Ha ha Persons must still be licensed to carry a hand gun in D of C. For all guns kept in the home after Heller... Here is the info specific to D if C “Following the Heller decision, the Council of the District of Columbia enacted a set of rules regulating the possession of handguns and long guns in citizens' homes. Reductions were made to the DC laws in 2012 and 2015 under threat of lawsuits from gun owners and prospective gun owners.[8] On September 18, 2015, a federal appeals court struck down some parts of the District's gun registration law as unconstitutional, while upholding other parts of the law.[9][10] In addition to each firearm being registered with the police, the rules require that applicants undergo an NCIC background check and submit to fingerprinting. The firearms registry photographs the applicant. Applicants must take an online gun safety course. Applicants must also declare at what address it will be kept. Each firearm is registered to an individual only, meaning couples who wish to own firearms must purchase two separate firearms. Handgun registrants must be at least 21 years old. Long gun registration is allowed for persons 18–21 years of age with a NCIC qualified adult co-registering. Handgun models are limited to any handgun appearing on any one of the California, Massachusetts, Maryland or DC Police "approved rosters" by make/model. Long guns are controlled by an allowed/not-allowed attributes list. Non residents, with a place of business or employment in DC may register a firearm to be maintained at that place of business or employment.[11][12][13] There is a 10-day waiting period from purchase of firearm to possession.[14] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_District_of_Columbia Ammunition
Fact: Nowhere does Heller say what you claimed it says: - It only removes the restriction if the owner IS LICENSED and the handgun is REGISTERED. - Unlicensed owners of unregistered handguns MUST STILL MAKE THE HANDGUN INOPERATIVE. Nowhere. Disagree? Cite the text.
It’s more restrictive. Read the new rules posted for D of C. It’s laughable. It’s tighter then before! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_District_of_Columbia In addition to each firearm being registered with the police, the rules require that applicants undergo an NCIC background check and submit to fingerprinting. The firearms registry photographs the applicant. Applicants must take an online gun safety course. Applicants must also declare at what address it will be kept. Each firearm is registered to an individual only, meaning couples who wish to own firearms must purchase two separate firearms. Handgun registrants must be at least 21 years old. Long gun registration is allowed for persons 18–21 years of age with a NCIC qualified adult co-registering. Handgun models are limited to any handgun appearing on any one of the California, Massachusetts, Maryland or DC Police "approved rosters" by make/model. Long guns are controlled by an allowed/not-allowed attributes list. Non residents, with a place of business or employment in DC may register a firearm to be maintained at that place of business or employment.[11][12][13] There is a 10-day waiting period from purchase of firearm to possession.[
Thank you for demonstrating you know you cannot prove your claim true. Thus, my statements stand: -It removed the regulations that banned handgun ownership and required firearms to be locked up or disassembled - indeed, it overturned ALL of the regulations placed in question before the court. -More importantly, it established the individual right not connected to service in the militia, and broadened the types of firearms protected by the 2nd from those suitable for service in the militia to those in common use for legal purposes. Thanks for playing.
And the defendant, Dick Heller, did not challenge the constitutionality of such restrictions, as he was more concerned with the total prohibition on handgun ownership within the district of columbia. Therefore the united state supreme court could not legally rule in the licensing and registration requirements, as they were not at issue.
Then don't extrapolate more then what the Heller ruling says. And, that's exactly what Heller addresses, the total effective ban on hand guns. You're talking with someone who is in total agreement with the Heller decision. Just don't pretend it's more then it is. Btw, let's not play games with what Heller wanted. The lawyers involved advised him. Essentially, indirect banning doesn't work but well written regulations stand a much better chance of passing both liberal and conservative majority courts.
You are dishonest. “It’s more restrictive” applies to the new D of C regulations not any feeble attempt you used to cya your own incompetence. It’s just another shameful attempt at making a false claim, getting caught, then doubling down on a lie. Moving on. You don’t deserve better.
What current firearm-related restrictions in the district of columbia, are more restrictive than the ones that existed previously, which amounted to a complete and total prohibition on all handguns? Explain such.
The matter goes far beyond that. There is no serious effort to try and prevent the illegal acquisition of firearms by prohibited individuals who cannot pass a background check, and those who are found in possession are rarely, if ever, prosecuted for firearm-related offenses. More often than not they are arrested, the firearm is confiscated, the firearm-related charges against them are dropped when a plea deal is issued for a minor offense just to expedite a conviction, and they are ultimately let go, free to illegally acquire another firearm at their leisure. If there is truly no interest in preventing the illegal ownership and acquisition of firearms by prohibited individuals, then the background check system serves no legitimate purpose in existing. It is nothing more than political theater to trick the public into believing that something is being done, when in truth nothing is being done.
Do you think that people with a violent criminal background should have the right to firearms? And if they are a repeat offender, are they still let go? Doesn't it serve the purpose of preventing violent people from purchasing firearms from a gun shop?
When the court hears a case on 'assault weapons', they will quickly rule to overturn it, based on Heller. 50BMG riles and NFA weapons are a little more dicey, so it depends on how they are argued
If these individuals cannot actually be trusted to legally own a firearm, then there is no reason for them to be released back into society where they pose the greatest risk of harm to the public. Indeed they are. It is exceedingly rare for a firearm-related offense to ever be prosecuted, especially when the one who committed the offense is already a convicted felon. Making matters worse is when judges see fit to allow these individuals out on bail, who then go and commit the same offense during the period when they are on bail for the previous offense. Indeed it does not, as it is easily subverted through what is known as a straw purchase, whereby the firearm is bought on behalf of a prohibited individual by one with a clean background, for the purpose of transferring it to the prohibited individual after the fact. This is a serious problem in the united states, despite straw purchases being a felony offense. This is occurring even in states where all firearm purchases require a permit, and where all firearms must be registered. That matter aside, even if a prohibited individual cannot legally acquire a firearm from a federally licensed firearms dealer, it makes no meaningful difference when the same individual successfully acquires a firearm from an outside source, as they do so often. Ultimately the background check requirement is serving no legitimate purpose, and is accomplishing nothing beyond giving the illusion that it is doing something, in order to fool the public into believing that they are safe. The prohibited individual acquiring a firearm is not a variable, rather it is a constant. The only variable is the source of where they acquired a firearm. But with the end result being the same regardless, that variable makes no legitimate difference.
Conceptually. Background checks equate to a police officer, absent reasonable suspicion or probable cause, stopping someone was they walk down the street and restraining them while he checks the person for outstanding warrants, etc. -That- is unconstitutional, so there's no argument that background checks ARE constitutional.
Actually, that's a very good argument which I've never heard before. Surely the justice system should assume that any violent person who is released could get a gun illegally and use it to kill. Therefore such a person shouldn't be released. Just hoping that they won't get a gun seems like a gamble. Although wouldn't this mean life imprisonment for any violent person? So then by not doing anything to stop it, the justice system is essentially supporting illegal gun ownership? Surely not! Are you saying that everyone who isn't able to buy a gun themselves has the alternative of someone buying it for them? Are you saying that everyone who isn't able to buy a gun legally has access to the black gun market?
