DC’s handgun dilemma
By now, you’ve heard that the Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia’s draconian gun laws last month. This caused DC’s government to go into closed-door sessions to rewrite the law. Yesterday, they outlined the new law which is not much different from the old law and the DC government thumbs it’s nose at the Supreme Court and the rights of it’s citizens (Washington Post link);
The legislation does not lift restrictions on semiautomatic handguns, a move that will probably land the District back in court, according to the lawyer who successfully challenged the gun ban.
Announcing the regulations yesterday, Mayor Adrian M. Fenty was clear about what might be ahead.
“We think we have struck the delicate legal balance,” he said during a news conference. “While we will have lawsuits, we think we stand on solid legal ground.”
But they can’t even give any leeway to citizens as far as what is considered their homes, or take action to prevent a confrontation inside their homes;
…several council members said they agreed with tougher language that requires weapons to be unloaded, disassembled or trigger locked, except when there is a “threat of immediate harm to a person” in the home.
Nickles said residents could neither keep their guns loaded in anticipation of a problem nor search for an intruder on their property. The porch is off-limits, he said, as well as the yard and any outbuildings.
“We do not want people running around with loaded guns outside,” Nickles said.
So the District of Columbia, while refusing to protect it’s citizens with competent policing, continues to deny citizens their right to protect their property and their families by playing legal games with residents’ lives.
Banning semi-automatic handguns may prove difficult for the District. They have to define what a semi-auto hangun is in the first place. Are they going to define it by function or capability. A double-action revolver fires every time the trigger is pulled, just like the type that they intend to ban. Does that mean only single action or single shot handguns are legal? Can we get the criminals to restrict themselves to single action revolvers, too? So the District decided that they’d restrict people to the number of rounds they have ready for action (Baltimore Sun link);
The District of Columbia Council planned to vote today on emergency legislation to allow handguns if they are used only for self-defense in the home and carry fewer than 12 rounds of ammunition.
Since most semi-auto handguns have 16 round capability, that restricts gun owners to revolvers – and larger caliber blow-back operated guns. Which means my favorite, the Colt Combat Commander in .45 ACP, which has a standard 7-round magazine, is still legal?
Good ‘ole D.C. The Third-World capitol of the First World’s leading nation.
As a show of my full support for the new D.C. regulations, (if I lived here, which thankfully I do NOT), I would want to have my S&W Model 29 .44 caliber Magnum with a 6″ barrel. Admittedly, my S&W Model 686 .357 Magnum with a 6″ barrel is far more accurate than the “Dirty Harry” special, but as Tim Allen would say, “More Power!”
Also, I would recommend a lovely little Rossi 12 gauge Coach gun – side-by-side barrels, capable of handling 3″ rounds. Load it up with No. 4 buck (41 .28 caliber or so pellets per round) and you have a pretty authoritative persuader. Or, you could go with a Remington 870 or Mossberg 500, for that unmistakeable sound of bringing a round into battery. Let’s not even talk about slug rounds!
If the D.C. kleptocracy read this blog, they’d be defecating on themselves by now.