DC residents might get a reprieve:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/debonis/2011/02/congress_takes_first_whack_at.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/debonis/2011/02/congress_takes_first_whack_at.html
District Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) assailed the measure in a release of her own today. She vowed to fight the measure: "They underestimate our residents if they think this city will tolerate autocratic rule from Congress any more than the Jordan and Ross districts would tolerate dictatorship from Congress on local matters," Norton said.
I don't think this bill has a prayer of passing, but it IS fun watching Eleanor Holmes Norton squirm!
District Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) assailed the measure in a release of her own today. She vowed to fight the measure: "They underestimate our residents if they think this city will tolerate autocratic rule from Congress any more than the Jordan and Ross districts would tolerate dictatorship from Congress on local matters," Norton said.
Why can't they apply this nationally? Or would it? If this passed, DC would then have better gun laws than Maryland.
Washington, D.C., is governed by a mayor and a 13-member city council. However, the United States Congress has supreme authority over the city and may overturn local laws.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
It's too bad Norton "struts and frets" for WAY more than an hour.It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
~ William Shakespeare > Macbeth > Act V, Sc. v
They should have started a little slower, would have a much better chance of passing and vastly improve their current situation.
- Repeals D.C.'s ban on large capacity ammunition feeding devices (i.e., magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds).
- Repeals D.C.'s ban on assault weapons, including .50 caliber rifles.
- Prohibits residential and commercial property owners from banning tenants from having guns on their property.
- Bars D.C. from prohibiting guns in District owned or controlled buildings and structures that do not have certain security measures in place, which could include elementary schools and recreation centers, and D.C. cannot prevent private tenants of city owned or controlled buildings and structures from bringing guns into them, regardless of the security measures in place.
- Repeals D.C.'s categories of prohibited possessors; for example, a person who was voluntarily committed to a mental institution could buy a gun.
- Prevents D.C. from making changes to its gun laws in the future.
- Creates the only exception to federal law by permitting D.C. residents to make handgun purchases in person outside their place of residency, in this case, in Maryland and Virginia.
- Repeals D.C.'s design safety standards for handguns.
- Repeals D.C.'s requirement of microstamping for semiautomatic handguns.
- Repeals D.C.'s requirement of ballistics testing for handguns.
- Reduces penalties if a child is injured by a negligently stored gun.
If Heller II wins that takes care of the low cap magazine requirements, assault weapons, and part of the registration.
That list is not quite accurate. It looks like it is from California law. DC does not have design safety standards for handguns or microstamping.
I was just winging it, I took Mark's list from above and took out what seemed to be the biggest EH Norton heartburn items. (I'm sure they all are!).
I'd love the courts to give us something solid, but damn they're slow!
It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
~ William Shakespeare > Macbeth > Act V, Sc. v
I hope I'm not the only one who finds this part objectionable:
"Prohibits residential and commercial property owners from banning tenants from having guns on their property."
I'm all for lawful carry, but if an anti-gun property owner doesn't want guns on the property they own, isn't that their right? I don't see a conflict with the 2nd Amendment for a PRIVATE property owner to deny someone the privilege of entering with a firearm. They own the property, they get to make the rules. Am I missing something?
I think the key issue is "tenants". This isn't saying someone can't stop someone from entering their home or business with a firearm. It's saying that if you're going to rent from me and become the tenant then I can't deny your constitutional rights. I'd agree it could be an issue with small "landlords" where someone may be renting out a room in their house or something.
I hope I'm not the only one who finds this part objectionable:
"Prohibits residential and commercial property owners from banning tenants from having guns on their property."
I'm all for lawful carry, but if an anti-gun property owner doesn't want guns on the property they own, isn't that their right? I don't see a conflict with the 2nd Amendment for a PRIVATE property owner to deny someone the privilege of entering with a firearm. They own the property, they get to make the rules. Am I missing something?
So, where do you stand on Smoking bans in restaurants and other privately owned property?