 1983 argument fails.
I know it would be rather difficult to go quail hunting with a 30-06
I dont' know if it would be difficult, per se; but you might have trouble finding anything more than pillow stuffing after the hit.
DC's gun laws are one of the strongest arguments against DC "home rule;" of course, the corruption and utter failure of the municipal government are other excellent reasons to be against it.
My own take is that merely separating the government-building areas off as the "District of Columbia," and giving the rest of it back to Maryland as the "City of Washington" would be an excellent idea.
The new law will allow an exception for a firearm while it is being used against an intruder in the home.
I actually don't support a right to handgun ownership, but I am curious as to whether one might be able to have certain roommates or frequent guests become "designated intruders" in order to allow one to store one's gun without disassembling it. The gun might have to occasionally be used to warn or threaten said roommate or guest, in order for them to qualify as a bona fide intruder. Viz.: "Put the brownies down slowly and step away from the kitchen with your hands up!" Or something. Just once every couple of days.
In Texas, you can legally carry a concealed weapon without a permit in your car as long as you are "traveling". My cop buddies tell me about how many thugs they have to let go packing heat.
Recently, a 21 year old girl in my apartment building got robbed at gunpoint at 11pm at night in the parking garage. The two people took her purse.
Surely the situation would have ended much better if she too pulled a gun on them. (/sarcasm)
I know this post is about guns in the home, but Megan, would you really feel safer if everyone in DC could legally carry a gun? You are probably not going to carry one every day, but to make it perfectly legal for all the sketchy people who will pass you as you walk alone to have one is not a bad idea. Sure, if they are illegal, many criminals will still have guns, but if its not illegal at all, then why would any criminal ever NOT have a gun.
In short, lets say x% of criminals and y% of non-criminals have guns (legally or illegally).
If carrying a gun became legal, I think that x% would increase much more than the y%. In short, you'd make it so nearly every criminal has a gun, instead of just some, whereas the percentage of non-criminals with guns probably wouldn't go up much as I don't see the Megan McArdle's of the world packing heat day in and day out (or do I trust an upper west side Manhattan girl to make a mugging situation even better by having her add another gun into the mix).
Not that it matters, but my interpretation of the 2nd amendment basically says:
to have a government function properly and to protect itself from other countries, it needs an army with guns ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"). Since those guns can be used against their own (implied by the fact that the founders just fought a revolution), people should be able to keep guns in order to protect themselves from their own government ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed").
I think the militia types in Montana would agree with me. Basically, I think we need guns in order to overthrow the government should they get too big for their britches, and, without a doubt, I think the constitution (and their rebel writers) supports that right.
But, I will say, I feel a heck of a lot safer walking down the streets of London or Toronto than I do Dallas, Houston, or any other city with lax gun laws.
I've thought about buying a gun myself many times (I do shoot handguns semi-regularly, but I always rent at the range), but I really think me owning a gun only increases the likelihood of a crime ending in my own death, and I say this as someone who has been robbed at gunpoint twice (possibly by people legally carrying a gun). Many gun owners I talk to at the range admit to me that if mugged at gun point while carrying, they'd probably act as if they were unarmed for fear of a robbery turning into a shoot out. Of course, they say this in private. In public, most boast they'd get all Dirty Harry on the criminals. Then, of course, there are the crazy guys at the range who pull their gun out at anyone who looks the slightest bit suspicious. They scare me the most.
No one wants to respond to my claim that the DC gun plan is so kafkaesque that it won't even succeed in protecting you on your maiden gun voyage to take it home?
The offer of a safety course is still open.
It might be fun if your fellow journalists would want to participate. If enough were interested, maybe the magazine would help defray some of my expenses. Like taking care of renting a conference room in Virginia.
James
Stephanie wrote: "I guess also, that while I agree the 2nd amendment protects individual gun ownership rights, I don't read it as saying you can own all the firearms you want..."
Stephanie, some suggested reading: The 10th Amendment, Bill of Rights.
Nylund wrote: A lot of nonsensical stuff.
Suggested reading: The entire U.S. Constitution, the Federalist Papers, other writings by the founders on individual gun and self-defense rights, relevant academic criminology studies of guns for self-defense in the hands of private citizens (by Kleck, Lott, Cook, Ludwig, etc.)
Hard to add much to the debate if you don't know the facts that form the debate.
Kennesaw, Georgia anyone?
Criminals don't fear the police. They fear dying.
I feel a heck of a lot safer walking down the streets of London or Toronto than I do Dallas, Houston, or any other city with lax gun laws.
I wonder why so many people think that their "feelings" are a good guide for public policy. London is a very dangerous town compared to most US cities in terms of muggings, rapes, and home invasions. That you "feel" differently has nothing to do with reality.
40 states are now "shall issue," and in those where the issue has been studied, the licensed gun-carrying population has a lower felony conviction rate than either Congress or the local PD. That makes me "feel" as though the constant blather about how dangerous guns are in the hands of the general population is not well-grounded.
"I guess also, that while I agree the 2nd amendment protects individual gun ownership rights, I don't read it as saying you can own all the firearms you want..."
How could it possibly NOT say that? Seems to me that limiting the number of guns I can own infringes on my right to keep and bear arms.
Honestly, most of the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are very simple black and white issues. Does a law tell me what I can and can't say, or print, or believe? Not allowed by the 1st Amendment. Does a law limit my right to own a gun? Not allowed by the 2nd Amendment. The only valid exception is due process. It really is that simple.