Monday, July 21, 2008

Washington DC to Supreme Court on Guns, Drop Dead

It’s easy to see that the extreme, left-wing liberals who have run Washington, D.C. into the ground and established it as the murder capital of the country have no intention of following the letter and the spirit of the 2nd Amendment that was recently upheld by the Supreme Court.

On June 10, 2008 I published a piece where I said, "It is wonderful that the decision by the Supreme Court has opened up opportunities for the NRA and other groups to challenge many existing gun laws, but it doesn't mean that the gun-control proponents have given up. They will just get even more sneaky."

Well, they have now imposed new restrictions on gun ownership that will prevent all but the most persistent to be able to have some protection in their own homes from thugs and murderers. These restrictions are a sham and a disgrace, and D.C. continues to join Massachusetts and Chicago as places where only criminals are allowed to have firearms, because criminals don’t care about laws.

In particular, read closely the experience of Heller, who filed the original complaint that led to the Supreme Court ruling.

New DC Gun Laws Remain Strict

July 16, 2008 ((Excerpts)

WASHINGTON — "The District of Columbia Council approved new firearms legislation Tuesday that will allow residents to begin applying for handgun permits this week.

The council's unanimous vote comes as officials try to comply with last month's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down the city's 32-year-old ban on handguns.

The emergency legislation will allow handguns to be kept in the home if they are used only for self-defense and carry fewer than 12 rounds of ammunition.

Handguns, as well as other legal firearms such as rifles and shotguns, also must be kept unloaded and disassembled, or equipped with trigger locks — unless there is a "reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm" in the home….

Gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Association, said at least some of the new regulations will likely be challenged.” USA Today

In addition to the absurd requirements for a permit-to-own, any person with some firearm experience knows that a locked or unloaded and dissembled weapon in the home is worse than having no weapon at all, because a normal, decent person will most likely have that weapon taken away from him as he struggles to load or unlock it. If there are children in the home or may possibly visit, the intelligent gun-owner will, of course, secure the firearm.
Heller Denied D.C. Gun Permit

July 18, 2008

Dick Heller, the plaintiff in the landmark Supreme Court decision that overturned Washington, D.C.’s 32-year-old ban on handguns and established that the 2nd Amendment provided an individual right to own guns, was denied a handgun permit by the District yesterday.

He was among the first in line Thursday morning to apply for a handgun permit. But when he tried to register his semi-automatic weapon, he says he was rejected. He says his gun has seven bullet clip. Heller says the City Council legislation allows weapons with fewer than eleven bullets in the clip. A spokesman for the DC Police says the gun was a bottom-loading weapon, and according to their interpretation, all bottom-loading guns are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns.

I suppose gun-control advocates will applaud the clearly illegal actions of the DC Police, but this is a nation of laws, not men. Below is a picture of Heller’s firearm. I recognize it as a Keltec .380, a firearm I also happen to own. It measures about 4”deep by 5” long, and is 5/8” thick. In no way can it be mistaken for a machine gun, which have been illegal throughout the U.S. for many years. The comments of the DC Police are ridiculous and deceitful.


AddThis Social Bookmark Button


At 7:40 PM, Anonymous Joe said...

I've reached a point in my life where I hate Liberals. It seems that I'm always trying to fight them on issues that affect the traditions that I have come to cherish through the years. Below is an Email that I just sent to my two area representatives
Rep. James Fagan and Sen. Marc Pacheco, both Democrats. Fortunately, these two have an "A" rating with the NRA, but still the fight is an ever ending one, especially living in a laughing-stock state run a bunch of stinking Left Wing Liberals!

Dear,(recipient's name)

Gov. Deval Patrick filed a special appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008 that would drastically increase the fees for certain firearm licenses. The cost of the License to Carry Firearms would double under the proposal, jumping from $100 (for six years) to $200 (for six years). The non-resident License to Carry Firearms fee would jump from $100 for one year to $250 for one year.
Licensed firearm dealers will also feel the bite as their license fees would be increased from $100 for three years to $250. The governor then adds a $100 inspection fee in the second and third years of the license, which would turn the current $100 three-year dealer's license into a $450 three-year license.
Last month, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment indeed guarantees American citizens the right to keep and bear arms, and experts predicted that the gun grabbers would try to use other tactics to keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens - and they were right. Not even a month has passed and the governor is already trying to tax a constitutional right out of reach.
"In light of the recent Supreme Court ruling, this new proposal from the Governor can only be viewed as an attempt to tax people out of their civil rights," said Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners' Action League. "With this new proposal, the Governor continues to demonstrate his willingness to attack lawful gun owners while doing nothing to reduce violent crime. The highest court in the nation has ruled that citizens have an individual right to possess a firearm and now our Governor is trying to tax us out of that right!"
Other New England states charge the following for a license to carry firearms: New Hampshire: $10 (good for four years); Rhode Island: $40 (good for four years); Connecticut: $35 (five years); and Maine: $35 (four years). So, while other New England residents pay an average of $7 a year for a firearms license, the governor in Mass. wants to gouge us out of $33 per year, almost five times what the residents in neighboring states pay - for a constitutional right. And then a three-year dealer license is jumping $350.
"Gov. Patrick feels he can now try to supplement the budget deficit on the backs of small mom-and-pop businesses and law-abiding gun owners," said Jake McGuigan, the director of government relations for the National Shooting Sports Foundation Director. "Clearly, the goal of this administration is to further restrict the rights of its citizens and businesses through a hefty Second Amendment tax."
As your constituent, I ask that you make sure this ridiculous tax on our rights does not pass into law. What's next? A $200 fee to peaceably assemble, choose a religion, speak your mind or publish your thoughts and ideas?

Joseph Alves Jr.


Post a Comment

<< Home