It looks like where was 1 NICS checks per month in DC until 2006 when there was a pretty large spike of 200+ NICs checks in one month then it went to about 10/month while Heller was being litigated. And after Heller it went to 30/month (after an initial period of 40 or 50/month) and is now about 40/month.
I suspect that many people are not aware of the 2012 relaxations of the registration rules which probably deterred a lot of people from getting a gun in the first place.
There are several places that are not precluded but all the permissible areas are also governed by an ANC and IIRC you need ANC approval for some business licenses including things like bars, strip clubs, night clubs and gun stores. I think every ANC in the city has denied applications to open a gun store. That’s why the MPD had to offer Mr. Sykes an office in their headquarters for $100/month.
But how much of that anemia is related to the difficulty imposed by DC’s complex laws and the lack of a local gun store? That is, you take the existing figures and assume that roughly the same number of guns would have been sold, only in DC instead of Maryland or Virginia.
But surely you’ll concede that generations of supermarket analysts have theorized that there’s value in displaying items you want to sell at eye-level, and on end-caps, as opposed to on the bottom shelf in the farthest aisle of the store, right?
Similarly, virtually every clothing store has a window display of their wares. Isn’t it fair to say they do so in order to promote their clothes and make more sales?
Do you make room for the possibility that if there were a gun store in DC, not only would it capture some of the trade that now goes through the labyrinthian process of buying a gun in Virginia and transferring it to Sykes, but also capture people who were interested in buying a gun but not willing to expend the additional $125 fee it takes – while I, a Virginia resident, can buy a Taurus PT738 .380 pistol for $190.00 from my neighborhood gun store, the DC resident must pay an additional $125, for a total of $315 for the same item.
Surely that kind of arbitrage cost deserves some acknowledgement? A DC resident buying that pistol pays a whopping 66% surcharge. Are you really offering the view this doesn’t affect a single buying decision?
Regardless of the level of effort required to travel outside a jurisdiction to complete requirements set forth, I contend it is unconstitutional to require actions to be performed to exercise a constitutional right that cannot be exercised within the jurisdiction. Even if the next jurisdiction were next door, if the required activity to exercise a constitutional right is prohibited within a jurisdiction, that would be unconstitutional.
This is the question that was addressed in Ezell.
Do you believe DC is unique among all other states in the union? Yes the population skews left in their politics, but I think you’d have to present evidence that the population is so different than, NJ, NY, or RI, in their desire to own firearms. Each of these states have fairly restrictive laws with regard to firearms (though none so much as DC pre-Heller) and have higher rates of purchase than you are assuming DC to have.
If you really believe that the gun ban in DC had no impact on the demand for purchase of firearms and that DC population as a whole just does not desire to do so, you’re free to do so. I think that position is unfounded and incredibly weak but I can’t disprove it beyond pointing to other states that have higher rates of firearm purchase. And if there is no desire to purchase handguns in DC, why have the law in the first place?
I think it is constitutionally permissible to restrict commercial activity that is necessary in the exercise of a right but not overly so. For example, if I said you can only perform abortions in neighborhoods where the local neighborhood council didn’t object then in many states you are simply reinserting democratic tyranny of the majority into the exercise of constitutional rights and there would be no abortion clinics anywhere in the state.
The current version fo DC gun rgulatiosn seems to be cosntitutional for the msot part (I don’t think an assault weapons ban passes the intermediate scrutiny test but maybe they didn’t think that bans impairs the second amendment right enough to trigger scrutiny).
Nope, the Second Amendment doesn’t require that every American have a gun store or training facility as close to their house as their local polling place.
So let me try a more analogous stupid question:
It’d be okay with you that you can only register to vote/get the required firearm training at one of 47 locations outside the District, while the sole polling place/location to purchase firearms within the District is at the Sykes’ location? Cuz we’re making the business license and zoning requirements the same for voting as firearm training/purchases, since they’re both legal activities.
(any further assistance would be welcomed and appreciated, Bricker)
If I go to the supermarket and find that prime rib is at eye level but costs 66% more than ground beef, and I find my wallet is light, I’m probably going to buy the ground beef rather than nothing at all.
So, a Virginia resident may pay $520 for a Glock 17, nicely displayed at eye level in the middle of the store. However, I suppose a DC resident who wanted a legal firearm would pay whatever they could afford with the knowledge that they might only be able to afford something with the quality of a Hongfeng Long March 9mm Very Happy Person Defense Pistol Gun, with the $125 transfer fee on top of whatever that POS gun costs.
Whether a DC resident deals with the cost differential by buying inferior firearms or not buying at all, or whether DC residents simply have little interest in buying legal firearms at all, seems to be a matter of speculation that few of us can crack. I will submit that there are probably no clear, factual answers that any of us can provide to settle that question, but also that the rate of illegal gun ownership here is probably substantial. Not just by criminals buying guns to rob people or whatnot, but I strongly suspect that people who move to DC from other states might simply not bother to follow the law and register any guns they may own.
I guess Heller II had the opportunity to raise that question, and I cited the judge’s decision that DC’s gun laws are constitutional. We can both just wait for an appeal… except that there is no longer any reason to travel outside of DC for firearms training because that’s no longer the law here. What is that phrase that legal beagles use, “The question is now moot?” Yeah, that.
I think that DC is unique among all other states in the union, in that it is simply a city, and not a collection of cities, towns, villages, and unincorporated areas. I assume this makes a difference between NJ, NY, and RI. And, taking another poster’s comments at face value, DC’s gun registration scheme is alleged to be less burdensome than New Jersey’s.
So if it is indeed true that New Jersey has a more restrictive gun registration law than DC, and DC’s gun ownership rate is indeed lower (I’m completely conceding that these are assumptions, not demonstrated facts), then isn’t my point being proved that there isn’t much of a market for legal guns in DC?
I invited you to provide some facts to support your assertion that decades worth of gun control has artificially lowered the rate of gun ownership, but you can’t explain why not very many guns seem to be purchased today when gun laws here are roughly in line with other states’ laws. I guess you’re just giving up on trying to prove what you asserted, eh?
Why have gun laws here in the first place? Perhaps because there’s also a lot of people here who doubtlessly would like to purchase totally unregulated guns for crime? What a silly point you’re trying to make.
I believe if you check the other thread, the requirement for the zoning board to grant an exception to allow a gun store to open in certain areas has been eliminated since 2011, and gun shops now have a matter of right to open in certain neighborhoods. It’s still not a lot of the city, but this special permission thing does not appear to have been in effect for nearly three years now.
I’m afraid I need Bricker’s help as well, because I’m just not following the question you’re asking me. Are you asking what I would think if voting can only be done at a gun shop?
This is one of those things that is prima facie true - that the absolute ban on firearm purchase in DC pre-Heller lowered the rate of gun ownership in DC. We can argue the rate I suppose, but I’m not sure why you would contest the underlying principle.
My position simply is: Ban something = lower rate of that thing.
Your position seems to be: Ban something = equivalent rate of that thing.
But yes, if you are in fact contesting that the ban pre-Heller had a deleterious impact on the rate or demand of firearm ownership, then I’m not interested in trying to convince you further.
I didn’t state this well. What I meant was not in the formation of the jurisdiction, but in the residents that live in each of the places. Why are residents of DC unique as compared to those in NJ, NY, and RI that make DC residents eschew firearm purchase and ownership at a greater rate than those other residents?
Thank you for bearing with me, I may yet get my idea across.
Has the firearm training requirement, which I was comparing to registering to vote, been similarly relaxed? That is, you have to register before you can vote, you have to have the firearms training before you can purchase or register a firearm within the District.
I’m asking if you’re okay with similar restrictions: Leave the District to get the firearms training/to register to vote, then be able to purchase a firearm/vote at a single location.
To be clear, what I’m saying is that it strikes me as fairly silly to say that the pre-Heller gun laws are suppressing demand to a very significant degree nearly SIX YEARS after those gun laws were struck down.
I can cite chapter and verse on why DC residents are significantly different than the state-wide populations of those states. About a third of DC is functionally illiterate; about half of DC residents also have university degrees. Both measures are far higher than any state. Something like 80% of the voters in DC are registered with the Democratic Party, I’d be surprised if it is more than 40% in any of the states you mentioned. Half of the population here is African-American. The city is increasingly younger in age, especially over the last 15 years or so, and lots of single people. 100% of the population here is urban. Those measures seem to correllate with lower rates of gun ownership in general.
Seriously, it’s like you’re asking if there’s any difference between people who live in Manhattan and people who live in the whole of New York State. Of course there is!
Yes. But (and not for the first time) you have framed this analogy in a way that elides the responsibility of the DC government.
So let’s imagine that DC imposes a surcharge of 66% on prime rib; I can buy prime rib elsewhere for $20 but in DC the same cut costs me $33.20.
Now what effect on beef-buying behavior would you expect to see?
If I point out that few people in DC buy prime rib, and offer the theory that DC residents just aren’t particularly interested in prime rib as a reason why, isn’t it possible you’d demur, and point out the surcharge as another possible reason for low prime rib sales?
:rolleyes: Yes, it’s quite the mystery. What could cause DC residents to not want to pay 66% more for a gun? The world may never know.
So far as I can tell, the training is only one aspect of DC’s laws that are still constitutionally infirm. As you know from the case that spawned this thread, Palmer, DC’s efforts to forbid completely possession outside the home are not constitutionally sound.
No. Even if DC adopted Virginia’s permissive laws this afternoon, I hope you understand that you could not look at ownership rates next week and conclude anything. Right?
DC’s ownership rates are the result of years of a total ban. That’s not quite the case in New jersey, which has long permitted forearm purchases, although still tightly controlling carry permits.
Uhhh, more buying of ground beef, like I said. Somewhat like how high taxes on liquor in various European countries seems to encourage people to buy cheaper wine or beer.
So are you arguing that people in DC are buying illegal firearms, and potentially risking years in jail, just to avoid Mr. Sykes’ (not DC government’s!) fee?
I was talking about the 47 training locations.
Let me be clear: I have no damned idea what DC’s total firearms ownership rate is. Other posters have said that 3,000 guns have been registered since 2008, so that’s what I’m operating off of. If there was great suppressed demand for legal handguns in DC, 3,000 registrations in the last several years doesn’t seem to indicate that.
Well Post Heller laws were also suppressing demand. I just found out on this thread that they had passed at least 2 or 3 new laws that relaxed the original laws.
I would give it some time before I concluded that the current level of gun sales is the long term equilibrium level of gun sales. I suspect that gun sales in DC would more closely approximate gun sales in places like Maryland or northern Virginia where you have approximately one guns sale per year for every 50 residents. With a population of 600,000, I suspect that DC can support 10,000+ gun sales per year. Much moren than the 500/year we currently have.
No – although I suppose there are probably people who find the entire panoply of regulation so difficult that they buy illegally, thinking “Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.”
There are still significant restrictions and I think the impression is that the restrictions are still pretty high.
Lets look at a state like Hawai’i which has a lot of similarities with DC.
There was one NICS check for every ~200 residents every year before Heller. Now its more like one Nics check for every 80 residents.
I don’t know what DC’s equilibrium purchase rate will be but it will be higher than 1 in every 1000 that we see today once we have a more vibrant market.
Well, I’m waiting for the entrepreneurs to arrive and set up their gun shops. I would think that those who believe there is money to be made would be pretty aware of the laws here and how they have loosened considerably over the last six years. But in true Bricker style of putting one’s money where one’s mouth is, potential gun shop owners don’t seem to be plunking down any investments in DC properties that are zoned for gun shops.
Personally, if I believed that current demand for guns was only 5% of what it should be, I’d be opening up Ravenman’s Rifle Range and Handgun Hangout somewhere near the Washington Times building on Route 50. Instead, DC only has lonely Mr. Sykes handling 10 or so transactions per month in his taxpayer subsidized office in the police department.
So I asked a guy I know why he isn’t opening a gun shop in DC (he is building a new facility west of the city) and and his response was that he didn’t really think a gun shop with demonstrations going on outside would do very well. I don’t know if this is a valid reason but he didn’t think it would make a lot of sense unless you were just trying to make a statement. Who would you hire and would they be able to carry guns in the store? Could you stock your store without registering the guns to yourself and would you have to work out of your home (Heller only covers guns in the home)? Would customers be able to handle guns or would that be possession of an unregistered gun? There seemed to be too many unsettled questions to make a gun store in DC very attractive.
Even Hawaii has three full service gun stores while DC has an FFL transfer shop.
In response to the ruling in Palmer last year, DC adopted a highly restrictive gun-permitting system, colloquially referred to as ‘may issue’. This is similar to systems in place in Maryland, NJ, NY, and CA.
On Monday a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction in Wren v DC (pdf) barring enforcement of the ‘good reason’ provision of the DC permitting system for concealed carry permits.
Four criteria are required for a preliminary injunction to be granted:
[ol]
[li]a substantial likelihood of success on the merits,[/li][li]that it would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction were not granted, [/li][li]that an injunction would not substantially injure other interested parties, and [/li][li]that the public interest would be furthered by the injunction.'[/li][/ol]
From the article:
While just at the district level, this is another victory for the SAF and Alan Gura.
It would be wonderful if DC appealed and this went to SCOTUS to strike down ‘may issue’ nation wide. Oh to dream.
