As the Armorer predicted, the affirmative decision in Heller was only the first salvo in the struggle to define the Second Amendment. And, as predicted, DC is trying everything to get around it by claiming now that semi-automatic pistols are still banned. (h/t Instapundit) It is also revising its registration laws which the Supreme Court ruled was still legal to have, though I imagine that it will be made as strict and difficult as possible. Like their attempted parsing of the laws that equates semi-automatics with machine guns, there is likely to be all types of little restrictions, expansion of "no-gun" zones and various other restrictions that will each have to be individually challenged.
From the perspective of the original Heller plaint and affirmation, the idea that one type of weapon is sufficient for self defense, thus, eliminates the need for others, is bogus on its face. From a self defense perspective, the idea that home owners should be restricted to revolvers and shot guns when their assailants are likely armed with "illegal" semi-automatics that fire up to fifteen rounds (with the addition of "illegal" extended magazines that are allegedly restricted to police officers) is as persposterous as the once ban on semi-automatic pistols for police officers.
When those officers were faced with ever increasing arms of the criminals, though slow in coming, many police departments did away with those restrictions. In fact, DC itself has recently realized it was outgunned by the criminals and started buying "semi-automatic" rifles for the police. Even the ACLU noted that the up-arming of the police in the face of the existing DC gun ban was incongruous. That incongruity doesn't disappear because DC is "allowing" revolvers to be owned.
It isn't just a matter of legal "good for the goose, good for the gander", it is a physical disparity that doesn't only put the police at a disadvantage without it, but puts the citizens at risk, too.
The whole issue here should be incredibly obvious, yet it seems that the gun control folks in DC (and around the nation for that matter) simply refuse to accept that bad people get guns no matter what restrictions you put on them and good people are left at their mercy due to those restrictions. Further, with the average police force being 1 officer for every 3,000 citizens, there is no way for the police to be everywhere and do everything. It is physically impossible.
That's no disparagement to the police. It is simply the laws of statistics and logistics. Considering that the DC Metro police have fired more often and killed more people than any other police department in the country, along with the incredibly high rate of murder and assault with a weapon in DC under the original "gun ban", any argument to the effect that protections should be left solely to some professional hired force, should be a non-starter.
This attempt to continue to place restrictions on the basic weapons of defense is simply a continuing violation of the purpose of the Second Amendment . A right that has been affirmed as an individual right created for the purpose of defense against all possible violations, by government or non-government actors, of the three most basic rights: Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness.
Now DC is trying to say that defense is limited to six bullets. When you are out and the criminal still has between nine and twenty six, depending on his choice of weapon, the continuing ability to defend "life" comes down to whether you can reload your revolver in the nano-second it takes for the assailant to send another bullet. Particularly, as I envision the new DC laws to restrict speed loaders for hand guns. Not that those would give any real advantage in such a mismatch.
Don't believe me. Ask the police officers who used to be restricted to revolvers.
In closing, the worst part about this entire episode is that, indeed, DC is going to push it until every weapon is defined and determined by the Supreme Court as acceptable under the second amendment by forcing continuing litigation. All that left open by the Heller decision and several prior to it that attempts to provide for the Second Amendment and cover the government restrictions on certain weapons.
Then again, maybe the worst part is that DC council members and the mayor believe they can continue to defy the Constitution as if they were their own separate country.
Two questions:
1) Can the DC council be held in contempt of court for their continued violation?
2) Can the DC council be sued by family members of the next victim gunned down by a semi-automatic or automatic weapon because he or she never had the chance to defend his or her life adequately?
I don't know the answer, but I do know the NRA said it will go back after DC if it does attempt to restrict those weapons.
[I will add a disclaimer here and say I don't agree with every point of the article about the police shootings in DC trying to portray the officers as somewhat "trigger happy" because they have shot and killed "unarmed" people in cars that were either aiming at them or attempting to harm other citizens; being behind the wheel of a car is not "unarmed", it is being armed with a 2 ton or heavier weapon. It is one of the reasons that drunk driving resulting in the death of another has been moved up to "vehicular homicide" or "manslaughter". However, I would also agree that some of the events noted by the Post are definitely "overkill".]
From the perspective of the original Heller plaint and affirmation, the idea that one type of weapon is sufficient for self defense, thus, eliminates the need for others, is bogus on its face. From a self defense perspective, the idea that home owners should be restricted to revolvers and shot guns when their assailants are likely armed with "illegal" semi-automatics that fire up to fifteen rounds (with the addition of "illegal" extended magazines that are allegedly restricted to police officers) is as persposterous as the once ban on semi-automatic pistols for police officers.
When those officers were faced with ever increasing arms of the criminals, though slow in coming, many police departments did away with those restrictions. In fact, DC itself has recently realized it was outgunned by the criminals and started buying "semi-automatic" rifles for the police. Even the ACLU noted that the up-arming of the police in the face of the existing DC gun ban was incongruous. That incongruity doesn't disappear because DC is "allowing" revolvers to be owned.
It isn't just a matter of legal "good for the goose, good for the gander", it is a physical disparity that doesn't only put the police at a disadvantage without it, but puts the citizens at risk, too.
The whole issue here should be incredibly obvious, yet it seems that the gun control folks in DC (and around the nation for that matter) simply refuse to accept that bad people get guns no matter what restrictions you put on them and good people are left at their mercy due to those restrictions. Further, with the average police force being 1 officer for every 3,000 citizens, there is no way for the police to be everywhere and do everything. It is physically impossible.
That's no disparagement to the police. It is simply the laws of statistics and logistics. Considering that the DC Metro police have fired more often and killed more people than any other police department in the country, along with the incredibly high rate of murder and assault with a weapon in DC under the original "gun ban", any argument to the effect that protections should be left solely to some professional hired force, should be a non-starter.
This attempt to continue to place restrictions on the basic weapons of defense is simply a continuing violation of the purpose of the Second Amendment . A right that has been affirmed as an individual right created for the purpose of defense against all possible violations, by government or non-government actors, of the three most basic rights: Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness.
Now DC is trying to say that defense is limited to six bullets. When you are out and the criminal still has between nine and twenty six, depending on his choice of weapon, the continuing ability to defend "life" comes down to whether you can reload your revolver in the nano-second it takes for the assailant to send another bullet. Particularly, as I envision the new DC laws to restrict speed loaders for hand guns. Not that those would give any real advantage in such a mismatch.
Don't believe me. Ask the police officers who used to be restricted to revolvers.
In closing, the worst part about this entire episode is that, indeed, DC is going to push it until every weapon is defined and determined by the Supreme Court as acceptable under the second amendment by forcing continuing litigation. All that left open by the Heller decision and several prior to it that attempts to provide for the Second Amendment and cover the government restrictions on certain weapons.
Then again, maybe the worst part is that DC council members and the mayor believe they can continue to defy the Constitution as if they were their own separate country.
Two questions:
1) Can the DC council be held in contempt of court for their continued violation?
2) Can the DC council be sued by family members of the next victim gunned down by a semi-automatic or automatic weapon because he or she never had the chance to defend his or her life adequately?
I don't know the answer, but I do know the NRA said it will go back after DC if it does attempt to restrict those weapons.
[I will add a disclaimer here and say I don't agree with every point of the article about the police shootings in DC trying to portray the officers as somewhat "trigger happy" because they have shot and killed "unarmed" people in cars that were either aiming at them or attempting to harm other citizens; being behind the wheel of a car is not "unarmed", it is being armed with a 2 ton or heavier weapon. It is one of the reasons that drunk driving resulting in the death of another has been moved up to "vehicular homicide" or "manslaughter". However, I would also agree that some of the events noted by the Post are definitely "overkill".]
Of course, up here in Canada, all of my handguns have to have some sort of trigger lock and be locked up in a safe or cabinet as well. The long guns just require one or the other, and stored loaded is a big nono.
Pat
I agree with most of what you have said. But, I suspect the “parsing of the laws” equates to shearing the tax payer sheep for legal fees.
High quality legal parsing doesn’t come cheap in DC.
The excessive use of logic for such an emotional issue will be lost on this debate. Until the voters turn out the council nothing will prevent them from following the previous set course. They were elected for many other reasons and those reasons must be reduced to offset their continued lack reality.
You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead.
And you've just lined out the approach they're going to take.
They're basically going to go to the courts and say "Okay, people can own a revolver and 6 bullets. A shotgun and 5 shells. And that's it."
Which will, as I read it (not a lawyer, mind you) the Heller decision would support.
Everyone is always pushing for their power or their cause.
There used to be days when we had a whole lot less laws and a much more civil society. That all came down to some sense of morality and being a good neighbor. Now people think they can legislate into being what comes from civil society in the first place and was never a matter of law.
When it comes down to Heller, a law abiding, civil society that owned guns, existed long before the second amendment was ever thought of and existed for many years before any of the post gangster 1930's decisions until today. By the necessity of Heller, we will also have the restrictions because some people think they doing the right thing to stop crime when the real problem is not how many guns, but the criminals themselves. DC continues to paint all of its citizens as criminals or potential criminals with these sorts of caveats in the name of good order.
That is bizarrely accurate.
1-prohibit them from spending any money to defend any law prohibiting firearms ownership or imposing restrictions beyond those contained in federal law
2-limiting the DC police to using only those weapons that can be legally owned by the citizens of DC