Just an update to show how determined the anti-gun fanatics are. The DC government intends to require registration and fingerprinting of anyone who wants to buy a gun. They also intend to enforce another law that apparently bans any "auto" handgun that has a clip capacity greater than 12. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR2008062603988.html
Other articles have referred simply to an exisitng ban on all semi auto handguns.
Clearly the District intends to implement the Court's decision in bad faith and try to drag out the process of compliance as long as possible. The NRA and other Second Amendment supporters will be forced to return to court over and over. Background checks are clearly constitutional, as the government has a right not to allow felons and mental patient sto obtain guns. Registration stands on shakier ground, but is probably legal. I think many scholars would argue that it would be unconstitutional for the government to require journalists or internet posters to be registered, for example, as the threat of revocation would be a chill on First Amendment rights. Fingerprinting again seems excessive. A citizen should not be forced to relinquish other rights to exercise their Second Amendment right. It's interesting that liberals, like Obama, fight to prevent states from requiring that voters have reasnable forms of identification to prevent fraud, but think it is reasonable to burden Second Amendment rights with all kind sof intrusive requirements.
Limiting the right to own a gun to obsolescent designs seems clearly at odds with the decision. Modern high capacity semi autos are pretty much the standard handgun now. Similarly, military -style rifles should be just as protected as shotguns or target rifles.
There are few issues that define the liberal/conservative split as clearly as this one. Liberals think only the government should have access to weapons and that only mischief can come from private ownership. Conservatives cannot understand why liberals want to make criminals of law-abiding people who only want the means to protect their own homes and families.
Other articles have referred simply to an exisitng ban on all semi auto handguns.
Clearly the District intends to implement the Court's decision in bad faith and try to drag out the process of compliance as long as possible. The NRA and other Second Amendment supporters will be forced to return to court over and over. Background checks are clearly constitutional, as the government has a right not to allow felons and mental patient sto obtain guns. Registration stands on shakier ground, but is probably legal. I think many scholars would argue that it would be unconstitutional for the government to require journalists or internet posters to be registered, for example, as the threat of revocation would be a chill on First Amendment rights. Fingerprinting again seems excessive. A citizen should not be forced to relinquish other rights to exercise their Second Amendment right. It's interesting that liberals, like Obama, fight to prevent states from requiring that voters have reasnable forms of identification to prevent fraud, but think it is reasonable to burden Second Amendment rights with all kind sof intrusive requirements.
Limiting the right to own a gun to obsolescent designs seems clearly at odds with the decision. Modern high capacity semi autos are pretty much the standard handgun now. Similarly, military -style rifles should be just as protected as shotguns or target rifles.
There are few issues that define the liberal/conservative split as clearly as this one. Liberals think only the government should have access to weapons and that only mischief can come from private ownership. Conservatives cannot understand why liberals want to make criminals of law-abiding people who only want the means to protect their own homes and families.
