DC tightens gun rules after landmark court ruling

[granuale]

Didn't see this posted and the new search results are very difficult to determine so anyway. From here.

DC tightens gun rules after landmark court ruling
Dec. 16, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) — The District of Columbia Council passed more regulations for gun owners Tuesday, months after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the city's 32-year-old handgun ban.
Among other things, the bill requires gun owners to register their weapons every three years and receive training by a certified firearms instructor.
"This bill will be, I think, one of the most progressive registration laws in the country," Council member Phil Mendelson said.
The National Rifle Association accused the city of forcing residents to jump through unnecessary hurdles, thereby undermining the intent of the Supreme Court's ruling in June that affirmed the right of Americans to keep guns in the home for self defense.
"The D.C. Council continues to try to make it harder and harder for law-abiding citizens to access this freedom," NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said.
In September, the House passed an NRA-backed bill that would have essentially stripped the city of its ability to regulate firearms, but the measure died in the Senate.
D.C. leaders say they are trying to be respectful of the Supreme Court case while doing everything they can to enact strict gun control measures in a city where gun violence is common.
"No constitutional right is absolute, nor is this right to possess a gun in the home for self defense," said councilwoman Mary Cheh, a law professor at George Washington University.
Since the handgun ban was overturned, the council has passed legislation allowing residents to own most semiautomatic pistols while banning magazines capable of firing more than 10 rounds. Registration also is limited to one pistol a month, and gun owners face prosecution if they fail to keep loaded weapons away from children.
Tuesday's bill builds on those regulations. It requires gun owners to spend at least one hour at the firing range and four hours in the classroom with an instructor before registration. The bill also requires a criminal background check for gun owners every six years.

[Ten*K]

I bet their attitudes would change if folks started breaking into THEIR homes and doing bad things to them.

[P-11 shooter]

"No constitutional right is absolute- Mary Cheh, a law professor at George Washington University.

Uh.............................. yeah...........................................




WTF!

[Brown-Bear]

Who the hell does his Cheh woamn think she is? Since when is a constitutional right not absolute. So it would be okay with her to restrict free speech? Search and seizure? This kind of crap really sticks in my crawl. It just goes to show you that not even a ruling handed by the highest court in the land will stop these ass clowns from doing what they do.

So, My next question is this. If this is the measure of their resolve, what will be the measure of yours? I'm sure we could all be doing more to comabt these issues.

Dave W.

[gander215]

I bet their attitudes would change if folks started breaking into THEIR homes and doing bad things to them.

+1 for that. If it's not a problem for them right now and there they will be against it hardcore until something happens to them and thier's. When this happens everything will change to "We need to protect ourselves from the evil among us, at all costs." One day their tune will change, but it will be too late. Like putting and alarm in your home after you were robbed. -BB

[Siobhra]

As a member of the ruling elite they have bodyguards who are armed. And a lot of the anti leaders have guns. But they are special and as so they have special needs. You and I are common and don't need special protection.

You all seem to keep forgetting that.

[mjfletcher]

Uh.............................. yeah...........................................




WTF!

I know its a played out cliche, but try yelling "FIRE!!!!" in a crowded theater. Free speech says you should be completely able to do that with no repurcussions, but due to the panic i can cause and potential for resulting in life threatening injuries its not. Every right has reasonable/common sense restrictions placed on them, so she's right about rights not being absolute. Sadly, the anti's will stretch reason and common sense till they break.

[Adam-12]

I know its a played out cliche, but try yelling "FIRE!!!!" in a crowded theater.

The reason you can't yell "fire!" in a crowded movie theater is that it violates the property rights of the theater's owner. He admitted you onto his property with the understanding that you'll keep your mouth shut and watch the movie. That's not a limitation on free speech--Oliver Wendell Holmes was a totalitarian moron.

Speaking of that moron Ollie, there's no such thing as a "right to swing your arm." Since there's no such right, it doesn't actually end at the tip of my nose. We both have the right not to be assaulted. Swinging your arm is something you're free to do if it doesn't violate anyone else's rights--it in itself is not a right.

Similarly, our right not to be assaulted means that we can't go around shooting people. That's not a limitation on the 2A guarantee to keep and bear arms.

In short, our rights most certainly are absolute. Clever sound-bites that suggest otherwise always start out by misrepresenting what our rights are in the first place.

[DaveM55]

D.C. leaders say they are trying to be respectful of the Supreme Court case while doing everything they can to enact strict gun control measures in a city where gun violence is common.

And just look what their "leadership" (or lack there of) has accomplished

[markheck1]

I don't think it's lack of leadership, I think it's an overabundance of it, just in the wrong direction...