Mark Snyder, an amateur biathlete, wanted to buy a .22-caliber bolt-action rifle for target shooting and figured the process would take about a week. After nearly six weeks, six visits to police departments and $300 in fees, he secured his rifle."I was not expecting a free ride," said Mr. Snyder, 45, "but this is an obstacle course they put in place."
The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia's 32-year ban on handguns in 2008, a victory for the gun-rights lobby that seemed to promise a more permissive era in America's long tussle over gun ownership. Since then, the city has crafted rules that are proving a new, powerful deterrent to residents who want to buy firearms.
I wondered if the folks in power in the District, the ones who make these rules are being sore losers and saying in effect, "oh, yeah, you think you won, well we'll show you."
On the other hand, many of the restrictions make good sense.
On second thought, they don't make all that much sense. What possible good is a 20-question test? And what kind of skills do you think people get from one hour at the range and four in the classroom? No, those are pretty much worthless.After the Heller decision, the District's city council passed the Firearms Registration Amendment Act of 2008.
Under the law, would-be gun owners must go through a process requiring fingerprints, photographs and the detailing of some job history.
Applicants have to take a 20-question test on the District's gun laws and regulations. There is a five-hour class, including at least one hour at a gun range, although the city doesn't have a public one. Buyers are required to find trainers from a list approved by police. There is a vision exam, and once the process is complete, the gun must be taken back to the police to be fired for a ballistic identification.
The registration expires after three years and must be renewed. If it lapses, the police can seize the gun, and for a first offense, the owner could be jailed for up to one year and fined $1,000.
The law designates certain guns as assault weapons that can't be bought in the city. It limits the size of the ammunition-feeding devices to no more than 10 bullets. Many common semi-automatic pistols can hold more than that.
In 2011, the city will require semi-automatic pistols owned in the city to be produced with devices that imprint shell casings with a code or serial number as part of the firing process. That would make it easier to link shell casings to guns. The technology, known as micro-stamping or micro-engraving, is in its infancy, and most manufacturers haven't yet adopted it.
I'd say the written examination should be more like testing for the bar, something which requires serious study and preparation. And for the training aspect, something along the lines of Parris Island Marine training would work. All right, I admit I'm exaggerating, but you get my point, right?
Another thing is I find it hard to believe a biathlete like the one mentioned in the story would be treated the same as someone applying for a handgun license. If that is the case, it's wrong. The right way for me would be to expedite certain applications, athletes, collectors and the like. The rest should have to jump through all the hoops.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
What DC will get because of their nonsense is Congress dictating their gun laws.
ReplyDeleteRemember the 20 question test involves knowing DC laws and regulations--not how to safely operate and maintain the firearm. I don't see much problem with that.
ReplyDeleteAgain, FJ won't be happy until DC gives whatever kind of firearm anyone wants to everyone with no questions asked.
--JadeGold
JadeGold: "Again, FJ won't be happy until DC gives whatever kind of firearm anyone wants to everyone with no questions asked."
ReplyDeleteBelied by the fact that just two posts above, I wrote:
If further clarifications of Heller do indeed prohibit confiscation and "anything that seems designed more to deter people from getting guns than at assuring their safe use," then the main objection by many gunowners to registration and safety training will have been removed.
"The registration expires after three years and must be renewed. If it lapses, the police can seize the gun, and for a first offense, the owner could be jailed for up to one year and fined $1,000."
ReplyDeleteNO! Bad DC!
Jadegold: “The goal of gun control is to see that folks who shouldn't have guns (criminals, mentally ill, etc) shouldn't get guns.”
How does that apply to the above? Looks to me like the goal here is to turn gun owners into criminals first, and then see to it that they can’t get guns. DC was crafty to make it every three years- that’s just long enough for people to forget about it. If it was every year, gun owners would be reminded by the seasons to renew.
TS: The purpose of making any license or registration renewable is to ensure registrants or licensees continue to conform with the laws and regulations.
ReplyDeleteI find it incredulous that if you are so compelled and fixated on gun ownership that you would "forget" to renew.
--JadeGold
I agree with that, TS. During the three years of validity, people can change and perhaps not merit renewal. Surely you wouldn't expect lifetime licenses?
ReplyDeleteJadegold: “The purpose of making any license or registration renewable is to ensure registrants or licensees continue to conform with the laws and regulations.”
ReplyDeleteSo not only do we have to prove our innocence to exercise a right, but we have to continually prove our innocence or be found guilty of… not proving your innocence, and be incarcerated for it. What country do we live in?
Jadegold: “I find it incredulous that if you are so compelled and fixated on gun ownership that you would "forget" to renew.”
You know there are more examples of gun owners out there than just your idea of a gunloon. There are casual gun owners who are not fixated on their gun fetish, and presumably have normal sized penises, and lead normal socially adjusted lives. Maybe they inherited their granddad’s shotgun and they leave it locked up in the closet for 5 years at a time… get them up against the wall!
MikeB: “Surely you wouldn't expect lifetime licenses?”
Even in your beloved state of CA, you register ONE TIME when you procure the weapon so they have a database presumably to help solve crime. MikeB and Jade, you simply can’t claim to be only after criminals if you support throwing legitimate gun owners in prison for a year for failing to renew their registration. And who is going to be let out of prison to make room? Answer me that.
In DC, expediting the process for certain trustworthy people will quickly become "expediting the process for white people."
ReplyDeleteThen the law will be rightly invalidated as a violation of the 14th amendment.
Remember, the constitution overrides commonsense, because common sense is often absurdly wrong.
would you be willing to go through a similar process in order to write a blog post MikeB?
ReplyDeleteAgain, FJ won't be happy until DC gives whatever kind of firearm anyone wants to everyone with no questions asked.
ReplyDeletePlease show me where the NRA or any pro-gunner / pro-gun blogger has advocated giving away firearms to anyone no questions asked.
You simply make crap up that no one is actually advocating. No wonder MikeB loves you.
TS says, "Even in your beloved state of CA, you register ONE TIME when you procure the weapon so they have a database presumably to help solve crime. MikeB and Jade, you simply can’t claim to be only after criminals if you support throwing legitimate gun owners in prison for a year for failing to renew their registration. And who is going to be let out of prison to make room? Answer me that."
ReplyDeleteI would never agree with incarcerating someone for not reregistering a gun. I would however, change the California law to be more in accordance with D.C. about the requirement to reregister every so many years.
The reason is not to "make criminals out of law abiding citizens," saying that is just so much exaggeration and victimism on your part, but the reason is to screen all those gun owners who lose their qualification in the meantime.
Big surprise, MikeB can't answer my question.
ReplyDeleteMikeB: “I would never agree with incarcerating someone for not reregistering a gun.”
ReplyDeleteGood, we finally found a piece of gun control that you don’t agree with. Now if we can get Jadegold on our side life-time NRA member Beelzebub better put his parka on.
MikeB: “The reason is not to "make criminals out of law abiding citizens," saying that is just so much exaggeration and victimism on your part”
I just quoted what the law is, how is that my exaggeration?
MikeB: “but the reason is to screen all those gun owners who lose their qualification in the meantime.”
Because they committed a crime in the meantime? How about when they commit the crime, they lose their gun rights. The authorities know when they commit the crime, right?
Mike W. I thought it was a rhetorical question, more a statement really.
ReplyDeleteAnswer: no. But, what does that have top do with gun laws?
would you be willing to go through a similar process in order to write a blog post MikeB?
ReplyDeleteSimple question MikeB. Try answering it.
Mike W., Six days ago I answered your question, interestingly at the exact same time you requested that I answer for the third time.
ReplyDeleteSix days ago, Mike.