D.C. Gun Law Ban Attacked (Allen wants handguns legal in DC)

[Virginian]

Virginia Sen. George Allen wants to repeal D.C.'s law banning handguns inside the city.
<Snip>
D.C. Police Chief Charles Ramsey and other city leaders have fought similar efforts in the past.

http://www.nbc4.com/news/4507027/detail.html

He has a news conference scheduled for later today. More info then.

The city has laws against handguns and wants it to stay that way.
Allen is trying to curry favor with the NRA.

This is the same DC that changed the name of it's Basketball team from Bullets to Wizards because the previous name implied too much violence.

To my knowledge, handguns are not used in gun sports, they are used in committing crimes, in law enforcement and in self defense.
Does this imply that DC will get it's law enforcement budget cut (by congress) and more people will NEED guns for self defense?

DC does NOT have a Senator to challenge him on this. DC has NO representation in the Senate at all! They have one NON-VOTING representative in the House. Allen is picking on a jurisdiction that cannot defend itself against him.

[paineinthearse]

1. Again?

DC has no home rule. The rethugs gutted the DC statutes last year. for full accounting, go to www.commondreamscommonsense.com and search for posts under my same handle.

[Virginian]

2. Link?

I am not getting anything when I click on your link. Is it all one word? Is it .com or .org?

[DoNotRefill]

3. We've seen how well banning handguns works...

if you look at the DC handgun crime rate, where handguns made after 1976 are completely illegal, and at the suburbs around DC, where handguns can be obtained legally with relative ease, we'll find that the handgun crime rate is much lower in DC than it is in the suburbs, right? Right???

[WhiteTara]

4. Ann Coulter was probably behind that bill

because she loves the idea of killing liberals.

[DoNotRefill]

5. Ever listen to the Clash's "Guns of Brixton"?

Given the environment today, do you REALLY want to see only the far-right gun nuts with the guns?

So how you gonna go?

[WhiteTara]

26. as far away as I can get

[DoNotRefill]

53. Heh....

well, the New Mexico desert, where I hear they have some of the FEMA camps set up, is pretty far away...

[DoNotRefill]

6. BTW:

Handguns are indeed used for sporting purposes, to the point that there are handgun events at the Olympics.

DC has some of the highest victimization rates of anyplace in the country. It's one of the few places in the US where legal gun owners are not allowed to defend their own lives or the lives of their children in their own homes with a long gun, much less a handgun.

Look at the crime rate in DC between 1976 and 2005. Did the crime rate go up? Did it go up by more than a little? Why is that? Part of it is the drug war. And part of it is that criminals no longer have to worry about being shot by people who obey the laws, since it's illegal to shoot criminals there even to save your own life while in your own home.

You say that handguns are used for self-defense. That, to me, is the best reason to have them. Sporting uses? Who gives a shit, when your life is at risk???

[losdiablosgato]

11. I have twice in my live pulled guns on someone who threatened me

This happened in two seperate incidents about 8 years apart. I did not even have to point it at them. I just showed that I was armed and prepared, they left. Rather quickly at that too.

[DoNotRefill]

12. It's funny how that works....

eom

[losdiablosgato]

13. I assume the left the stove on or something

:)

[DoNotRefill]

15. or the coffee machine or Iron....

eom

[losdiablosgato]

16. The first time I did not have a pistol.

I pulled a winchester 30-30 from my truck. That got their complete undivided attention in about 1 nano second.

[Judi Lynn]

28. Who hasn't? n/t

[makhno]

18. Exactly

I have yet to see a report linking prohibition of gun ownership to a reduction in crime. If anything, and just as with drugs, the criminalization of gun ownership merely creates an additional avenue for criminal enterprise, filling up jails and diverting already scarce law enforcement resources from other beats.

Banning guns is a feel-good, band-aid measure that fails to address the true causes of inner-city violence, such as poverty and lack of opportunity.

[Lilith Velkor]

58. Ramsey and his thugs would have a harder time pushing us around

That's what this is about.

[Romulus]

7. why I refuse to live in DC

Banning our best means to self defense (even in our home home, no less, including shotguns), and forcing us, by law, to put our family members' lives completely in the hands of Chief Ramsey & Co., who have no enforcable legal obligation to come to our aid.

DC is still losing residents, even with its "renaissance." I wonder why . . .

[forgethell]

8. This should pass.

Watch crime take a dip in DC immediately.

[DoNotRefill]

9. there'd be a six month learning curve....

and then, you're right, crime would drop drastically.

[onenote]

10. it should pass only if DC voters change the law

Even accepting that you support changing the law, how can you support having it changed by Congress rather than by the DC City Council? If San Francisco passes a gun ban, should Congress intervene in that one? Shades of Terri Schiavo -- let's let Congress decide everything....

onenote

[DoNotRefill]

14. Umm, if the law infringes upon the Federal Constitutional civil liberties

Goddamned right the Federal government needs to step in....Who was it that said "Segregation now, Segregation tomorrow, and Segregation forever" or something like that? Yeah, the Big Bad Fed stepped in and squashed that shit flat, and that's a GOOD thing.

The Bill of Rights stands or falls as one unit.

[forgethell]

17. Actually, yes

the right to k eep and bear arms is a federal one. Why should states and localities have the ability to nullify it?

[onenote]

19. because a federal court upheld the DC law

against a challenge based on the second amendment. The arguments for the federal government reversing DC's law are sounding more and more Schiavo-like to me. (Let's overturn decision under Florida right to die law because it conflicts with federal right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness)....

onenote

[Virginian]

20. Thank you onenote, You get it.

This isn't about whether handguns should or should not be allowed in DC, it is about George Allen, who doesn't live there, making that decision for the DC residents. They don't want the handguns legal, that has already been decided.

Allen is acting like a bully, the great white father, trying to force rules on DC that they don't want. Their choice is being overturned because he has political ambitions. DC can't fight back against this bully.

George Allen is not being kind to anyone. He is not standing up for anyone's rights. No one has asked him to give DC the right to legal handguns. He has a history of racism, DC has a high non-white population, draw your own conclusions.

I am not anti-gun, but there is a place for everything. Don't force guns laws, either way, on people who don't want them.

For the man who didn't want to move to DC because he couldn't take his gun, Why would you want to move to an area where you had no congressional representation. DC residents have only been allowed to vote for the President for less than 40 years. In only three elections has their candidate won. It is ironic isn't it that the seat of government has no voice in that government.

[Romulus]

32. sorry but "forcing gun laws" = "forcing civil rights laws"

I have to disagree with you on this one.

Ensuring a right to choose is not the same as "forcing a choice."

Laws ensuring a right to choose reproductive freedoms, or choose religious beliefs, or choose to be an "out of the closet" homosexual do not impose any choices on those not wishing to make the choice.

DC residents "choosing" to ban individual self-defense in their political area is akin to Colorado voters "choosing" to ban homosexuality in their political area, or "X state" voters "choosing" to ban reproductive freedom in their states. All are wrong.

Edited to add:

I would gladly live in a non-corrupt, progressive city (like Seattle) that respected ALL of my rights.

[DoNotRefill]

21. I'd remind you of a case called "Plessy v. Ferguson"

Why shouldn't DC residents have the same right to self-defense as everybody else in the country? What is the purpose of disarming mostly minorities and poor people?

[onenote]

22. and I'll remind you of Brown v. Board

Congress didn't overturn Plessy. The Supreme Court did. Its what separation of powers is all about in this country and while sometimes it means that things move more slowly than they would otherwise, sometimes (as in the case of Civil Rights) it is the courts, not Congress that forces change. So I prefer to respect separation of powers and if advocates of second amendment rights can find a way to bring the DC gun law case back up through the courts to the Supreme's and they get a ruling striking down the DC ban, then I'm going to have to live with it, the people of DC are going to have to live with it, and members of the US Congress who favor gun control are going to have to live with it. In the meantime, however, I suggest that George Allen and his crew should learn to live with the law as it stands today and not try to usurp the democratic rights of the citizens of DC or the role of the courts.

onenote

[DoNotRefill]

23. Heh.

"Its what separation of powers is all about in this country and while sometimes it means that things move more slowly than they would otherwise, sometimes (as in the case of Civil Rights) it is the courts, not Congress that forces change."

So it was the courts that put forth the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

[onenote]

27. and wasn't the Civil Rights Act a NATIONAL law

First - the Civil Rights Act was enacted 10 years after the courts confirmed that discrimination was unconsitutional. Still waiting for the Supremes to interpret the 2nd Amendment to guarantee a right to private handgun ownership.

And,second, if Congress wants to enact national legislation "enforcing" the "constitutional right to bear arms" they should do so. Enacting legislation aimed at one jurisdiction -- and the one that doesn't have voting representation in Congress -- is bullshit.

onenote

[DoNotRefill]

42. But the Jim Crow laws were both State and Municipal in origin....

so the precedent CERTAINLY exists.


BTW, SCOTUS has been studiously avoiding the Second Amendment ever since Miller in 1939.....because once it happens and the Second Amendment is Incorporated with most of the rest of the BoR, the States with strict gun control laws on the books are going to start bellowing like branded cattle...

[forgethell]

29. The three branches

are co-equal. Judges are only human and make mistakes, too.

[onenote]

30. another vote for Teri's law?

Sure judges are human. So we have an appeals court. And a supreme court above that. And a constitutional amendment process. But if the courts rule that the 2nd amendment doesn't prevent a state or local government from banning handgun ownership, and Congress doesn't like that outcome, let them pass a nationally applicable law barring all states and local governments from restricting handgun ownership. To pass a law directed at the one jurisdiction whose citizens don't have voting representation in Congress is bull.

onenote

[forgethell]

34. For your information, the Constitution

give Congress authority over DC.

Section 8 Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--

Congress was well within its rights. Or don't you believe in the Constitution?

[onenote]

36. I believe that Congress should be consistent

While the Constitution gives Congress power to act as the ultimate legislative authority over DC, it does not do so. Congress has chosen to accord DC a measure of home rule rather than treating it as a slave colony. So when Congress decides to decide for the citizens of DC whether they should or should not adopt a lawful (as far as the courts are concerned) gun control provision or to deal with civil unions or anything else, I'm offended. And I think most people who believe in representative democracy should be offended too.

onenote

[MudBug]

24. Hanguns not used in gun sports?

What are these?

http://www.idpa.com/menu.htm

http://www.ipsc.org/

http://www.uspsa.org/

http://www.sassnet.com/

Preaching from a soapbox built from ignorance will never make you look smart.

[YankeeFan]

25. And This International Body as Well...

The Olympics:

http://www.olympic.org/uk/sports/programme/disciplines_uk.asp?DiscCode=SH


I hate to say it, but that remark of yours about hanguns and gun sports is making the cons laughing like a bunch of sick hyenas.

[northzax]

31. there is not a single publically accessibly shooting range in DC

There is no place in DC, in the entire district, where you can legally use handguns for sport. So that arguement fails.

[Romulus]

33. plenty of them in MD and VA

One less than 20min away . . .

And DC allows ownership of certain rifles and shotguns (but bars their use in self-defense of the home, but it's A-OK for businesses :eyes:),

but there are no skeet, trap, or target ranges in the District.

Edited to add:

During the House deabte on this bill, DC's delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton stated that DC "encourages" target shooting with rifles. This "encouragement" is given despite the fact that there are no target shooting ranges in DC.

[-..__...]

38. Is that the NRA range in Fairfax?

What better place for newbies to learn firearms safety and hone their shooting skills? (and they don't even have to be an NRA member).


http://www.nrahq.org/shootingrange/nrahqrange/

Come and shoot on one of the most technically advanced, user-friendly indoor shooting ranges in the country -- right in the basement of NRA Headquarters!

The 12-position NRA Range is open to the public and offers:

The NRA Range is one of the few 50-yard indoor ranges available to the public. Five-foot-wide, individually ventilated shooting booths are wheelchair-accessible and provide ample room for position pistol and rifle shooting. The automatic target retrieval system will place targets at any distance in one-foot increments from 3 to 150 feet. The unique backstop and sound baffling systems allow you to shoot rifle calibers up to and including .460 Weatherby Magnum!

The NRA Range is open to the general public -- NRA members and non-members -- for recreational shooting, and is also used for a variety of programs including NRA Basic Firearm Training Courses, competitions, league shooting, junior shooting programs, NRA Instructor Training Courses, NRA Coach Schools, shooting clinics and more.

[Romulus]

41. not what I was thinking of

I was thinking of Gilbert's range in Lorton (VA) (near I95 & FFX Cnty Pkwy).

I forgot about the NRA range in Fairfax (VA). Also, Blue Ridge in Chantilly (VA) and Clark Brothers out in Warrenton (VA) (considered DC area- yikes!). Annandale Small Arms range (VA) may have lost their lease, but they were open since the 1950's or something.

There is also a different Gilbert's in Rockville (MD); On Target in Odenton (MD), and Maryland Small Arms Range in Upper Marlboro(MD).

And that's just the "close-in" areas around DC. . .I haven't even started on the other MD ranges (almost half as many as VA, though MD is about 1/3 the physical size of VA).

MD, that would be a BLUE state . . .

[DoNotRefill]

43. Yeah, but....

they got real pissy whenever I took beltfeds in there...

[rinsd]

47. How can you have a pubically accessible range?

When public ownership of handguns is banned?

Remove the ban and it will be possible to actually build a range.

[ovidsen]

56. That's the fun of living in the DC area...

If you live in Md., or Va., you can own a handgun, easy. Heck, in Va., you can even carry one around (as long as it isn't concealed) without a permit, as long as you're not, say, a convicted felon:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47809-2004Nov13.html

(free registration needed), or try this:

http://www.vcdl.org/

(item at bottom of page)

If you don't like DC gun laws, just move to Arlington, Alexandria or Fairfax. Easy commute to Capitol Hill. 2 freeways, 3 Metro lines!

[Virginian]

37. To my knowledge...

No wonder I hadn't heard of them, they are all based in either in California, red central states or Canada. Thank you for letting me know. Too bad you were so nasty about it.

The only gun owners I know are hunters. That is their sport and they don't use pistols. I personally couldn't shoot an animal. If I owned a gun for protection, I probably couldn't shoot a person.

Do you know of any of these training clubs that are near large urban cities like DC. I see a branch of one located in western Pennsylvania, but that is a day's drive from DC.

Do you even know what it is like to live in a densely populated area like DC? Children have been killed while sitting in their living rooms watching TV. Stray bullets from drug disputes have gone through apartment windows killing indiscriminately. If a bullet doesn't hit its intended target, the chances are high that someone will get hurt. I think this is why the DC residents quoted, the Mayor, the Chief of Police, the non-voting Congressional representative are all in favor of the ban.

I personally do not live in DC. I don't think I have the right to tell them which laws they can make. I don't think my ambitious Neo-con Senator, George Allen (R) has that right either. Congress sets the budget for DC. I think this is a preamble to this Republican Congress cutting the budget for Law Enforcement in DC.

I didn't think it was fair that they named Washington National Airport after Ronald Reagan. The airport is in Arlington, Virginia and it was not theirs to rename. A couple of years ago, Bob Barr decided to tell Arlington to name its airport metro stop after Reagan as well. He was going to withold DC's metro funding if Arlington, Virginia didn't do as he said. I think it would have only been fair if Senator Chuck Robb(D) VA, and Rep James Moran(D) Arlington, VA, had made a deal that we would change the name of our metro stop if he would change the name of the Atlanta airport to William Jefferson Clinton Atlanta Airport.

DC needs adequate representative in Congress. That won't happen with the Republicans in charge, DC is very blue and would only elect Democrats. This could be part of the payback for DC's 3 electoral votes going to Kerry.

[NickB79]

40. Hunters don't use handguns?

Many, many states allows handgun usage for hunting deer and bear in season. Why do you think they make massive .44 mag and .500 S&W revolvers for? No one serious about self-defense would carry one of these when there are better alternatives.

"Stray bullets from drug disputes have gone through apartment windows killing indiscriminately."

Focus on the underlying issues of poverty that drive the drug trade and you won't have drug dealers spraying rounds down your streets. Gun control is just a band-aid approach to stopping crime if you don't attack the central issue that people need money to live, and will do what they can to get it.

[Virginian]

46. Tell it to George Allen

Focus on the underlying issues of poverty that drive the drug trade and you won't have drug dealers spraying rounds down your streets. Gun control is just a band-aid approach to stopping crime if you don't attack the central issue that people need money to live, and will do what they can to get it.

That might be a better thing for him to stick his nose into. But he won't, it doesn't fit his right wing agenda.

This is not a discussion on whether or not they should have gun control or what guns are used where. I have stated that I am not a hunter and could not shoot an animal. If you are, good for you, that is your right. Not owning a gun of any kind and not being in that circle does not prevent me from being outraged that this up and coming idiot of the neo-cons is trying to impose his will on the people of DC who are defenseless against him.

If you like him, you can vote for him in the next presidential election. They are grooming him for the ticket. He is posturing to get his name in the media. He follows the neo-cons in lock step on every issue. I don't like him, I didn't vote for him for Governor, I didn't vote for him for Senator. I won't vote for him for President or VP.

[DoNotRefill]

52. a broken clock....

is right twice a day.

Somebody mentioned Bob Barr in this thread, right? Does everybody here think that no matter what Bob Barr says or does, you automatically oppose it? Well, hate to tell you this, but for a while after he left office, he was working for.....
.
.
.
.
.
.
drum roll........
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Wait for it........
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Yup, the answer is: The ACLU. What was he doing? Supporting the ACLU's position on privacy issues.

[DoNotRefill]

45. well...

"If I owned a gun for protection, I probably couldn't shoot a person."

That's the best reason in the world why you should NOT own a gun.

"Do you even know what it is like to live in a densely populated area like DC?"

Yup, lived there, inside the beltway, for years.

"I think this is why the DC residents quoted, the Mayor, the Chief of Police, the non-voting Congressional representative are all in favor of the ban."

Either that, or they don't want to get shot by a law abiding citizen while breaking the law...

"DC is very blue and would only elect Democrats."

That's why they NEED to be able to buy guns legally. Think about it...if only the Conservatives have guns, when they come to round us up, it'll be genocide instead of civil war. At least with both sides armed, they can't just walk over us and shove us into the camps without taking losses themselves...

[slackmaster]

54. I don't see a downside to repealing the ban

Do you even know what it is like to live in a densely populated area like DC? Children have been killed while sitting in their living rooms watching TV....

That happens even with the gun ban in place because violent criminals A) don't care about the law and B) have little trouble obtaining guns and bringing them into the city illegally.

If the DC gun ban is repealed, people with criminal records will still not be able to legally buy or possess handguns, but honest people will. It may not help the crime situation in any measurable way but there is no reason to believe it will make things any worse; and giving citizens a wider range of choices is inherently good.

[Lilith Velkor]

59. If it were up to DC voters

Drugs would be legal and we'd have a public hospital.

[Romulus]

35. *updated info*

http://www.wtop.com/?sid=521525&nid=25

*snip*

The bill would enable city residents to keep handguns in their homes for personal protection. Most private handgun ownership in the district has been prohibited by law since 1976.

"Crack down on the criminal as opposed to taking away the rights of law-abiding citizens," said Sen. George Allen, R-Va.

"A law-abiding citizen is not going to use a gun to settle a domestic disturbance," said Allen, who suggested city residents get gun safety training before acquiring weapons.

Suggested? I think DC should follow the MD law requiring proof of safety training before a person could buy/receive a handgun. Another good idea would be to follow the PA/MD examples and have all handgun transfers between non-family members recorded by law enforcement (NOT the same as "gun registration").

[Lazpash]

44. I think placing "roadblocks" is a poor idea

I mean, I'm ALL FOR training, but safely handling firearms isn't rocket science. Plus, MOST "training" that is "formal" is going to place more $$ into the NRA coffers... does THAT sound like a good idea? Plus, the way things are occurring in Ohio (fairly recently passed a CHL law that "requires" fairly extensive/expensive training)

To obtain a DECENT (not GOOD, just DECENT) handgun it runs at LEAST $200, training Costs $130-$300 and the actual license runs $45 (for now).

So a LOT of poor people who PROBABLY MOST NEED to carry for their safety can't AFFORD to OBTAIN the TRAINING.

I went through the training, and learned NOTHING NEW ... all GOOD info, and had I NOT known it, I'd have been well-prepared) so I just handed the NRA $25 and the instructor $125.... for NO value OTHER than being able to legally obtain a CHL. Plus I basically wasted 12+ hours of my life... for nothing BEYOND some legal "BS". (But then I grew up w/firearms (dad in OSHP) and know how to deal with them safely. That won't be the case w/many, however the MAJORITY of folks who go to the trouble of GETTING a firearm WILL find someone to give them the "rundown" on how to use them safely. (Current/former LEO they know, a relative etc...) and like I said, it's just NOT rocket science, people.

And in states where they do NOT "require" training to obtain either a firearm OR a CHL, there's not "mass casualties" because of the lack of "formal training" ... in fact, I think LESS is probably learned/retained in a "classroom" setting (w/20-40 "students") than in more informal one on one type "training" one receives. Probably causing MORE problems by "requiring" training than we'd have if none were "REQUIRED", but people would get a "pal" or an uncle, sister neighbor to "train" them.

[DoNotRefill]

48. Ahhhh...more of the "if they do this, blood will run in the streets!" bs

I especially love it when they quote Sarah Brady, whose husband worked for that ultra-progressive Democrat Ronald Reagan, and who has run BY FAR the most sucessful false flag operation against Democrats in the history of our party...

[Zorra]

39. Legal handguns in an overwhelmingly "Blue" city where republican

politicians are working day and night to figure out new ways to oppress the poor. Hmmm....

Sounds to me like George Allen has a great idea!}(

[Bridget Burke]

49. "Hutchison, Cornyn zero in on D.C. handgun ban"

WASHINGTON - U.S. Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn are sticking to their guns, quite literally, with a renewed effort to repeal a handgun ban in the District of Columbia.

Hutchison brought along her .357-caliber Magnum revolver when she moved to Washington from Austin in 1993 and was annoyed to learn the capital doesn't allow homeowners to keep sidearms at their residences.

"I had to dismantle it" and bring it back to Texas, she said Thursday in unveiling new legislation to repeal the weapon ban.

Before she adopted her two children, she "always had a handgun in the drawer next to my bed," she said. Hutchison is considering a 2006 run for Texas governor.

www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/3190420

Cornyn can be relied upon to do the Wrong Thing. Perhaps KBH is accentuating her machismo for the run for Governor. Shrub's support of the "right to carry" helped him beat Ann Richards.

[DoNotRefill]

50. What's so pathetic is...

that this isn't even a CCW law, it's a law allowing people to possess handguns IN THEIR OWN FRIGGING HOMES.

[pinkpops]

51. I wonder how the Senator would feel about letting "law abiding

citizens" bring their pistols into his office or the Senate gallery?

[Virginian]

57. You "get" it.

It isn't really about guns, it is about the rights of citizens to decide local ordinances for themselves.
If Allen overturns the handgun laws or ordinances for DC, it should include the Capitol which just happens to be IN DC and "law abiding citizens" who are allowed to carry handguns should also be allowed to carry them into the Capitol. Of all places to violate 2nd Amendment rights! How dare they!

(I don't really think guns should be allowed in the Capitol, I was just playing with previous logic.)

[Karenina]

55. Reduce

the "excess" population. :SIGH:

[mitchum]

60. Well, Norquist does have to walk around DC without taxpayer-funded...

bodyguards. So, this may not be a bad idea. Not that I'm advocating anything...

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.