U.S. District Court throws out handgun ban in DC.

[Irving]

Greenwood Village has a head tax as well I believe; but it was only $3 a month when I last checked.

[Aloha_Shooter]

As much as the people of the District would like to imply that they are a special circumstance, I disagree.

DC has tried numerous times to impose a commuter tax on workers in DC. Congress has not allowed that to happen for obvious reasons. NYC on the other hand levies a commuter tax on all of the workers who live in NJ and the surrounding counties in NY state. If it wasn't for the negative affect on business, I suspect there are progressive politicians in Denver who would love to impose the same type of tax on commuters from surrounding counties in the metro area.

Lots of tourists from around the nation travel to and through both DC and NYC. IMO, if my CO driver's license is good enough to let me drive my 2000 pound, motorized death machine in both jurisdictions, then my CO CCW should be sufficient for me to legally possess and carry my 32 oz. pistol. The District Court basically ruled that since DC denied anyone who is a non-resident the ability to carry in DC, the practice was an unconstitutional ban on the right to bear arms. The ball is back in DC's court, so to speak. The City Council needs to come up with an acceptable form of allowing non-residents to carry in DC. I anxiously await their response. Past history of watching the DC City Council has often left me scratching my rapidly balding head.

You are free to disagree but I think you misread what I was saying. The fact of the matter is, no state in the union has the majority of its workers reside outside its borders. Most people working in New York live in New York (albeit not necessarily true for the City). DC is not a state and should never be a state but any traffic through its borders is interstate by definition. DC therefore has more of an obligation to NOT burden the rights of people who reside outside its borders and engage in interstate transit daily.

DC is a special circumstance in many cases, not just this, by design. Frankly, I think the DC City Council has gone well beyond its reasonable jurisdiction a long time ago. I don't want them to "come up with an acceptable form of allowing non-residents to carry", they have no business "allowing" anything for people who reside outside the District. They have tried to extort money from Congress for the past 3 decades in exactly the ways Congress feared -- which is exactly why Congress created a special district to house the federal government in the first place. I still say Eleanor Holmes Norton should be tossed onto the sidewalk as her position is clearly invalid and illicit. They could take the rest of the district and assign parts of it to PG or Montgomery Counties for purposes of voting for federal office and tell the rest of the "Home Rule" yahoos to lump it.

[cstone]

The District is a product of our Constitution. Congress does have ultimate authority over any laws passed by the home rule government. The Congress is as incapable of administering a modern US city as Albany would be in trying to run NYC.

I agree, DC should never become a state, but home rule was necessary and inevitable. The DC shadow representative in Congress is like a childhood imaginary friend; nice to have around at times, but easy to ignore.

An interesting read for anyone interested in why DC is special: http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...ct-of-columbia

[cstone]

Well, this was worth the wait...and who said the wheels of government move slowly

DC Attorney General plans to seek a stay after judge rules DC gun control law is unconstitutional
http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/2612478...constitutional

http://oag.dc.gov/

[Gman]

An interesting read for anyone interested in why DC is special: http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...ct-of-columbia

There's no need to be PC about it and use the word "special". You can say "why DC is retarded". We understand.

[68Charger]

There's no need to be PC about it and use the word "special". You can say "why DC is retarded". We understand.

[Aloha_Shooter]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...rrest-legal-g/

D.C. police officers were instructed late Sunday not to arrest people for carrying legally registered handguns on city streets in the wake of a judge’s ruling that determined the District’s ban on carrying handguns in public was unconstitutional.

Scenarios
You stop a man on the street carrying a firearm and:
Scenario 1: The man says he is a resident of the District, but the gun is unregistered.
You should charge him with Unregistered Firearm.
Scenario 2: The man lives in Vermont, which does not require a license or permit for either open or concealed carry of a handgun. You run his name, and no criminal record is apparent.
You should record any relevant information for potential further investigation, and he is free to leave.
Scenario 3: The man lives in Virginia, where no license or permit is required to openly carry a handgun. However, when you run his name, records indicate that he is a convicted felon.
Under District and federal law, felons may not legally possess a firearm. You should arrest him for Unlawful Possession of a Firearm.
— From teletype issued to officers by Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier

Chief Lanier’s memo ... states that police can still charge D.C. residents with possession of an unregistered firearm in the case that they have not registered the weapon with the Metropolitan Police Department. Individuals from other states will no longer be charged with the crime.
...
[It] also gives D.C. residents the ability to register handguns for the purpose of carrying the firearm in public for self-defense.

[Gman]

So...will this ruling change anything about the no guns policies of the national parks and monuments in D.C?

Sent from my electronic leash.

[Aloha_Shooter]

So...will this ruling change anything about the no guns policies of the national parks and monuments in D.C?

Dave Kopel has an excellent article in the Volokh Conspiracy (unfortunately now homed at the Washington ComPost): http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...a-palmer-v-dc/

He specifically addresses your question:

Under a 2009 federal statute, National Parks must follow the arms-carrying policies of their host state. The National Park Service regulation implementing this statute includes the following exemption to a general ban on weapons in National Parks. “(h) Notwithstanding any other provision in this Chapter, a person may possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded, and operable firearms within a national park area in accordance with the laws of the state in which the national park area, or that portion thereof, is located, except as otherwise prohibited by applicable Federal law.” 36 C.F.R. § 2.4. Thus, it might arguably be lawful to carry a concealed handgun at the Jefferson Memorial, if you have a handgun carry permit from your home state (or if you are a D.C. resident with a registered handgun).