CHANGE MY LOCATION
Local
California News
Multimedia News
Council OKs rules on handgun possession
SEE THE LATEST ON THIS STORY
Related Topics: WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON (Map, News) - The D.C. Council on Tuesday opened the door for law-abiding District residents to keep a handgun in their homes for self-defense, lifting a three-decade-old ban that the U.S. Supreme Court rejected as unconstitutional.
The Metropolitan Police Department’s gun registration office, at 300 Indiana Ave. NW, is scheduled to open Thursday morning — more details are to come on the exact time — and make gun applications available.
Emergency legislation approved unanimously by the council, in tandem with rules drafted by the Police Department, establish the process for registering a handgun and the strict regulations for stowing the gun in the home.
Proponents said the new policies, which require registrants to pass a gun safety exam, prove adequate eyesight and have their guns ballistically fingerprinted, strike a balance between meeting the Supreme Court’s mandate and protecting public safety.
Gun rights advocates, meanwhile, are expected to sue the city yet again, contending that D.C.’s new rules make it too difficult to register a gun, violating the spirit of the recent high court decision.
The registration process is a potentially months-long endeavor, Mayor Adrian Fenty acknowledged Monday. All automatic and semiautomatic firearms remain illegal, and all handguns must be kept unloaded and either disassembled or trigger-locked unless there is a “perceived threat of immediate harm” — two provisions likely to spark immediate legal challenges.
The rules will remain in effect for 90 days while the council and mayor consider permanent changes.
mneibauer@dcexaminer.com
Comments from Examiner Readers
12:46 AM MST on Tue., Aug. 26, 2008 re: "First to register handgun, owner 'doesn't fit' profile"
Report as inappropriate
3:53 PM MST on Tue., Jul. 29, 2008
re: "D.C. handgun ban to be lifted, but obtaining a firearm may be tough"
Report as inappropriate
11:58 AM MST on Tue., Jul. 29, 2008
re: "Plaintiff in gun ban case sues D.C. over new laws"
Report as inappropriate
6:36 AM MST on Tue., Jul. 29, 2008
re: "Plaintiff in gun ban case sues D.C. over new laws"
Report as inappropriate
8:08 PM MST on Mon., Jul. 28, 2008
re: "D.C. handgun ban to be lifted, but obtaining a firearm may be tough"
Report as inappropriate
12:03 PM MST on Mon., Jul. 28, 2008
re: "First to register handgun, owner 'doesn't fit' profile"
Report as inappropriate
9:11 AM MST on Tue., Jul. 22, 2008
re: "First to register handgun, owner 'doesn't fit' profile"
Report as inappropriate
2:46 PM MST on Mon., Jul. 21, 2008
re: "First to register handgun, owner 'doesn't fit' profile"
Report as inappropriate
10:31 PM MST on Sun., Jul. 20, 2008
re: "Supreme Court ruling on D.C. gun ban expected today"
Report as inappropriate
11:03 AM MST on Tue., Jul. 15, 2008
re: "D.C. handgun ban struck down"
Report as inappropriate
7:56 AM MST on Tue., Jul. 15, 2008
re: "D.C. handgun ban to be lifted, but obtaining a firearm may be tough"
Report as inappropriate
1:44 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 11, 2008
re: "Councilman urges gun law passage"
Report as inappropriate
7:34 PM MST on Wed., Jul. 9, 2008
re: "Councilman urges gun law passage"
Report as inappropriate
9:09 AM MST on Wed., Jul. 9, 2008
re: "Councilman urges gun law passage"
Report as inappropriate
9:19 AM MST on Fri., Jun. 27, 2008
re: "D.C. handgun ban struck down"
Report as inappropriate
8:40 AM MST on Fri., Jun. 27, 2008
re: "D.C. handgun ban struck down"
Report as inappropriate
9:46 AM MST on Thu., Jun. 26, 2008
re: "Supreme Court ruling on D.C. gun ban expected today"
Report as inappropriate
4:06 PM MST on Tue., May. 6, 2008
re: "D.C.’s handgun ban case sparks national interest"
Report as inappropriate
1:22 PM MST on Wed., Mar. 19, 2008
re: "Federal gun laws would stall post-ban purchases"
Report as inappropriate
5:25 AM MST on Mon., Mar. 17, 2008
re: "Top court sets date for gun ban case"
Report as inappropriate
11:32 AM MST on Wed., Mar. 12, 2008
re: "Some D.C.-area officials wary of gun ban being overturned"
Report as inappropriate
5:38 PM MST on Tue., Mar. 11, 2008
re: "Some D.C.-area officials wary of gun ban being overturned"
Report as inappropriate
5:33 PM MST on Tue., Mar. 11, 2008
re: "Top court sets date for gun ban case"
Report as inappropriate
9:09 AM MST on Tue., Mar. 11, 2008
re: "Some D.C.-area officials wary of gun ban being overturned"
Report as inappropriate
1:29 PM MST on Tue., Feb. 5, 2008
re: "Challenger of D.C. gun ban fires back"
Report as inappropriate
7:42 AM MST on Tue., Feb. 5, 2008
re: "Challenger of D.C. gun ban fires back"
Report as inappropriate
11:57 AM MST on Thu., Jan. 24, 2008
re: "Top court sets date for gun ban case"
Report as inappropriate
5:47 AM MST on Wed., Jan. 23, 2008
re: "Top court sets date for gun ban case"
Report as inappropriate
10:04 AM MST on Fri., Jan. 4, 2008
re: "Councilman demands explanation for firing of veteran D.C. litigator"
Report as inappropriate
8:04 AM MST on Fri., Jan. 4, 2008
re: "Councilman demands explanation for firing of veteran D.C. litigator"
Report as inappropriate
8:01 AM MST on Fri., Jan. 4, 2008
re: "Councilman demands explanation for firing of veteran D.C. litigator"
Report as inappropriate
1:30 PM MST on Thu., Jan. 3, 2008
re: "Nickles fires lawyer in gun-ban case"
Report as inappropriate
1:18 PM MST on Thu., Jan. 3, 2008
re: "Nickles fires lawyer in gun-ban case"
Report as inappropriate
12:30 PM MST on Thu., Jan. 3, 2008
re: "Nickles fires lawyer in gun-ban case"
Report as inappropriate
8:36 PM MST on Wed., Nov. 21, 2007
re: "U.S. Supreme Court takes District handgun ban case"
Report as inappropriate
8:07 AM MST on Wed., Nov. 21, 2007
re: "U.S. Supreme Court takes District handgun ban case"
Report as inappropriate
7:02 AM MST on Wed., Nov. 21, 2007
re: "U.S. Supreme Court takes District handgun ban case"
Report as inappropriate
5:22 AM MST on Thu., May. 10, 2007
re: "D.C. gun fight could go to Supreme Court"
Report as inappropriate
2:46 PM MST on Wed., May. 9, 2007
re: "D.C. gun fight could go to Supreme Court"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
Gun Registration is not only contrary to Federal Law, it serves as a platform for future confiscatory actions that will inevitibly arrive when we sit back and finally allow a complete takeover by Socialist baffoons like Fenty, Bloomberg, Daley, Menino, Nagin and their legions of lefttards attached firmly to the generous teat of public entitlements (our wallets). Since Fenty and his Dog and Pony Show refuse to abide by the SCOTUS decision and continue to act in contempt of court, pending federal legislation to provide DC residents with second amendment rights in line with the SCOTUS must be pushed through quickly. Obliterate DC's home rule. Even Americans who do not own firearms or feel that the issue does not affect them should consider supporting the 2nd amendment, because without it, the rest mean nothing.
65 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
DC is out of control. Even worse with Fenty. He is a traitor and a disgrace to this country. He should step down immediately, and take his sock puppet chief of police with him. Woof!
67 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Handguns be kept secured unless there’s the “perceived threat of immediate harm to a person.” Given the homicide rate, the existence of Congress, and the nonstop violent crime, mere presence in DC constitutes a perceived threat of immediate harm to one.
7 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Its time for a new DC Car Tag. Instead of the hum drum "Taxation without representation" let the students have a contest, and design one. Something nice like. " DC stands for "Death for children" Or how about " Taxation with no 2nd Amendment rights" Or how about " I lost my best friend at 7 in DC" You have a city where kids cannot walk the streets safely or enjoy life as other kids do, and a bunch of idiots debating how you should protect yourself and families. Man DC wake up already
0 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
All of you DC'ers are making a big mistake registering ANY of your guns. Fenty is ignoring and breaking the law as we speak by adding conditions that are illegal, yet expects you too abide? Do not register anything! You have the constitution on your side!! If you get arrested SUE THEM!
19 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Does McVey think she's being funny, insulting Mr. Heller and ridiculing him for not bringing his gun to registration? Not funny. I have a registered shotgun in DC, and I NEVER had to bring it in to get it registered. Why should handgun registration be any different? Only the sales transfer documents and dealer's certification of sale to me were required. So, it was certainly not unreasonable for Heller to have not brought the firearm with him to register it. Only the sales documentation should be required.
1 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
RobertG rizona said:
"The process will likely be completed in a few weeks once police finish the requisite background check." A few weeks is harrassment to discourage registration. They could run a background check in less than 30 minutes and almost all jurisdictions do. Mayor Fenty and Friends are some piece of work; they expect others to obey their rules but refuse to obey rules they do not like. I imagine Mayor Fenty and Friends would be upset if someone called them liars. But congratulations to Mrs. McVey for Being Number ONE!
2 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Congratulations Amy McVey, you are the first resident to be able to defend yourself in the District in a LONG time. The new regulations by D.C. are either unconstitutional, or subject to serious challenge in the courts. Once again, D.C. has effectively denied 2nd amendment rights by the trigger lock/disassembly provision, coupled with the eminent (immediate) danger nonsense. They are also off-base by denying registration of pistols, the most common commercial version of firearms for self-defense. Third, they are keeping a prohibited database of gun owners. The Congress can and should take care of this problem. The BATFE cannot do this, at least in theory, why should the District be able to do that? I am sorry that D.C. has continued to deny 2nd amendment rights to its citizens by cowardly emergency regulations and give the finger to the Supreme Court and the U.S. Constitution. God bless you Amy, keep your powder dry and have a great long life!
4 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Fandango said:
It's not really surprising that the D.C. Council would pass new laws that are just as unconstitutional as the first. They didn't recognise or honor the law of the land in the first place or they wouldn't have passed their draconian gun ban to begin with, so why should anyone expect them to suddenly change and respect the individual rights guaranteed in the Constitution now?
14 agree | 4 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Brian said:
"Permitting certain types of handguns, but not others, would affect the commercial market for handguns, but not their availability. And requiring safety devices such as trigger locks, or imposing safe-storage requirements would interfere with any self-defense interest while simultaneously leaving operable weapons in the hands of owners (or others capable of acquiring the weapon and disabling the safety device) who might use them for domestic violence or other crimes." --Excerpt from Ruling DC vs Heller It seems to me that the emergency legislation cited in today's (7/17/08) Examiner article is in direct conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling. This is exactly WHY ordinary citizens have rights to own guns. It's the last line of defense against officials who overstep their authority, as Fenty and DC Council will most likely do in passing this proposed legislation.
12 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The Acting Attorney Jerk, The Mayor and a few Council members are again attempting to impose their own will defying the Supreme Court ruling in gun owership, enacting rules/laws that they know will be in violation of that law and common sense judgement, just to extend the District misguided gun control laws. Looks like they are again attempting to extend to the criminals who care less about gun controls laws reign over the law abiding citizens of the city. Looks like the only way the City leaders will get the message when this law they will enact will be over rule in Court is for the Court to enact a large fine aganist the City, the Council,the Mayor and the Attorney General individually.
15 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The anti gun, anti freedom, anti 2nd amend & anti self defence Law makers in DC are in my opinion are close to being a bunch of freekin jack booted Nazi's ( as Hitler went as far as disarming the German population ) These people really make me sick & further more they are telling people what type of hand gun is going to be legal to own (( Only Revolvers ?? )) The NRA has a LONG way to go here !
7 agree | 5 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
You gotta be kidding me! The Supreme Court ruled that DC's storage law violates the constitution, and those nanny-staters are going to write the same unconstitutional trigger lock or disassembled crap into a new law? It is time for Congress to man-up and revoke DC home rule.
16 agree | 5 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
It is obvious that some of the DC councel members are out of touch with reality. The Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment was an individual right for self protection. Disassembling handguns until a crime is in progress is not a workable idea and will be struck down immediately. When will elected officials learn that only honest people obey laws? Criminals ignore all gun laws and count on liberal elected officials for protection against an armed populace that would not take kindly to being mugged, robbed, or otherwise endangered.
17 agree | 4 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The now former gun banned in DC has been overturned and for good reason.It was in place for 32 years and only politicians claim the it reduced crime.It is a bunch of BS and was designed to intimidate the public. The gun law was in place during the DC crack war when 500 + people were killed a year.This went on for years. Mayor Williams entered the picture and began RAZING public house projects and replaced them with homes and town homes. I call it "Urban Removal" .Those folks were given a check, kicked out and went elsewhere to live to include crime ridden PG county. Homicides are up in PG County and I wonder why? Homicides are down in the District because the projects are disappearing and so there is no one else to kill.For the last 32 years, the wrong people have had guns in the city. Criminals could give a damn about a gun ban. Chairman Gray is a fool to think that he can restrict the right of gun owners through law passed by the council. Sounds like Fenty, Lanier and Gray are bitter
27 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Brian said:
Last night, I received an email (on a group listserve) from DC Police Chief Kathy Lanier stating her disappointment in the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the handgun ban. She further reinforced that this ruling only permits DC residents to possess handguns in our homes, and not outside of our homes. Folks, never trust someone who stands before you with a sidearm strapped to his/her waist telling you that you don't have the right to the same. DC, the next mayoral election is time to oust these people from our government. And have you heard the latest? DC residents will have to pass a written exam prior to obtaining a gun registration. What's next, a written exam to enter the voters' booth?
27 agree | 7 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Brian said:
I just heard that the decision came down in favor of Heller, and I am please to know that this ruling has stood up for my right to own a handgun.
14 agree | 7 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
why was this law passed in the first place though?
8 agree | 7 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Interested Reader said:
As far as how DC could allow guns to be sold. Sales of pistols in DC can be done by the city itself. Yes the city..just as Virginia limits sales of hard liquor by the state. Pistols could be ordered at a central "store" (police station), a wait period would be required till they came in. The buyers ID, mental health and criminal record would be checked. A one gun purchase a month law like Virginia's would limit sales. A license would be issued to transport the pistol to and from the DC line to their homes (to go to a shooting range or hunting area or just personal protection carry where its legal to do so outside of the city). Only citizens of DC who are legal would be making any purchases.
9 agree | 28 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
DC bans guns, crime goes up. Yeah, great law, RIGHT!!!!!!
20 agree | 7 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Wow - it really screwed up my last post and took out the comment I had inserted. Here's another go; I fixed the first paragraph; WASHINGTON - More handguns - the primary tool of law abiding homeowners to protect themselves and their families from killers in the region, could be trafficked across the District of Columbias borders and into neighboring counties if the Districts handgun ban is overturned, county officials told The Examiner Monday.
9 agree | 8 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
“There’s already enough cross-border challenges,” said Glenn Ivey, the Prince George’s County state’s attorney. “Relaxing gun restrictions would not be helpful.” Montgomery County State’s Attorney John McCarthy said, “Because there are already so many illegal guns out there,” it would be speculative to put a number on how many handguns could come streaming across the border, but “more guns on the street in D.C. increases the potential for them to come here.” Who writes the stuff for these characters? Do they believe what they are saying? If gun control is such a good idea why is the homicide rate in DC > MD > VA? The rate is WAY lower in VA... Maybe it is the people in MD and DC who cannot be trusted with guns. Wonder which other articles of the Bill of Rights they cannot be trusted with.
12 agree | 10 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The buy-back suggestion is pretty silly. How many gun owners do you really think would be willing to sell their guns to the govt? And how many criminals? But thanks for the chuckle!
10 agree | 9 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Re Ivey- "But Ivey said many killings involving handguns are “assassinations” when the victim — often a drug dealer — is attacked from the side, or otherwise surprised, and some involve stray bullets from shootouts. “I don’t know if having [your own] gun in those situations would help,” he said" How does lifting a ban on posession inside a home, which Maryland allows anyway, have anything to do with a drug dealer getting shot on a sidewalk, since Maryland bans posession of a handgun outside of your home except in limited circumstances and pratically never issues a CCW?
11 agree | 7 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
If the word "people" in the Second Amendment's command clause: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" doesn't mean you and me as individuals, as the District contends, then the word "people" (or "person") in the first, fourth, fifth, ninth and tenth amendments doesn't mean you and me either. However one feels about guns, a DC win is a disaster for other freedoms and rights protected by the Constitution. The DC gun ban and all others like it must fall.
97 agree | 67 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
DC is out of step with the rest of the country. 40 of the 50 states, containing 66% of the American population, have enacted "shall issue" "Concealed Carry Weapons" laws. The adult, lawbiding portion of that 2 out of 3 American citizens can obtain a permit to carry a concealed firearm outside the home and it cannot be denied at any level of government, whether city, county, state, or federal. Eight more states have "discretionary" laws whereby such permits are issued at the discretion of the authorities. The two states that have no CCW laws at all, Illinois and Wisconsin, do permit the use of handguns for hunting - another legitimate use outside the home. All 50 states recognize a legitimate use for handguns outside the home. By logical extension, they recognize the possession of handguns inside the home as well. DC's effective ban on such possession inside the home, and Chicago's similar ban as well, are contrary to the practices of all of the 50 states themselves.
60 agree | 55 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Kabuki said:
Doubtful that the Supreme Court would uphold the D.C. handgun ban, but the justices may still claim the Second is NOT absolute. When it comes to federal gun laws, current laws should still be legally enforceable, but the ability to expand federal gun control will be limited. One idea that could gain ground is federal funding of gun buyback programs run by local police departments. Since buyback programs represent VOLUNTARY gun control, they cannot be challenged on 2nd Amendment grounds. Eleanor Homes Norton, the D.C. congressional delegate, has a bill that would allow federal funds for buyback programs.
70 agree | 92 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
If this law is overturned, DC can start competing with Virginia as the #1 seller of guns recovered during crimes up and down the east coast. Think of the revenue potential!
71 agree | 72 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
cityslicker said:
The replacement that was announced today was a great decision Walt Dellinger will do an excellent job not to mention he has already been involved in the process.
76 agree | 90 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
It do not matter who represent the District in their misguided attempt to keep a gun policy that will and have not prevent anything, except keeping the thugs wrecking havoc in our neighborhoods. I feel the odds are not in those misguided politicans favor.As for Phil Medelson he always seems to open his mouth when he shouldn't, get involve in things he don't have a clue in and fail to investigate and or get involve in things he should.He will never again get my vote for any offfice he runs for.
85 agree | 75 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Sepia said:
Huum, I'm wondering how long before "Mr." Nickles goes for Fenty's power? That wouldn't surprise me. He has shown to be ruthless and opportunistic. Mayor Fenty, keep your eyes open. You may end up with a title and no power.
65 agree | 90 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
BostonRay said:
This is great news! DC once again shoots itself in the foot. We in Virginia, who support the common sense of the overturned ban, really appreciate this penchant forlocal incapacity and incompetency. Getting rid of someone who has been before the SC about 20 times in favor of a local hack!? - moonbattery runs rampant across the Potomac. This ranks right in there with the smoking ban for the insane award.
83 agree | 86 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Daniel Boone said:
"Examiner Reader said: This is messed up. Personally you should re-evaluate the constitution and start forming some proper legislation that protects the citizens and not kill them and bring in a gun law. They need to have guns only approved for gun clubs where they are locked away and used in a controlled area. How are the streets controlled? I hardly think so.. Other countries have adopted the no gun law and look at their statistics.. Far better on murders, suicides and burglaries..." No, YOU are messed up! The 1st 10 Amendments to the Consitution cannot be changed without a Constitutional Convention. As far as keeping my guns at a club, NO WAY!!! I moved out of DC many years ago to get away from their childish nonsense and came to Va. And just who would you have re-write the Constitution? Hillary? Har Har.
86 agree | 88 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
So, how come a resident of McLean, Virginia, who is legally disqualified from serving as DC Attorney General, is allowed to take over "temporarily" to purge anybody who is not an absolute Fenty loyalist whatever the cost to the District's ability to win its cases? Marion Barry was corrupt in one way, but I worry that Fenty is showing the beginnings of a different corruption -- sold out not to a handful of developers, but to the big company types whom Nickels has spent his career serving. Hint to the Examiner reporting staff -- investigate the cases that Nickels quashed while Singer was in office, and then, FOLLOW THE MONEY. Could be a Pulitzer waiting for you....
98 agree | 77 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Dennis H. said:
Who will protect me? The police cannot be everywhere at once. They are better suited to drawing chalk outlines around bodies of innocent victims, a sad after-the-fact scenario. The SCOTUS has ruled that police are not liable for the protection of individuals, but for the public as a whole. The founders were very clear in their intent that "every man be armed".
103 agree | 88 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
G said:
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin People like to throw that quote around when it suits them, but when it comes to gun control they want to change the constitution.
83 agree | 69 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
This is messed up. Personally you should re-evaluate the constitution and start forming some proper legislation that protects the citizens and not kill them and bring in a gun law. They need to have guns only approved for gun clubs where they are locked away and used in a controlled area. How are the streets controlled? I hardly think so.. Other countries have adopted the no gun law and look at their statistics.. Far better on murders, suicides and burglaries...
84 agree | 134 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
The Milkman said:
Around 16% of all law enforcement fatalities using firearms are committed when the LEO's own weapon is used against him/her. And dare we mention the LEOs who murder their family members with their service weapons, commit suicide with them or lose their firearms, which are then used to commit homicides? Perhaps it is time to completely disarm D.C.'s law enforcement in order to save many LEO lives. I wonder if Deputy Chief Robinson would have the brass to disarm his own department's officers to save their lives and their families' lives, as well as enhance public safety? I didn't think so either...
109 agree | 103 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Kabuki said:
If the Supreme Court overturns D.C. gun control by adopting an individual rights view of the Second Amendment (it could happen), it could easily discourage efforts to expand direct federal control of guns, even if the justices concede that the right to bear arms is NOT absolute. There is still one way to deal with guns in American society: repeal the federal law that gives legal immunity to gunmakers and gun dealers. There are two advantages to lawsuits. First of all, they are perfectly constitutional; the Second Amendment ("A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed") is silent on question of lawsuits. Second, lawsuits can a a substitute for real gun control, especially direct federal gun control, gun licensing/registration, banning assault weapons, mandating smart-gun tech, etc.
105 agree | 151 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree