# D.C.'s proposed gun law is flatly inconsistent with the Heller decision **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 14, 2008, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-c-s-proposed-gun-law-is-flatly-inconsistent-with-the-heller-decision/456480 "2008-07-14T19:44:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2008, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-c-s-proposed-gun-law-is-flatly-inconsistent-with-the-heller-decision/456480/21 "2008-07-15T03:52:26Z")
I’m pretty much in full agreement with the OP. I don’t like private gun ownership by I really hate playing games with the law. The Constitution is clear and the Heller decison is also. The DC City Council needs to fall into line. Government officials should not be allowed to ignore SCOTUS decisions. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2008, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-c-s-proposed-gun-law-is-flatly-inconsistent-with-the-heller-decision/456480/22 "2008-07-15T11:29:11Z")
[QUOTE=villa] Why on earth would you find that inconsistent? It is perfectly logical that a person may use a weapon in self defense, but not have the right to carry/own said weapon. For example, a person previously convicted of a violent felony may have given up the right to own a firearm. But if attacked, and they draw an illegally owned gun, they may well still be acting in self defense. [/QUOTE] Your friend has a heart attack. He will die unless he gets to the hospital in twenty minutes. The hospital is fifteen miles away, and the speed limit on the shortest route is 30 mph. Do you agree that you should scrupulously obey the speed limits on your way to the hospital? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2008, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-c-s-proposed-gun-law-is-flatly-inconsistent-with-the-heller-decision/456480/23 "2008-07-15T11:39:43Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] Your friend has a heart attack. He will die unless he gets to the hospital in twenty minutes. The hospital is fifteen miles away, and the speed limit on the shortest route is 30 mph. Do you agree that you should scrupulously obey the speed limits on your way to the hospital? [/QUOTE] No, and I think someone who’s not allowed to carry a gun should be allowed to, say, wrest one from an attacker. But the issue was someone carrying a gun and using it in self-defense. The carrying is still a crime, even if the gun happened to come in handy. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2008, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-c-s-proposed-gun-law-is-flatly-inconsistent-with-the-heller-decision/456480/24 "2008-07-15T11:54:11Z")
So in the same way, speeding is still a crime. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2008, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-c-s-proposed-gun-law-is-flatly-inconsistent-with-the-heller-decision/456480/25 "2008-07-15T12:04:55Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] So in the same way, speeding is still a crime. [/QUOTE] So you have decided not to get it? Suit yourself, I guess. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2008, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-c-s-proposed-gun-law-is-flatly-inconsistent-with-the-heller-decision/456480/26 "2008-07-15T14:02:24Z")
As a practical matter can’t DC residents just ignore the re-written DC gun law and keep their guns assembled and ready to go? Seems incredibly likely if someone got busted for it the law would be overturned. Further, anyone busted by that law probably would not have to worry about a single legal bill as I would expect the NRA would drop 50 attorneys in their lap to help out. Beyond that I doubt DC really wants to quickly revisit the courts with their “new” law and may not even prosecute. Not saying DC is cool flaunting the courts like this but seems more typical political bullshit of, “See…we’re all against criminals with guns!” when in fact they know it is all rhetoric and no substance. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2008, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-c-s-proposed-gun-law-is-flatly-inconsistent-with-the-heller-decision/456480/27 "2008-07-15T14:03:46Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] Your friend has a heart attack. He will die unless he gets to the hospital in twenty minutes. The hospital is fifteen miles away, and the speed limit on the shortest route is 30 mph. Do you agree that you should scrupulously obey the speed limits on your way to the hospital? Regards, Shodan [/QUOTE] Not at all. Though what that does to the clear and sensible possibility that a person may not be allowed to own a gun, but in a situation when they use one, however illegally held, it may be called self defense, is totally beyond me. Remember, it was you who called that situation “stupid,” ignoring the fact that owning guns and using them in self defense have different standards. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2008, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-c-s-proposed-gun-law-is-flatly-inconsistent-with-the-heller-decision/456480/28 "2008-07-15T14:25:05Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] Your friend has a heart attack. He will die unless he gets to the hospital in twenty minutes. The hospital is fifteen miles away, and the speed limit on the shortest route is 30 mph. Do you agree that you should scrupulously obey the speed limits on your way to the hospital? [/QUOTE] Actually, even emergency equipment is restricted from speeding too much. Laws may differ but the city of Tempe forbids emergency vehicles from going more than 10 mph over the speed limit ([cite](http://www.tempe.gov/fire/PoliciesandProcedures/PDF%20Files/211.01.pdf) PDF). This is only when they deem the emergency to call for “Code 3” driving. The presumption being that speeding is in itself dangerous and can cause more harm than the good you are trying to achieve (e.g. you kill your self and the heart attack passenger and maybe someone else trying to save one person’s life). That said I guarantee I would be speeding to the hospital with my dying passenger. If I get a ticket for that so be it. I’ll gladly accept the consequences to save their life and I imagine the extenuating circumstances would have the court show some mercy. Hell, I’d speed just so I COULD get pulled over and put the dying passenger in a police car which can get the dying person to the hospital faster! ---
**Author:** ![Erasmus\_Darwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c57346/32.png) [@Erasmus\_Darwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Erasmus_Darwin)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2008, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-c-s-proposed-gun-law-is-flatly-inconsistent-with-the-heller-decision/456480/29 "2008-07-15T14:55:30Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Excellent] Now, I’ve racked my brains on this, and I welcome input from other Dopers, but I can’t parse this section to say anything other than, while you can’t _store_ your gun assembled and unlocked, you’re welcome to throw it together really, really fast if you hear someone breaking into your house. [/QUOTE] You are, unfortunately, correct. NPR recently had an interview with D.C. Council Member Phil Mendelson: [D.C. Drafts New Gun Law : NPR](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92470088) (the smaller bit at the top [audio only with a Listen Now link], not the longer Libby Lewis story below it) In it, Mendelson makes it pretty clear that they’re just making a few small changes based on what they interpret as the specific exceptions that the SCOTUS took with their law. It was downright infuriating listening to such disingenuous BS. I also was annoyed that the interviewer would ask the ramp up for a hardball question but wouldn’t press the issue when Mendelson provided hard-to-support responses. I’d provide cites, but I can’t listen to the audio here. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2008, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-c-s-proposed-gun-law-is-flatly-inconsistent-with-the-heller-decision/456480/30 "2008-07-15T15:52:07Z")
[QUOTE=villa] Not at all. Though what that does to the clear and sensible possibility that a person may not be allowed to own a gun, but in a situation when they use one, however illegally held, it may be called self defense, is totally beyond me. [/QUOTE] Because there is a contradiction inherent in the idea that a person should be punished for doing something that is justified. If an act is justified, then it is silly to punish them for having the available means to carry out the act. You are arguing that the standards are different, and I am arguing that they should not be. If I am justified in shooting someone in self-defense, then I am justified in owning a gun. If my children are starving, it is justifiable to steal bread to feed them. If my friend is dying, it is justifiable to break the speed limit to get him aid. It doesn’t make sense to say “you were justified in doing it, but you should be punished anyway.” Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2008, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-c-s-proposed-gun-law-is-flatly-inconsistent-with-the-heller-decision/456480/31 "2008-07-15T16:08:14Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] It doesn’t make sense to say “you were justified in doing it, but you should be punished anyway.” Regards, Shodan [/QUOTE] But if a convicted felon takes his illegally possessed gun out of his nightstand and shoots an intruder, he is not punished for the act of shooting the intruder, that was legal self-defense. What he could be punished for was the possession of the gun in the first place, which is illegal, and which was done prior to there being an immediate threat to his life. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2008, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-c-s-proposed-gun-law-is-flatly-inconsistent-with-the-heller-decision/456480/32 "2008-07-15T16:57:41Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] Because there is a contradiction inherent in the idea that a person should be punished for doing something that is justified. If an act is justified, then it is silly to punish them for having the available means to carry out the act. You are arguing that the standards are different, and I am arguing that they should not be. If I am justified in shooting someone in self-defense, then I am justified in owning a gun. If my children are starving, it is justifiable to steal bread to feed them. If my friend is dying, it is justifiable to break the speed limit to get him aid. It doesn’t make sense to say “you were justified in doing it, but you should be punished anyway.” Regards, Shodan [/QUOTE] Do you believe that ALL people should be entitled to own firearms, or that people who are not entitled to own firearms should be guilty of murder when they use a firearm in self defense? If you are arguing that a person who uses an illegally owned weapon in self defense should not be prosecuted for the illegal possession, well, that is defensible, and in the majority of cases, I think no charges would be filed, just as it is highly unlikely that a person speeding to get a dying person to hospital would be issued a citation. That does not, however, alter the fact that they are speeding. It is not stupid, however, to think that there are cases when such charges should be filed. If in getting to the hospital, you recklessly endanger the lives of hundreds of other people, and it is only by sheer chance none of them were harmed, then I think you have committed an act worthy of punishment inplacing the life of your friend over the lives of the hundreds of people you endangered. Similarly, say Joe has recently be released from prison after serving a sentence for drug dealing, and a condition of his release is that he does not own a firearm, and indeed the state criminalizes the possession of firearms by convicted drug dealers. Joe goes back to his old corner, and continues selling drugs, with a .45 on him. Bill, however, has taken over that corner during Joe’s vacation at the state’s expense. Bill does not want to lsoe this corner, and attempts to kill Joe. Joe defends himself, and shoots Bill. I personally don’t think Joe is guilty of murder, but I do think he is guilty of breaking the state’s gun laws, and seems to be in violation of his terms of release. His incarceration, as a result of a justifiable act of self defense, seems acceptable to me. On edit - thanks **jtgain** - much shorter and clearer. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2008, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-c-s-proposed-gun-law-is-flatly-inconsistent-with-the-heller-decision/456480/33 "2008-07-15T16:57:59Z")
> [@](#): > > Because there is a contradiction inherent in the idea that a person should be punished for doing something that is justified. If an act is justified, then it is silly to punish them for having the available means to carry out the act. Is somebody justified in owning marijuana if they’re using it for medicinal purposes? And does this justification prevent them from facing the legal consequences? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Excellent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f19dbf/32.png) [@Mr.Excellent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Excellent)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2008, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-c-s-proposed-gun-law-is-flatly-inconsistent-with-the-heller-decision/456480/34 "2008-07-15T19:02:26Z")
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole] As a practical matter can’t DC residents just ignore the re-written DC gun law and keep their guns assembled and ready to go? Seems incredibly likely if someone got busted for it the law would be overturned. Further, anyone busted by that law probably would not have to worry about a single legal bill as I would expect the NRA would drop 50 attorneys in their lap to help out. Beyond that I doubt DC really wants to quickly revisit the courts with their “new” law and may not even prosecute. Not saying DC is cool flaunting the courts like this but seems more typical political bullshit of, “See…we’re all against criminals with guns!” when in fact they know it is all rhetoric and no substance. [/QUOTE] This is a very bad idea. You’re right that the law would probably be overturned eventually. However, I believe that DC’s gun law provides for jail time - and DC jails are a remarkably bad place to be. Phenomenally bad. You do _not_ want to get arrested in DC to make a political point, or as a test case. I know the Dope hates it when people say “trust me”, but - please trust me, getting arrested would be a bad idea. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2008, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-c-s-proposed-gun-law-is-flatly-inconsistent-with-the-heller-decision/456480/35 "2008-07-15T19:05:38Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Excellent] This is a very bad idea. You’re right that the law would probably be overturned eventually. However, I believe that DC’s gun law provides for jail time - and DC jails are a remarkably bad place to be. Phenomenally bad. You do _not_ want to get arrested in DC to make a political point, or as a test case. I know the Dope hates it when people say “trust me”, but - please trust me, getting arrested would be a bad idea. [/QUOTE] I’m willing to bet someone doing this test case would be out on bail in very, very short order. ---
**Author:** ![TJVM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b38774/32.png) [@TJVM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TJVM)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2008, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-c-s-proposed-gun-law-is-flatly-inconsistent-with-the-heller-decision/456480/36 "2008-07-15T19:50:57Z")
In addition to the storage rules, I think they’re pushing their luck with the registration requirements. From the mayor’s press release: > [@](#): > > # Provisions for registering a handgun purchased for self-defense in a District residence. > > ``` > * A District resident who seeks to register a handgun must obtain an application form from MPD’s Firearms Registration Section and take it to a firearms dealer for assistance in completing it. > > * The applicant must submit photos, proof of residency and proof of good vision (such as a driver’s license or doctor’s letter), and pass a written firearms test. > > * If the applicant is successful on the test, s(he) must pay registration fees and submit to fingerprinting. MPD will file one set of fingerprints and submit the other to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for analysis and criminal background check. > > * MPD will notify the applicant whether all registration requirements are satisfied. At that point, the applicant returns to the Firearms Registration Section to complete the process and receive MPD’s seal on the application. > > * The applicant takes his or her completed application to a licensed firearm dealer to take delivery of the pistol. If the dealer is outside the District, the dealer transports the pistol to a licensed dealer in the District to complete the transaction. > > * The applicant takes the pistol to the Firearms Registration Section for ballistics testing. When testing is complete, the applicant may retrieve the pistol and take it home. > > ``` If gun ownership is a constitutional right, there have to be limits on the number and types of hoops that the government can make you jump through to exercise the right. I’m particularly interested in the “written test” requirement. I can’t imagine that the Supreme Court would uphold a requirement that you have to pass a written test on government in order to register to vote, and a written test to register your gun sounds iffy to me as well. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2008, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-c-s-proposed-gun-law-is-flatly-inconsistent-with-the-heller-decision/456480/37 "2008-07-15T20:04:57Z")
I’m quite puzzled by the point brought up by **Airman Doors** earlier: in what world are semiautomatic handguns more threatening than revolvers? And what is the basis upon which DC can continue the ban on them? Skimming through the Heller decision, there’s so many references to arms that are “in common use at the time.” If a semiautomatic handgun isn’t in “common use” at this time, then what the hell is? ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2008, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-c-s-proposed-gun-law-is-flatly-inconsistent-with-the-heller-decision/456480/38 "2008-07-15T22:13:31Z")
[QUOTE=TJVM] In addition to the storage rules, I think they’re pushing their luck with the registration requirements. From the mayor’s press release: If gun ownership is a constitutional right, there have to be limits on the number and types of hoops that the government can make you jump through to exercise the right. I’m particularly interested in the “written test” requirement. I can’t imagine that the Supreme Court would uphold a requirement that you have to pass a written test on government in order to register to vote, and a written test to register your gun sounds iffy to me as well. [/QUOTE] It seems like a lot of hoops, but it’s not, in my opinion, so many that it makes ownership unreasonably difficult. Note that literacy tests to vote were specifically outlawed, and that because they were obviously applied unfairly to create a racial bias. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-c-s-proposed-gun-law-is-flatly-inconsistent-with-the-heller-decision/456480/39 "2008-07-16T13:29:54Z")
> [@](#): > > # Provisions for registering a handgun purchased for self-defense in a District residence. Bwah? Fine, don’t buy it for ‘self defence’. > [@](#): > > - A District resident who seeks to register a handgun must obtain an application form from MPD’s Firearms Registration Section and take it to a firearms dealer for assistance in completing it. Huh? You need assistance from a firearms dealer to complete the application? What a bunch of maroons. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-c-s-proposed-gun-law-is-flatly-inconsistent-with-the-heller-decision/456480/40 "2008-07-16T14:08:55Z")
[QUOTE=TJVM] If gun ownership is a constitutional right, there have to be limits on the number and types of hoops that the government can make you jump through to exercise the right. [/QUOTE] Ultimately, I’d like to see these jokers flip the bird to the Court once too often, and find themselves under Voting-Rights-Act type supervision of their firearms regulations. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-c-s-proposed-gun-law-is-flatly-inconsistent-with-the-heller-decision/456480.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/d-c-s-proposed-gun-law-is-flatly-inconsistent-with-the-heller-decision/456480.md?page=3)