DC Counciler Capitulates on Handguns — A Bit
Inch by inch, as challenges mount to the District of Columbia’s refusal to fully obey the ruling of the Supreme Court, they’re giving in. From the Washington Times:
D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson says he will propose regulations Tuesday that would legalize semi-automatic handguns in the District because the stopgap legislation the council passed in response to a Supreme Court ruling “would not stand up to judicial scrutiny.”
“The Supreme Court has spoken, and we have to act accordingly,” he said. “We are still going to have a strong gun control law.”
Mr. Mendelson, at-large Democrat, said the bill will refine the city’s definition of machine guns by using wording from other jurisdictions and the federal assault-weapons ban, which has since expired. The bill also will cap at 10 the number of rounds a semi-automatic gun magazine can hold.
Well, at least he recognizes the difference between “automatic” and “semi-automatic.” It’s unfortunate that DC will go along with a limit on magazine capacity because thugs rarely observe such limitations themselves but, given that many states’ laws have the same restriction, it will probably pass legal scrutiny.
Of course, Mendelson’s proposals could be rejected by the rest of the council. Update: It passed.
Also:
The bill also will change safe-storage provisions to advisory regulations - meaning gun owners would no longer be required to keep their guns unloaded, locked up or disassembled - but will create criminal penalties for gun owners who give children access to guns.
Good. A gun in a safe or with locks on it is pretty useless in an emergency. Having said that, I do agree that in households where children are present, extra caution must always be taken to be sure that firearms are not “laying around” and that children be taught about firearm safety from the get-go.
Lastly, I have to laugh at this comment about why the original legalization of handguns after the SCOTUS decision applied only to revolvers:
. . .Lawmakers and public safety officials said they want in part to limit gun owners’ potential to overpower police.
As has been shown time and again, those citizens who go through the trouble of applying for firearm permits, taking classroom instruction, jumping all the hurdles, rarely present a problem to cops or anyone else. It’s the ones who don’t bother. . . . You know, like crooks.
See my update here.
5 Responses to “DC Counciler Capitulates on Handguns — A Bit”



on 16 Sep 2008 at 8:27 am # NRS
Thanks for posting…reading the article, my councilmember refers to the 2nd amendment as antiquated and ‘not about guns.’ This is a very frustrating town to live in when the government spends all this time trying to keep honest and law-abiding citizens from having firearms but does nothing to punish the thugs who get caught carrying illegal weapons.
on 16 Sep 2008 at 10:20 am # Mike Gallo
“Overpower?” A .357 will have much less trouble going through a Level IIA than a 9mm or a .380.
Oh, well. With the low probability that the Senate will tacle a companion bill to HR 6691, this may be the best bet for the poor denizens of D.C.
on 16 Sep 2008 at 12:02 pm # Madrocketscientist
Lawmakers and public safety officials said they want in part to limit gun owners’ potential to overpower police.
Really? Wow, and exactly what do they think the police will be doing that might inspire good, law-abiding citizens to attempt to overpower the police?
on 16 Sep 2008 at 4:16 pm # Steve in TN
Congrats on the Instalanche! This means you hit the big time and can’t quit bloggin’ now…
Truism: Criminals commit crime, and violent criminals commit violent crime.
on 17 Sep 2008 at 12:29 pm # redneckrepairs
” Lawmakers and public safety officials said they want in part to limit gun owners’ potential to overpower police. ”
I am sure they do and should in such a jurisdiction .