Monday, May 14, 2012

D.C.’s Mayor, Vincent Gray Holds up Gun Rights

 The Washington Times reports

While the city council voted unanimously on April 17 in favor of a bill to ease restrictions on Second Amendment rights, Mayor Vincent Gray has not signed the bill into law.

...gun owners are still forced to have their guns photographed and shot for a ballistics test and pay to have an application document notarized. Residents and nonresidents risk a felony charge for possessing ammunition that is not in the same gauge and caliber as a registered gun.
Does that sound so tough? Are those requirements such that Washington D.C. is considered to have the toughest gun laws in the country?

This is one of the favorite ploys of the gun-rights argument: exaggeration. They love to feign outrage and pretend that reasonable restrictions like these are outrageous.

They're not. That much is obvious.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

14 comments:

  1. So now you are good with a law that makes a felony out of possessing ammunition?

    And you say there is no slippery slope.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mikeb, pardon the language, but are you being stupid or just plain fucked up? What reasonable restrictions are you talking about?

    Let's take the ammunition law. I had a .30-'06 rifle that wasn't working for me. I sold it. I had some leftover ammunition for it that I kept, since I knew that I'd get another of that caliber at some point. Under D.C. law, I'd have been a felon for keeping those rounds. What sense does that make?

    D.C.'s gun laws are insane. In addition, they're a failure. How in hell can you call them reasonable?

    ReplyDelete
  3. "They love to feign outrage and pretend that reasonable restrictions like these are outrageous. "

    Photographing the gun serves no lawful purpose. Except for 100,000+ dollar shotguns and the like they are mass produced items, there are already plenty of photos of every gun in production (and those no longer produced), and there aren't any handguns like those.

    The ballistics test also serves no lawful purpose. NY just got rid of their program that did the same thing because after 37 million dollars ZERO arrests were made.

    There is no lawful purpose to having an application notarized. It's an expense and a hassle. No one is going to have someone forge their own signature on their own application.

    And there is no lawful purpose to making a felony out of possession of ammunition that one can't even use.

    These are not reasonable restrictions. They are restrictions, yes, but they are not reasonable. If I was anti-gun I would oppose these restrictions as they don't accomplish anything lawful or useful.

    All you are doing is demonstrating that you are unable to grasp basic concepts such as "reasonable". This is why you are failing.

    And hey, today I shot my .45 Colt derringer....so much fun. I was dispatching a very tiny home invader so I actually used .410 shotgun shells. This is a derringer, double barreled short barreled shotgun, easily concealed. So delicious and no you can't have one!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PH, yours are self-serving denials. I really don't think you're the best one to judge what reasonable is when it comes to guns. You have too much at stake.

      Delete
    2. So stakeholders shouldn't get to decide what laws are put on them? In other words, you've just declared yourself to be against democracy. Thanks for admitting what we've known all along.

      Delete
    3. Mikey is putting his fingers in his ears and yelling "LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU."

      Delete
    4. No, I've heard everything, I just find your arguments wanting.

      Delete
  4. I am not 100% sure on this, but I think DC counts spent casings as "ammunition". It is crazy that you think it is reasonable to ruin someones life over this- especially given that you have personally called both DC and Chicago's regulations "useless" for crime prevention.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Randolphus MaximusMay 15, 2012 at 1:32 AM

    I'll just leave this here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA4mJW-kjSc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The supposed racist origins of gun control have nothing to do with the movement today. Today it's about preventing gun flow to criminals and seeking to raise the bar a little bit as to who qualifies to own a gun. There's nothing racist in the modern-day gun control movement.

      Delete
    2. It disproportionately harms blacks and the poor. Racist as fuck you are.

      Delete
    3. New language, same goal. Or to be more accurate, Mikeb, your side has become broad-minded. You want to disarm everyone.

      Delete
    4. Randolphus MaximusMay 15, 2012 at 10:11 PM

      @Mike - of course gun control laws in this country are racist, the 1968 gun control act was passed specifically because it targeted black people. In fact, if you look at the history of the Ku Klux Klan compared to the Black Panthers it's the Klan that favored gun control laws (as well as all the other Jim Crow laws) and the Black Panthers who were the biggest advocates for the 2nd amendment.

      And yes, Harry Balzak *heehee* is correct, gun control disproportionately harms blacks and the poor.

      Delete
  6. -Sorry sir, you're under arrest for having 9mm Luger ammo.

    -But I shoot it in my 9x21 pistol.

    -Are you gonna lie to me and tell me your 9mm ammo headspaces correctly on the case rim on that gun?

    -Well it's not ideal but the extractor holds it well enough to fire.

    -Put your muthafuckin' hands where I can see em, boy.


    (wow, DC laws are gay as shit)

    ReplyDelete