D.C. Eases Firearms Restrictions

[t11spanner]

Not sure if anyone has seen this.....


From WTOPNEWS.COM


WASHINGTON - The District of Columbia Council on Tuesday voted to ease the city's firearms restrictions by allowing residents to own most semiautomatic pistols.

The legislation also would eliminate a requirement that guns be stored unloaded and either disassembled or secured with trigger locks. Gun owners, however, would face prosecution if they fail to keep loaded weapons away from children.

The council's action amends a temporary emergency law passed in July, shortly after the Supreme Court struck down Washington's 32-year-old handgun ban.

Critics complained the law did not go far enough, prompting another lawsuit from the plaintiff who successfully challenged the gun ban. Congress also introduced a bill that would eliminate most of the city's gun regulations. A vote was expected later Tuesday.

D.C. officials said they were working hard to comply with the court's ruling and implored Congress to stay out of the city's affairs.

"I ask Congress, leave us alone and let us do our job," council member Carol Schwartz said.

But Chris W. Cox, the National Rifle Association's chief lobbyist, said: "The only reason D.C. is trying to give the appearance that they're moving toward compliance is because of imminent congressional action."

While Tuesday's amendment eliminates a provision that bans most semiautomatic pistols, it bans magazines capable of firing more than 10 rounds.

And although D.C.'s storage requirement will now be advisory, gun owners could face jail time if a child got hold of an unlocked, loaded firearm. If there are no injuries, the owner faces up to six months in prison. If there are injuries, the owner could face up to five years in prison.

The city modeled its penalties on similar safe storage laws in other cities and states.

The amendment also repeals a regulation prohibiting gun owners from registering for more than one pistol; instead, residents will be able to register one pistol a month.

"We are still going to have a strict gun control law," council member Phil Mendelson said Monday, dismissing suggestions that the city was bowing to pressure from the National Rifle Association and other groups.

Mendelson, who introduced Tuesday's amendment, said the changes were needed because he believed the initial legislation "would not stand up to judicial scrutiny."

The D.C. Council is still working on permanent gun legislation; two hearings are planned for the coming weeks.

[Red Hat]

That is still not good enough!

[MP3Mogul]

Well,

Once everything is in place, DC will see a HUGE reduction in violent crime!

[Doc and his Glock]

Well -- sometime you have to take a little at a time... something is better then nothing... once you get a little then you work on a little more etc... trying to get it all at one time could end up in court for years which leaves everyone with nothing until the court decides..

[tattedupboy]

Well,

Once everything is in place, DC will see a HUGE reduction in violent crime!

I wouldn't count on that. Big cities such as D.C. tend to be violent regardless of what the gun laws are. As an example, I give Detroit and Atlanta. It has been years since Michigan and Georgia enacted shall issue CCW, and those two cities continue to be among the most dangerous and crime-ridden in America, much like they were before shall issue. So, while shall issue needs to be the rule rather than the exception, it's going to take more than changing the gun laws to bring down crime rates.

As for this change in the D.C. gun laws, obviously, I did not expect it to go from not allowing handguns to being shall issue CCW, but this is nevertheless great news. Now, they don't have to wait until the threat is upon them before rendering their weapons operable. Thus, now they have the advantage in the event of a home invasion.

[Doc and his Glock]

That is still not good enough!

Well -- something is better then nothing!!

[Red Hat]

Well -- something is better then nothing!!

That's true but they still can't protect themselves away from home. Hence it's not good enough!

[HK4U]

It is a step in the right direction but still more to be done.

[Scarecrow]

I wouldn't count on that. Big cities such as D.C. tend to be violent regardless of what the gun laws are. As an example, I give Detroit and Atlanta. It has been years since Michigan and Georgia enacted shall issue CCW, and those two cities continue to be among the most dangerous and crime-ridden in America, much like they were before shall issue. So, while shall issue needs to be the rule rather than the exception, it's going to take more than changing the gun laws to bring down crime rates.

As for this change in the D.C. gun laws, obviously, I did not expect it to go from not allowing handguns to being shall issue CCW, but this is nevertheless great news. Now, they don't have to wait until the threat is upon them before rendering their weapons operable. Thus, now they have the advantage in the event of a home invasion.

+1. big cities usually do have more crime. but at least big cities in "shall issue" states give people the right to even the playing field. if a bg meets an armed victim, it might make him think twice about being stupid again.

[dancingwolf]

That's true but they still can't protect themselves away from home. Hence it's not good enough!

+1. The right to self defence goes beyond the four walls of one's home! This right is still denied in places like D.C., Illinois and Minnesota, and almost non-existant in places like NYC.