Sunday, June 29, 2008

D.C.'s Gun Registration Pamphlet

Registering a firearm in D.C.

So now that the 2nd Amendment has been affirmed as an individual right we get to see what "reasonable restrictions" D.C. seeks to impose.

1. Registration - $13 per firearm + $35 fingerprinting fee. - Unconstitutional poll tax levied upon an individual right. Check.

2. Complete a 20 question multiple choice test - Unconstitutional literacy test. Check. If it's unconstitutional for voting it's unconstitutional for any other individual right.

3. Application, Driver's license, firearms test, several fees, passport photos, fingerprinting, eligibility statement. Hmmm, Obama and the Democrats claim requiring any form of state-ID for voting is unconstitutional. Voting and gun ownership are both fundamental individual rights, and Heller has now made the latter definitive. All of the crap I've listed creates a serious barrier to entry for the poor & minorities. Where are the liberals, where's the ACLU? (haha)

How detailed is the application? How detailed is the test? They could easily make it so hard that no-one could pass it, or doctor the results etc. The entire licensing and registration system is going to be purposefully inefficient and grotesquely corrupt at all level. This is D.C. we're talking about, so that can be pretty much guaranteed. Just wait and see how many people will actually be able to get a license.

They've said semi-auto's are still banned. This shows blatant disregard for Scalia's decision. How dumb is Mayor Fenty? Or is this just the blind hubrus of a tyrant? Of course if the words "The right of the people" and "Shall not be infringed" don't mean anything to him why would "in common use" mean anything?

What types of things disqualify a person from being able to register a firearm?

6. Must not suffer from a physical defect which would make it unsafe for you to possess and use a firearm safely and responsibly.

What the hell?! Who's making that determination? The D.C. police department? Some doctor who's a anti-gun member of the AMA? I could see them using this for blanket registration denials. Now that the 2A is an individual right anyone denied under this provision could presumably sue claiming discrimination under the American's for Disabilities Act. I saw a guy at the range today who was missing a thumb. I bet he'd be denied by D.C. Hell, they'd deny me claiming my cerebral palsy and it's effect on muscle control and coordination. Breda's "physical defect" would disqualify her even though she could outshoot most D.C. police.

From the sidebar,

"All together, 23,776 children under age 19 died from a gun related injury during these years, which is equal to 13 children a day. The Metropolitan Police Department, with assistance from Project Childsafe, provides a gunlock free of charge for each gun it registers in the District of Columbia. The locks are simple and easy to install. Gun owners are strongly encouraged to use these locks to reduce the likelihood of accidental injury or death."

So the cutoff for a "child" is now 19? Sounds like Brady statistics to me. They're requiring gun locks and "strongly encouraging their use." Just how far will D.C. go to "strongly encourage" the use of locks? Remember they're registering all guns and providing the locks. What's to stop them from periodically checking up on gun owners to ensure locks are being used and then revoking firearms licenses on those grounds? I predict the intimidation factor of the MPDC is going to be huge throughout this entire process.

Someone needs to knock Fenty off his high horse.


Anonymous said...

Where are ACLU people? Here is my short exchange with them just days prior to Supreme Court decision (link now shows different but equally hilarious statements):


I find the policy and facts as stated in
quite confusing.

Under "Policy" you claim that "The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia."

However, under supposedly supporting it "Facts", quite surprisingly, I do not find the anticipated quotation of the 1939 Supreme Court decision, but some rather obscured 1976 6th Circuit decision. What is going on here?

I wonder why you haven't quoted the original Miller's case. May be because it did NOT in fact state that "the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia."

Check you "facts", folks. You surely know very well what that Miller case decision was about.

ACLU response:

Thank you for contacting the ACLU. We’re sorry that you do not agree with us on this issue.
Because of the volume of correspondence we receive, we cannot reply with specifics on this topic. However, we appreciate receiving your opinions and encourage you to check to learn more about issues the ACLU champions.
My follow-up:

Thank you for your response. I am gald you will now be able to post
today's Supreme Court's ruling to your "Facts" page, even if you do
not agree with it.


Anonymous said...

Why don't the Liberals mention the 4,000 + aborted babies @ week?


Anonymous said...

Why don't the Liberals mention the 4,000 + aborted babies @ week?

I do think that anybody who is able to think outside of dogmatic religious box can realize that legal abortion works in the same direction as legal gun ownership -- that is by lowering crime (via decreasing the number of unwanted neglected childs raised in a single-parent households who have the greatest chance of becoming violent criminals).

Mike W. said...

Mark - The ACLU are a bunch of bigots. They denied the existence of a civil right pre-Heller, and their post-Heller response is essentially "We don't care what the SCOTUS says. They're wrong."

I simply cannot support such people, especially considering Miller did not in any way support a "collective rights" interpretation.

The ACLU is a political organization, not one that cares about civil rights. It's a shame, because they'd get widespread support if they actually protected the entire BOR.

Abortion is a complicated issue. I personally don't like the idea of the state telling a woman what she can do with her own body. If you were to outlaw abortion it would not go away, it would just happen underground.