Gun 're-registration' in "the other Washington"

[Dave Workman]

They are re-registering guns in ‘the other Washington’

:huh:

Gun owners in “the other Washington” are required to re-register their guns with the Metropolitan Police Department beginning Jan. 1, according to NBC News4 yesterday, and coincidentally today, the same news agency is reporting that the murder rate in the nation’s capital has climbed this year.

<broken link removed>

Read More

 

[Botte Hork]

Yeah, all those law abiding gunowners cannot be trusted and we need to make sure that whatever they have registered to them still is, plus we'll get a few bucks out of 'em and we can throw the ones who miss the deadline in jail for being the busy people they are.

[/facepalm]

 

[Redcap]

F**k DC.

 

[Provincial]

Charging a fee for exercising a Constitutional Right? This has already been ruled illegal in the case of voting, so there is no excuse for this overreach of power
.
This is so blatantly illegal that all those involved should be punished on an individual basis.

 

[Dave Workman]

Charging a fee for exercising a Constitutional Right? This has already been ruled illegal in the case of voting, so there is no excuse for this overreach of power
.
This is so blatantly illegal that all those involved should be punished on an individual basis.

Mount the legal action.
First find an attorney willing to take on the case
Second, find plaintiffs with standing
Third, Find about $350,000 to pay legal costs.

Simple, eh?

Alas, that's what it takes

 

[U201491]

They are re-registering guns in ‘the other Washington’

:huh:

Gun owners in “the other Washington” are required to re-register their guns with the Metropolitan Police Department beginning Jan. 1, according to NBC News4 yesterday, and coincidentally today, the same news agency is reporting that the murder rate in the nation’s capital has climbed this year.

<broken link removed>

:angry:ffwall::angry:ffwall::angry:ffwall::angry:

 

[simon99]

So, just out of curiosity, what would happen if you didn't register? What if, ahem, you sold all your weapons? ( wink,wink)

 

[DeM3n]

So, just out of curiosity, what would happen if you didn't register? What if, ahem, you sold all your weapons? ( wink,wink)

Good question... Hypothetically speaking of course.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[41Slinger]

40,000 registration refusals, what cha gonna do when they come for u. :gun21:

 

[Fast Eddie]

So, just out of curiosity, what would happen if you didn't register? What if, ahem, you sold all your weapons? ( wink,wink)

You better hope you never piss anyone off that knows you have them. Saw a case in DC recently where a woman turned her ex in for having a pistol in the house. They took him down hard, You wouldn't trade problems with this guy.

 

[John H]

Mount the legal action.
First find an attorney willing to take on the case
Second, find plaintiffs with standing
Third, Find about $350,000 to pay legal costs.

Simple, eh?

Alas, that's what it takes

Well SAF I bet would really love to have a check from DC hanging on the wall

 

[Dunerunner]

You better hope you never piss anyone off that knows you have them. Saw a case in DC recently where a woman turned her ex in for having a pistol in the house. They took him down hard, You wouldn't trade problems with this guy.

And....Wasn't the arrest for having a spent shell casing and a cleaning kit?

 

[Norm0931]

Heller already contacted the attorneys he previously worked with and is going to file a new case against DC. We may soon be quoting Heller v DC 2.0.

 

[U201491]

40,000 registration refusals, what cha gonna do when they come for u. :gun21:

L & L & press
As many times as it takes.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

Mount the legal action.
First find an attorney willing to take on the case
Second, find plaintiffs with standing
Third, Find about $350,000 to pay legal costs.

Simple, eh?

Alas, that's what it takes

Save your money. There's a reason why DC registration plates say "Taxation Without Representation" too. It's because D.C. is utterly and eternally a federal landscape. This fact results from Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, which says (in part):

"Congress shall have power....To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States,

The DC clause was specifically put in the Constitution because under the Articles of Confederation, Congress would convene its law-making business in whatever State would host it. In 1783, Philadelphia was hosting Congress when Congress was attacked by Revolutionary soldiers who were mad about haven't not gotten paid. Congress had to quickly leave because Pennsylvania authorities wouldn't call out the militia to protect Congress. So when the Constitution Convention came around, delegates determined that Congress would never be attacked again and penciled the federal government's own allotment of office space into the Constitution where it was authorized to exert its own autonomy and defend that autonomy as it saw fit. This is why gun laws are so tough in DC? That state of affairs is a constitutionally prescribed feature of DC.

There are quite literally two different legal categories of "citizen" under the Constitution: State Citizens and federal citizens. This is because the Constitution is a "contract" and the only "parties" to it (i.e. full blown beneficiaries) are the State Citizens who created it (Creator/Creation). State Citizens were the only kind of citizens that existed during the Constitutional Convention. It was State Citizens who were chosen by their respective States to act as the States' legal representatives (delegates). It was they who designed and debated over its "terms and conditions", "legal relationships", "obligations" and were the only ones who signed the contract and perfected it through ratification.... for their needs and purposes.

DC citizens didn't exist during the Constitutional Convention and the framers didn't put much time into thinking about the concerns of citizens who didn't yet exist. As a result, the Constitution is blind to their concerns, save for Congress' generosity when carrying out Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17. That fact is no less a fact simply because we modern citizens get all bent about it. Our being bent is the direct result of having not been taught this information in public schools. Apparently, not even public schools in DC itself.

DC "citizens" don't get to vote either because they are not State Citizens, i.e. they are not constitutionally "eligible" to vote. Yet they get taxed all the same. The laws DC citizens are "forced" to live by are passed by Citizens of the States. Congress is the only government for DC citizens and it gets to "exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over" the district. The impression that the Constitution works the same way in DC as it does in the States is just that... an impression... an impression created by Congress' usual generosity in approximating the rights and privileges enjoyed by State Citizens, the best it can. Ultimately though, DC was constitutionally created to be office space for the federal government, not to be a housing development.

See Adams v. Clinton, 90 F. Supp. 2d 35; 2000:

"There is general agreement that the District Clause was adopted in response to an incident in Philadelphia in 1783, in which a crowd of disbanded Revolutionary War soldiers, angry at not having been paid, gathered to protest in front of the building in which the Continental Congress was meeting under the Articles of Confederation. See, e.g., KENNETH R. BOWLING, THE CREATION OF WASHINGTON, D.C. 30-34 (1991); THE FEDERALIST NO. 43, supra, at 289; JOSEPH STORY, 3 COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION §§ 1213 (1833). Despite requests from the Congress, the Pennsylvania state government declined to call out its militia to respond to the threat, and the Congress had to adjourn abruptly to New Jersey. The episode, viewed as an affront to the weak national government, led to the widespread belief that exclusive federal control over the national capital was necessary. "

"In 1818, President Monroe, who had been a delegate to the Virginia ratifying convention, noted that the people of the District of Columbia "have no participation" in Congress' exercise of power over them, and asked Congress to consider "whether an arrangement better adapted to the principles of our Government" might be possible. 33 ANNALS OF CONG. 18 (1818). No specific arrangement was proposed. See generally 3 STORY, supra note 25, § 1218 (1833) (noting that inhabitants of the District "are not indeed citizens of any state, entitled to the privileges of such, but are citizens of the United States" and that "they have no immediate representatives in congress")."

"In 1791, Maryland ratified the cession, stating that "all that part of the said territory called Columbia which lies within the limits of this State shall be . . . forever ceded and relinquished to the Congress and Government of the United States, and full and absolute right and exclusive jurisdiction, as well of soil as of persons residing or to reside thereon.[/B]" "

The rights and privileges of federal citizens are not the same as those of State Citizens. State Citizens originally created the Constitution to suit their needs. No one elses. For the citizens that emerged eventually through the DC clause and the territorial clause (Art. 4, Sec. 3, Par. 2), Congress is constitutionally assigned the role of managing their rights and privileges as part of its duties of being the custodian and agent of the Union's interests.

For those who complain about getting their rights stepped on, I have no sympathy for them.....DC was created specifically for the protection of the federal government, and all DC citizens have EVER had to do to fix their pathetic woes is simply move 5 miles, in one direction or another, to regain their status as State Citizens and get on with life, complete with a full set of rights. Instead Heller comes along and dumps 200+ years of settled DC status case law on its head just to pander to uninformed political pressure.

 

[Father of four]

It is a shame that our countries capital does not let their citizens exercise their 2nd Amendment right without overbearing rules and regulations. And the people let them do it to them.

 

[mancat]

Since DC already knows where the registered firearms are, it's obvious that the prosecutor simply wants to generate cases for show trials. If I lived there, I would simply take all steps necessary to move my firearms out of DC - then I myself would be next, along with my tax dollars. Of course, I would never find myself in a position of living in DC in the first place.

 

[LogicBomb]

since when do you need permission (aka a permit) to exercise your RIGHT??

 

[CounterOfBeans]

since when do you need permission (aka a permit) to exercise your RIGHT??

If you're a State Citizen, you don't. But under the Constitution, not all citizens are State Citizens, nor do they have access to the same species of rights protection as State Citizens. I went to some length in post 15 to explain if you want to check it out.

If you are a DC federal citizen, your rights are managed by Congress under Art. 1, Sec. 8, Cls. 17.

If you are a territorial federal citizen, your rights are managed by Congress under Art. 4, Sec. 3, Par. 2.

If you are a 14th Amendment federal citizen, your rights are tended to by the discretion of Congressional legislation authorized by the 14th Amendment.

Territorial citizens rights are "abused" the same way DC citizens rights are, but territorial citizens (like Puerto Ricans) have the hope of one day enjoying full protection of their rights upon Puerto Rico's admission by Congress into the Union as a State (see Downes v Bidwell). DC citizens are forever screwed... until they move out of DC (hint hint).

An example of the protection you get by being 14th Amendment federal citizen is that the 14th was "ratified" in 1868 to provide citizenship to freed blacks because, without a constitutional amendment, they could never acquire citizenship (see the Dred Scott case). But even with their 14th Amendment federal citizenship, it wasn't until the 1950's & 60's that Congress felt motivated enough to stop State Jim Crow laws down south through the Civil Rights Acts of the 50's & 60's. That's a hundred years of "free" black suffering from State level abuse, while Congress sat on its hands about it, while having authority to stop it.

The courts are indifferent to the fact that most people have a one-size-fits-all impression of rights. Not all rights are of the same nature, and not all citizens are eligible to the same form of rights protection. The common belief that they are is the crap sandwich that public schools raise us on.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

I wonder if this "great idea" is going to become a yearly "requirement"?

The irony, to me, is that the people creating this situation (police and city government, presumably) are themselves either armed or financially able to hire armed security officers to protect themselves.

It's like a committee voting to raise the bridge toll on a bridge none of them ever uses (like the Tacoma Narrows bridge, for a recent and true example.)

But why re-register guns at all? According to a contact in the gun registration division, the department wants to see how many guns are in the district, if any have been lost, stolen or otherwise disposed of, and this way the police will know who has guns legally in the District. Perhaps some of those older registrants have died, too. Also, there’s that $13 per gun fee, which – if multiplied 40,000 times – could bring in $520,000.

The other part of this is that if a person doesn’t re-register their gun, they face a fine of up to $1,000 and up to a year in jail. Gun owners have 90 days to re-register, and a grace period of another 90 days. After that, they will wind up in trouble.