First this from Snowflakes in Hell on "What Should Scare Us":
Four justices of the Supreme Court of the United States were completely willing to read out part of the Bill of Rights because they don’t like the result that comes from it. We can seek comfort that we got a five vote majority, but it’s a little close for my comfort. Come this fall, we must do absolutely everything humanly possible to ensure that Barack Obama is defeated, or watch future courts retreat from the Heller ruling faster than you can shake a stick.Already, the D.C. Attorney General is adding layers of additional regulations to their already Byzantine firearms legal structure/ This from the Washington Post:
Among the likely regulations: Gun owners would have to be 18 or older and could not have been convicted of a felony or any weapon-related charge or have been in a mental hospital for the past five years. Registrants also will be finger-printed and required to pass a written test to be sure they understand the city's gun laws, Nickles said.Great piece from Armed Canadian addressing this very subject:
At least initially, he added, residents would be limited to one handgun apiece. The city will set up a hotline for firearm registrations.
Nickles said he did not expect the court to undo the ban on automatic weapons.
One major question, he said, was whether the court would undo the city's trigger lock requirement that all shotguns in homes remain unloaded with locks on the triggers. If the court overturns that provision, Nickles said, the mayor's office likely would propose new legislation to the D.C. Council that would require that guns remain unloaded in the home expect in the case of self-defense.
Handguns would only be allowed in the home, Nickles added, with residents banned from carrying them on the streets or into other buildings.
And if the Mayor's office does this, he is in violation of the ruling! A requirement to keep a firearm unloaded until needed is exactly the same thing as required it to be kept locked until needed. Mayor Fenty is splitting hairs here. Expect him to define unloaded as no ammunition near the gun, readily accessible for use in a gun and must be held in a separate, locked container. A magazine in a handgun but no round chambered he would define as "loaded".
Does he seriously want to spend another 5 years in court battles over semantics?