Starting Jan. 1, D.C. gun owners who purchased a firearm between 1976 and 2010 will have 90 days to re-register their firearm with district police.
Failure to re-register one’s firearm may result in fines ranging from $13 to $1,000 and jail time of up to one year, according to Gwen Crump a spokesperson for the Metropolitan Police Department.
“A person who fails to renew their firearms registration within 90 days of the deadline (meaning, 90 day renewal period + 90 day grace period = 180 days total) will have their firearm registration canceled, will be in possession of an unregistered firearm, and may face criminal charges punishable by a fine up to $1,000 or 1 year in jail, or both,” Crump wrote in an email.
Naturally, the gun-rights fanatics are up in arms about this, led by their favorite daughter Emily Miller. But it's really all bluff. They feel constrained to object to any and all gun control laws always pretending they're much worse than they really are.
The fact is these requirement in DC don't go nearly far enough. I would have the re-registration done yearly, there would be no on-line option after the first time and the gun would have to be presented every time as proof of continued ownership.
That's the way to put an end to straw purchasing and improper sales of guns.
The other question that arises out of all this is, when will the confiscations begin? That's what they always say is the reason to resist registration, right? It's all a pretext for the eventual door-to-door confiscations that, as day follows night, will absolutely come.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Since criminals cannot be forced to register--see the Supreme Court ruling to that effect--there are no other purposes to a registry than controlling good citizens and confiscation.
ReplyDeleteAnd you have proven you know nothing about legal rights, what they are, or how they get to be law. You didn't even know how the Constitution is amended. Not surprising for someone who thinks like a criminal.
DeleteYour simplistic observation, Greg, fails to account for the fact that the world is made up of more than just criminals and "good citizens." Too many of the ones you call "good citizens" need controlling.
DeleteMikeb, less than one tenth of one percent of gun owners do something wrong with a gun in a given year.
DeleteAnonymous, as I've explained to you before, I understand very well how the Constitution works. But the Constitution does not grant us rights. It defends rights that we already have.
Greg, going by your definition of "something wrong," I suppose you may be right. If you use my definition, you can bet you'd have a higher percentage.
DeleteI define something wrong as harming an innocent person. I realize that your defintion includes all manner of things that are counterrevolutionary to tyrants.
DeleteAnother lie from the site liar. You never answered my question about how the Constitution gets amended. Next lie.
DeleteSince you need a civics lesson:
DeleteThe Constitution is amended in one of two ways. Either the states can call a constitutional convention, or both houses of Congress can vote on an amendment by a two-thirds vote, then three-quarters of the states have to approve it.
Now, why did you feel the need to ask?
Because you stated that rights are not given by government. An absurd, idiotic position, since you just defined how rights can be given, or taken away. Now why did you refuse to five that answer for the last few days?
DeleteGreg, your definition of "something wrong" is limited to "harming an innocent person?" Is that right?
DeleteWhen one of you gun nuts smokes meth and gets so freaked out and paranoid that they shoot through the door at the Avon Lady, narrowly missing her pretty little head, you say that's not wrong because the only damage was a small hole in the door.
Along those same lines, there are literally millions of incidents every year of "something wrong" being done with guns - but not according to your definition. Plus, assuming the proverbial meth addict I alluded to has never been convicted of a crime, according to you he's a "good citizen." Your simplistic world view is sharply divided between criminals and "good citizens.
How do you justify all that, Greg?
Mikeb, "literally" millions of people shooting at people through their doors and so forth and such like? That's ridiculous. Smoking meth and playing with guns is certainly something wrong. But smoking meth takes a person outside the category of good citizens.
DeleteAnonymous, your question was irrelevant, since the Constitution, either as a whole or in its amendments, doesn't give us our rights.
But you promote drinking while using a gun. That stupidity speaks for itself, and speaks to your stupidity.
DeleteIf there was no written 2nd amendment, you would have no right to guns. Thanks for proving you do not understand law, the Constitution, or the need for written laws. Typical criminal thinking.
Greg, you're contradicting yourself now. You've insisted that until a person is CONVICTED of a crime they must be considered a "good citizen." Now you're saying as soon as they pick up the meth pipe they cease to be good citiens.
DeleteYou see why it's so difficult and frustrating arguing with you? You see why Steve and Jim and the Anonymous commenters have all become so hostile towards you?
Mikeb, apparently you can't distinguish between a legal status and a moral status. Now I support the legalization of drugs, since our War on Drugs has been a disasterous failure, but smoking meth is a crime. It's also exceedingly stupid.
DeleteThere are people who are not good citizens who have not yet been convicted of anything. But the law has to treat them as good citizens until they are convicted. What I say about them in the moral sense or the sense of their worth is a different matter.
Can you learn to make distinctions between categories, or do we have to continue this tedious nonsense?
Then, as long as I don't call it a legal breakdown, you'd agree with my "hidden criminal" idea? Is that right? This is the category for people who are not good citizens but who have not yet been caught. Will you accept this now and apologize for not having done so earlier?
DeleteApology from a dirt bag liar? Good luck with that.
DeleteMikeb, my fundamental argument with your claims about "hidden criminals" is this:
Delete1. In a society like ours, we have to treat anyone not convicted of a crime or adjudicated dangerously mentally ill as a good citizen.
2. You exaggerate the number of people who are criminals that haven't been caught yet.
"Anonymous, your question was irrelevant, since the Constitution, either as a whole or in its amendments, doesn't give us our rights."
DeleteYou are guilty of stupid lying comments, but this one takes the cake. Thanks for proving you know nothing about the law. No surprise coming from a lying criminal coward.
Greg, you're dodging the question. Whether or not I'm exaggerating the number of criminals who haven't been caught yet or not, is there or is there not a need for my third category?
DeleteGreg, what is the name of the case that you cite? Might the law in that case have been amended to overcome that hurdle? Might there be another case which overruled that one? Hint: what was United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971)?
ReplyDeleteAnd you say I lack substance, yet you are more than willing to make ignorant statements? I seriously doubt you are in anyway an academic; however, it might not be beyond possibility given the US culture of ignorance.
Those rulings, including Freed, don't overrule the Fifth Amendment. Compelling a criminal to register a firearm would be a forced admission of guilt.
DeleteYou see, Laci, I've read enough student papers to be able to read through your level of bullshit.
Greg, your argument is absurd because criminals are already disqualified.
DeleteMikeb, the case here was about a man who had a firearm that he wasn't allowed to have. The court ruled that he was not obliged to register it because that would have been a forced admission of guilt.
DeleteYou're talking in circles, Greg. When we impose gun control laws on people, we have already eliminated the criminals since they cannot own guns legally.
DeleteAnd you think that the guns that they already have will magically disappear? How about the guns that they'll have smuggled in for them? This is more fantasy, not reality.
DeleteThe site liar always talks in circles, circles of lies.
DeleteGreg, as I show on the blog every single day, many of the misuses of guns are done by so-called good citizens. Plus, these lawful gun owners are the source of ALL the guns supplying the criminals. That's why gun control laws are primarily aimed at the law-abiding. You keep talking about criminals not obeying and criminals already having so many guns. This has nothing to do with it.
DeleteWhen will the confiscations begin? Sounds like 180 days into the new year when they have list of formerly lawful gun owners who didn't reregister.
ReplyDeleteOK, I can't wait to see the fireworks. There should be at least a few 3%ers in there, don't you think?
DeleteParanoid idiot. I suppose you are setting up your Gatling gun now, on your rooftop. One if by land, two if by sea, and announce the government is coming! HA HA HA HA HA HA
Delete