When I took the course, I found it to be really helpful in regards to safety & informing gun owners of the legal possibilities that come with the responsibility of owning a weapon. After taking it, I’m glad they require it. It’s a reasonable course that helps people to use a gun safely.

To get your actual carry license, you pay $115 dollars to the Dept. Of Safety, & must be fingerprinted.

There are no license requirements for having a handgun or most long guns in the home, & you’re allowed to transport the weapons unloaded to a firing range, without a carry license. There’s no trigger lock or disassembly required. (Ammunition must be reasonably out of reach of the weapon’s proximity in the vehicle during transport. Again, that is only if you DO NOT have a carry license.)

You can carry any pistol here, & as many on your person as you can handle without falling over from the weight. It does not matter how the bullets are or can be inserted in it, or if you want to carry a backpack full of loaded clips. (If you do this without a really good reason, you “may” want to have your head examined, but still, it’s appropriate that the State doesn’t nanny people about it.)

In contrast to TN gun laws, you have to ask yourself how we let this violation of our second amendment rights get violated so badly in DC. How does one US (or actually quite a few) states have such constitutional gun laws, & then another have a district that more resembles Nazi Germany? The answer: liberals.. Lots & lots of control freak liberals..

~Dan Lee

On July 18th, 2008 at 12:26 pm, Red State Skeptic said:

By the way, here’s a crash course on Scalia’s judicial philosophy: when a state does something he likes (abortion and same-sex relations prohibitions) it’s states rights and the Constitution has no bearing. But when a state does something that he doesn’t like (gun control, affirmative action) the Constitution sails in to save the day.

You fail to note that abortion involves the murder of an innocent person (and forces citizens to violate their religious beliefs by funding it), that homosexual “marriage” compels others recognize and give deference to that behavior, and that neither of these “rights” have any support in written law, legal tradition, or our history. Oh yeah, and you also fail to note that the right to keep and bear arms is explicitly spelled out for all to see. So, yeah, when it comes to restrictions on abortion and homosexual “marriage,” the constitution doesn’t have anything to say. Read it and weep!

You have it backwards. Scalia thinks rights explicitly laid out in the bill of rights ought to be given greater respect than judicial fiats that necessarily result in the direct violation of others’ most fundamental rights (life, religious freedom).

Also I keep seeing this reference to 2 weeks. I don’t see that in the legislation from DC. I see that you will have the handgun delivered to the police and they will tell you when you can pick it up. No times given. Mental health examination may be required, as well as 50 state criminal background check. I think they will push the limits on this untill the SCOTUS comes back and isues a directive, if they issue a directive.

On July 18th, 2008 at 12:26 pm, Red State Skeptic said:

Heller specifically noted that there states may still restrict gun ownership. The court did not say what those restrictions are, only to say that a state cannot have a blanket prohibition on handguns.

Is DC one of Obama’s 58 states now?

Do you really believe there is not a certain amount of sour grapes here from Mayor Fenty when Heller himself is rejected?

So, obviously, you aren’t looking to see what SCOTUS actually ruled on. You just wanted to try to defend the district’s continued efforts in preventing citizens, including and specifically, Heller from freely exercising his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Heller specifically noted that there states may still restrict gun ownership. The court did not say what those restrictions are, only to say that a state cannot have a blanket prohibition on handguns.

By the way, here’s a crash course on Scalia’s judicial philosophy: when a state does something he likes (abortion and same-sex relations prohibitions) it’s states rights and the Constitution has no bearing. But when a state does something that he doesn’t like (gun control, affirmative action) the Constitution sails in to save the day.

Dick Heller, whose legal challenge prompted the Supreme Court ruling, said he would challenge new city regulations that continue to ban District residents from owning semi-automatic weapons. “The city still does not yet understand the decision of the Supreme Court,” Heller said from the steps of police headquarters. “We have been denied again.” …Dane von Breichenruchardt, president of the Bill of Rights Foundation, said the city was attempting to make gun ownership as “difficult and restrictive as possible.” “We’re going to be back in court. There is no doubt about that,” he said…

STORY

On July 17th, 2008 at 4:19 pm, Red State Skeptic said:

…Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

This really doesn’t add to what I wrote at all. And I really see know why this language has anything to do with saying what types of guns cannot be prohibited.

So, obviously, you aren’t looking to see what SCOTUS actually ruled on. You just wanted to try to defend the district’s continued efforts in preventing citizens, including and specifically, Heller from freely exercising his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Thanks for the info, love2rumba. Reading the proposed regs it is easy to see DC officials are going to make the process as confusing and difficult as they possibly can. It will be interesting to see after, lets say, 90 days how many people have actually been able to complete the process and are “legal”. I am betting damn few. They will then smugly bleat about how so few want to keep a handgun for defense in the home.

This is where a judge who cites them for contempt of court is needed, then it will take balls on the part of the Bush Administration or the one coming after them to do some arresting with the US Marshall Service…funny I don’t think that will be Obama.

Someone enlighten me please. What kind of pistol, not a revolver, has a clip that does NOT go in from the bottom?

First of all…no modern non-revolver pistol loads with a ‘clip’, they load with a ‘magazine’….a ‘clip’ is an apparatus that will hold cartridges together so that you can load all of them at the same time into a permanent magazine that is built into the weapon–e.g. the cylinder of the revolver, or the magazine ‘well’ of the SKS or M1 Garand rifle.

The only weapons ever made with side-loading or top loading magazines were Japanese and British light machine guns that come to mind..pre-Korean War. No handgun configurations were ever made like that.

The DC rule was someone’s ceative idea at a blanket semi-auto ban.

The only semi-auto handgun that loaded from a point other than through the bottom of the handle was the German Broomhandle Mauser of 1895 (I know it came out in the 1890’s), and it loaded pistol-level cartridges beneath the receiver like a modern semi-auto rifle.

On July 17th, 2008 at 6:17 pm, Die Hippie, Die said:
Does that mean Barney Frank’s illegal too? You know, because he’s a bottom-loader?

Be nice; he misses Gary Littleboy Studds.