DC residents can start applying for gun permits

[Squatch]

:thumbsup:
---------

WASHINGTON (AP) - Police in the District of Columbia are set to begin registering residents for handguns Thursday now that the district's 32-year-old ban has been lifted.

Besides obtaining paperwork to buy new handguns, residents also can register firearms they've had illegally under a 180-day amnesty period.

It comes after the District of Columbia Council approved new firearms legislation Tuesday and as officials try to comply with last month's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down the city's ban on handguns.

Link

[Captain Hilts]

1. They could always get on the subway and buy them in MD and VA.

They should be allowed to own flintlocks, as implied in the Constitution.

[ThomWV]

2. No they shouldn't

They should be allowed to bear arms, as STATED in the Constitution, not implied.

[Squatch]

3. I'm of the opinion that the Bill of Rights does not "allow" citizens anything

but rather disallows the government from infringing upon its citizens' natural rights.

[DailyGrind51]

4. Actually, it was misspelled in the CONSTITUTION,

it was supposed to read "bare" arms, so that they didn't have to wear those long-sleeved garments in the heat of summer. ;-)

[Captain Hilts]

5. Agreed. Flintlocks in a well regulated militia.

[Dimensio0]

8. I do not believe that you have read the actual Amendment.

The Second Amendment makes no exclusive reference to flintlocks. The Second Amendment states that the right of the people to keep and bear "arms" shall not be infringed. Additionally, a well-regulated militia is stated as a justification for a prevention of infringement of that right, but the Amendment does not require any individual to be a member of a militia in order to receive the benefit of protection from infringement from the governmen of that right.

[baldguy]

15. Have you read the actual Amendment?

Or are you just reading things that aren't there?

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Clearly the "well regulated militia" is stated nowhere as being a justification to prevent the supposed infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. It is there because of the "necessary to the security of a free State".

People have the right to keep & bear arms for the DEFENSE OF THE NATION, not to enable them to form an armed insurrection against the government.

[Mike L]

17. Well, that was true before Scalia's decision. Now hunting and self-defense

are constitutional rights. Scalia's decision expanded the constitutional right to own guns. That's rather ironic since Scalia always said he is a strict constructionist who does not believe in the SCOTUS creating new law.

[Dimensio0]

21. You have not demonstrated that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"

is contingent upon service in a militia.

[baldguy]

23. Thats the whole point of the Amendment.

While the gun porn nuts would have us believe that "militia" portion is only incidental the "keep and bear arms" portion, in fact its precisely the reverse. The whole reason for the existence of Second Amendment is to set up the basic relationship between "the people" and "the security of a free State".

By continually & consistently ignoring the first clause of this simple English sentence, you ignore the entire meaning of the whole thing.

[Dimensio0]

25. Then you should be able to cite factual justification of your position.

Please do so by citing references from contemporaries to the writing of the Second Amendment that can credibly support your specific interpretation of "the people" within the Second Amendment referring only to members of a militia, despite the phrase "the people" referring to all individuals without restriction in every other instance within the Constitution and its Amendments.

[baldguy]

26. Again: have you read the actual Amendment?

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A simple English sentence.

If the Founders had wanted the people to have an unrestricted right to keep & bear arms, then they would have said so by making it read simply "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." They didn't. Why? What does that first part that you're totally ignoring mean anyway? Why is it there?

[slackmaster]

27. The first part explains why it is important for the nation that the people have the RKBA

The right to keep and bear arms already existed when it was written.

If the Founders had wanted the people to have an unrestricted right to keep & bear arms...

Straw Man.

[baldguy]

32. So, the necessity for national security is just a hook to hang your right to fuck your gun?

That's the tail wagging the dog.

[slackmaster]

33. Security of the state includes security of communities, neighborhoods, families, and individuals

The "collective" right to security means nothing unless it applies to everyone.

[baldguy]

35. The collective right to security requires a collective responsibility to ensure it.

In 1789 we joined militias; in 2008 we pay taxes that pay for an army.

In light of the fact that we spend trillions of dollars for professional soldiers to defend our country, "The right of the People to keep and bear arms" in defense of the nation is an obsolete concept. Nothing available to the public is comparable to the firepower available to a modern army.

[slackmaster]

36. The state militia system is still alive but that's beside the point because it's an individual right

"The right of the People to keep and bear arms" in defense of the nation is an obsolete concept.

Well then, you shouldn't have much trouble getting the Second Amendment repealed, should you?

:hi:

[Dimensio0]

40. I have, in fact, read the amendment.

The amendment states a justification for protection of an inherent right -- that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state -- and then defines the specific right that is declared to be protected from infringement: the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

[One_Life_To_Give]

38. We have a right to What?

We have an inalianable right to go fight and die in the defence of the nation, is the whole point of the second ammendment? If that was Madison's intent he sounds no better than the King we had just gotten rid of. Inalianable right to go die for some fat ass sitting back in a castle some where.

[Ikonoklast]

14. No radio or TV mentioned in the Constitution, either.

No Intraweb, either.

By your argument, free speech doesn't extend to those media.

Fail.

[wuushew]

12. Be careful being a literalist though, English may significantly evolve in the coming centuries

So that the Constitution reads like middle-English Shakespear.

Note the following word changes:


Word ______ Original Meaning

Awful________ Deserving of awe

Bead _________Prayer

Brave_________ Cowardice (as in bravado)

Girl__________ Young person of either sex

Neck_________ Parcel of land (as in neck of the woods)

Nuisance______ Injury, harm

Sophisticated___Corrupted



http://ezinearticles.com/?-Etymology--How-Words-Change-Over-Time&id=12709

[MyNameGoesHere]

29. Ummm bear arms. Yummy. I like bear ass also. n/t

[SteveM]

9. And you, a wooden printing press (nt)

[aikoaiko]

13. Right,,,, as if rights are technology bound. Do you think the 1st doesn't protect digital speech?

[benEzra]

19. Yup. And if they want to exercise their First Amendment rights,

they can write some stuff on parchment with a quill pen and post it on a wall somewhere, instead of posting it on the Internet.

[texasleo]

6. I hope the bad guys don't get guns now.

:eyes:

[wvbygod]

7. Yeah, the bad guys were waiting for it to be legal

When guns are outlawed....

[SteveM]

10. Uh, you might want to re-think your hopes. They already have them (nt)

[NickB79]

24. Yeah, felons are going to be lining up for background checks in police stations

So they can commit more crimes with LEGAL guns.

Because you know how obsessed criminals are with obeying the law and such :eyes:

[baldguy]

11. A gun permit in DC should be like a marijuana tax stamp.

They exist theoretically, but are impossible to get.

[benEzra]

20. Why "should"? (n/t)

[Dimensio0]

22. Your analogy is interesting.

Why do you suggest that a Washington DC issued firearms permit "should" be like an implementation that was ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court? Do you believe it is preferrable that the District of Columbia expend further financial resources, supported by taxpayers, upon an ultimately doomed legal battle? Additionally, why do you advocate practices that demonstrably violate the United States Constitution?

[Blue_Tires]

28. lol at the spelling

[Mike L]

16. Obama says DC ban was illegal all along......

From NY Sun...

"Contrary to his previous announcements: Mr. Obama now favors capital punishment, if not for murderers, at least for child rapists; he now thinks maintaining a mother's mental health is no reason for an abortion; far from poking fun at those who "cling to guns," he now says he thinks the Washington D.C., handgun ban was illegal all along; far from sneering at those who "cling to religion," he has cozied up to evangelical Christians and encouraged "faith based initiatives;" he now believes public campaign financing is too flawed to accept; he now thinks it rash to take tea with the world's tyrants without "preparations."

Most important of all, at least to his battalions of young volunteers, he is now not sure he can order a couple of brigades’ home from Iraq safely every month. His previous position, that he would tell the top brass to proceed with a total withdrawal from Iraq with immediate effect, is to be "revised." "


I like Obama's new positions, except for Iraq. I'm still for an immediate withdrawal of all US troops. I don't like sucking up to the fundies though.

[Mike L]

18. Mr. AdBot, I thought you were going to say......

Join the US Army.

[michreject]

30. Heller denied again in DC

http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=74036&catid=158

DC Rejects Handgun Application

WASHINGTON (WUSA) -- District residents can start registering their guns
today. But at least one very high profile application was already rejected.

Dick Heller is the man who brought the lawsuit against the District's
32-year-old ban on handguns. 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.

Rest of article at:



Round 2:popcorn:

[wvbygod]

31. The DC city council is comprised of idiots and powermongers

Makes you wonder how they got the job in the first place.

[baldguy]

34. I guess their interpretation of their job is to protect their citizens.

And they got their jobs by winning an election. That's how things work in a democracy.

[wvbygod]

37. Forcing a citizen to be unarmed against predators is NOT protection

Predators, rapists and others that would bring harm or death to an unarmed citizen
just love the pompous morons that provide them easy prey.

I'm sure these elite council members are well protected while their sheep are
left to fall victim to the wolves. How you can defend their anti constitutional
stance is disturbing.

[One_Life_To_Give]

39. If Semi's a grouped with MG's DC owes us big bucks

If all of those Semi's ploice are carrying around a "Machine Guns" then doesn't DC Police owe the treasury Big Bucks (A couple hundred per gun) under the old National Firearms Act?

[spin]

41. You can apply but you can't ever register...

Kinda like "You can check out but you can't ever leave" D.C. will make that registration process such a nightmare that the average honest citizen will not even try to negotiate the hurdles.

In the end, you'll be able to register a handgun if you're rich and well connected. After all, only rich and well connected people count in this world. Why should the wage slaves have the right to defend themselves. Just keep them in the dark and feed them bullshit...the mushroom theory of politics.