Sunday, May 18, 2014

Judge Upholds D.C.’s Gun Law

Washington Post

A federal judge on Thursday upheld the District’s tough gun registration laws, finding that regulations crafted in response to a landmark Supreme Court decision “pass constitutional scrutiny.”
“The people of this city, acting through their elected representatives, have sought to combat gun violence and promote public safety. The court finds that they have done so in a constitutionally permissible manner,” U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg wrote in an opinion likely to be appealed by gun-rights advocates.
In 2008, the Supreme Court used a D.C. case brought by the same plaintiff to declare that the Second Amendment guarantees a person’s right to own a firearm for self-defense.
The lawsuit, one of many throughout the country that have challenged gun restrictions, took on the District’s post-2008 regulations that banned large-capacity magazines and assault weapons. The city also imposed stringent registration requirements for handguns and long guns.
The ban on specific firearms was upheld on appeal, but District officials were ordered to justify their registration requirements.
The city’s gun registry, run by the D.C. police department, prohibits residents from registering more than one gun a month.
Owners must appear in person at police headquarters to be photographed and fingerprinted; complete firearms training; and pass a test.
The registration expires after three years.
Boasberg said Thursday that he was persuaded that the city’s system allows the District to “screen out dangerous or irresponsible people who try to obtain a firearm.”
“Asking gun owners to take a short class and pass a minor test — once — in order to wield deadly weapons fits the District’s interests in public safety and police protection,” he wrote in the 62-page opinion.

15 comments:

  1. Yes, and its laws are working so well for them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you really think if they loosened their gun laws the gun crime and murder rate would go down? If so, please explain how loser gun laws would decline the gun crime and murder rate.

      Delete
    2. "Do you really think if they loosened their gun laws the gun crime and murder rate would go down?"

      Well Anon, We could always look at it empirically, DC easily has the strictest gun laws in the nation. After all, where else can you be charged with criminal possession of expended cartridges.
      DC also seems to have the highest violent crime rate in the nation. So, if everywhere has more liberal gun laws has lower crime rates, then what does that tell you?
      This is pretty much what Chicago had been doing for so long, asking for ever more restrictive gun laws, and then having to come up with an explanation for why there was no decrease in crime. At which time, they ask for more gun laws.
      Chicago just recently admitted that it isn't guns that are the problem, its gangs. And by focusing on that they are beginning to have an effect on crime levels. DC however is still in denial.

      Delete
    3. It doesn't tell me looser gun laws would help. They had looser gun laws and the problem got out of hand, so they are trying stricter gun laws, and those stricter gun laws help put away those gang members. It's gangs with guns. If those gangs had no guns there would be less gun crimes.

      Delete
    4. "They had looser gun laws and the problem got out of hand, so they are trying stricter gun laws, and those stricter gun laws help put away those gang members."

      Anon, you really need to read up on the history of gun laws in DC. DC had an outright ban on handguns from 1975 till 2008 when the Heller decision determined the law to be unconstitutional.
      In 2007, the year before the Heller decision DC's homicide rate was 30 per 100k and the violent crime rate was 1,414 per 100k.
      As of 2012, the most recent complete report shows the DC homicide rate at 13.9 per 100k and the violent crime rate is now 1,243 per 100k.
      http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats/

      Delete
    5. DC does not have the highest violent crime rate in the nation. Gun control seems to be working, since their crime rates have been coming down steadily for the past 20+ YEARS

      "According to Uniform Crime Report statistics compiled by the FBI, there were 1,330.2 violent crimes per 100,000 people reported in the District of Columbia in 2010. There were also 4,778.9 property crimes per 100,000 reported during the same period.[8] Overall, violent crime in the District of Columbia has decreased 50% since 1995 and property crime has decreased 49.8% during the same period. However, violent crime is still more than three times the national average of 403.6 reported offenses per 100,000 people in 2010."

      There are a number of cities with much higher crime rates, if you want full comparisons, but there is a column here that applies "violent crime":

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

      Gun huggers and other conservatives believe things which are not factually accurate, and which are consistently completely false.

      Delete
    6. No one's in denial, ss. It's your side that mischaracterizes the gun control folks as blaming the gun. The truth is we always have recognized that there are many factors involved, gun availability being one.

      Delete
    7. Dog Gone: "Gun control seems to be working, since their crime rates have been coming down steadily for the past 20+ YEARS"

      Oh, just like the rest of the country where gun rights improved.

      Delete
    8. So what's your solution to getting the guns out of the hands of gangs without the law to help police and the courts to do it? Stats don't solve problems and can be used to define a situation in many different ways. You won't solve crime by stating figures, criminals defy the stats.

      Delete
    9. "So what's your solution to getting the guns out of the hands of gangs without the law to help police and the courts to do it?"

      They could always talk to cities in states with more reasonable gun laws and find out what has worked for them. There are plenty of them to choose from.

      Delete
    10. Another dodged answer.

      Delete
    11. Not dodged at all Anon, I make no claim to be an expert in dealing with gang problems. So I'd ask someone who is running a department that is successfully dealing with it.
      And like Chicago, they might have already figured something out. But with some of these issues, it can take some time to get results.
      However, not allowing citizens effective means to defend themselves wont help.

      Delete
    12. If you don't know than how can you rule out stricter gun laws? One way to keep guns out of the hands of gangs is to have better tracking of where guns are coming from and how gangs are getting guns. It's not the only answer, but a tool for police to get guns out of the hands of criminals.

      Delete
    13. "If you don't know than how can you rule out stricter gun laws?"

      They had such strict gun laws that the US Supreme Court determined that they were unconstitutional, look up the Heller decision. Though that decision has had an effect on gun laws nationwide, the point is that the laws weren't working then, even with unconstitutionally strict laws in place.
      If the populace wants to pass strict laws and think that its going to affect crime, that's there prerogative. Look at New Jersey. But insisting they need stricter laws when they have documentation that shows it doesn't work isn't smart. As the old saying goes, those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
      A year ago, there was an attempt to pass legislation mandating universal background checks and banning assault weapons. Voters turned out in very large numbers to voice their opposition, those in favor? Not so much. Both measures failed.

      Delete
    14. So now the authorities hands are tied, they have no tools to track guns and keep them out of the hands of gangs and other criminals. And you support that, fine.

      Delete