Actually a majority of the guns recovered in DC last year that were able to be successfully traced came from Maryland:
http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/lib/mpdc/publications/2006_AR_Guns_in_DC.pdf

As long as Virginia exists and holds its stance on gun control, the D.C. handgun ban will be nothing more than good press for whatever D.C. politician is supporting it. People want guns. Guns are available in neighboring states. People will buy guns and bring them back to D.C.

Legalize, regulate, require registration, and fire a test round and keep bore characteristics on file. Until handguns are illegal in Virginia, D.C.'s best bet is to document as many handguns as they can that are already in the city.

I love it when DCist goes lo-fi for the artwork. Seriously. Keep doing it.

"much more vast restrictions"

... much vaster?

And unless I misunderstand the DC gun ban with a deep perversity, what the hell does Virginia have to weigh in against? Ignoring niggling arguments over whether DC is a "state" for the moment, isn't the District's argument at base a very states-rights friendly view?
Or is Virginia going to argue that it has an interest in not letting "cities" set their own gun restrictions? I mean, if more gun restrictions are "permissible," so what for Bob McDonnell?

Or is this some shocking "we didn't sign the retrocession contract" that they're gonna pull?

Yeah, I agree with Jim. I don't understand Virginia's angle. So what if DC won and it enabled states to have broader gun control. It wouldn't require them to do it. If Virginia wants to not pass strict gun control, it can simply not pass it. And if that's not enough comfort to them, they can simply adopt an amendment to the Virginia constitution saying that the right to bear arms is a personal right (and frankly I think something like this is already on their books) and that strict gun laws are unconstitutional under the Virginia Constitution.

I guess their fear would be that the feds would adopt something. Well since the strongest law the feds passed was a law saying that when you buy an M-16 you have to buy your scope separately, then I doubt the feds are about to take all your guns away.

As a Virginian living in Arlington County I just don't feel safe at night knowing I am so close to a city that has gun control laws (WTF?).

Kudos to dcist to allow their younger, more developmentally disabled cousin waldorfist to do the artwork.

Again: dont want a gun? Dont buy one. Dont like abortions? Dont have one. Dont like narcotics? Dont sell your ass for them. Dont like teh gheys marrying? Too fuggin bad. They're takin over and aint a goddamn thing you can do about it 'cept buy stock in Phillipe Stark and learn to enjoy getting raunched up the fudge tunnel.

DCist wrote: "but we also know that Virginia isn't the first state we'd take a cue on gun control (or lack thereof) from. After all, their guns have a tendency of showing up in other places and being used in crimes, don't they?"

Huh?

Guns are fungible commodities - they will show up and circulate around the world regardless of gun control, which by the way, Virginia has plenty of, including being one of only 3 states to ration handgun sales to one per month.

And what do you mean about "their guns"?

Why would the DCist ascribe state citizenship to guns? That's just being 4th grade dumb.

"VA residents ought to have the right to travel in and thru DC while lawfully armed."

Majstoll: If that's the best you've, got how about just staying the fuck out of our city, if you're that terrified of us.

I'm a gun lover, and in recent years I've come to support a repeal of DC's gun ban, mostly because our police force is a joke. But it needs to be done by DC residents, not by people that don't fucking live in DC, especially since DC is virtually powerless due to a lack of a vote in Congress.

It's funny to me how those that are suddenly all about DC resident's 'right' to carry guns are usually the same assholes that fight to keep the vote from DC, and to keep DC from having a commuter tax. Funny how they are so selective in what 'rights' we should have. I'm not saying that applies to you, but it's a safe bet that it applies to most of those newly in favor of DC citizen 'rights' to carry a gun.

As for cities, how's that pro-gun culture working for you in high-crime Richmond?

Hillman - In my (tossed) salad days, I'd love nothing more than to ply my girlfriend with expensive gifts in exchange for a chance to go "drillin' for mud bunnies," although I prefer the more bucolic "rootin' fer 'taters."

As for a commuter tax, I've always thought the primary problem would be MD/VA charging a reciprocal tax on DC residents who work in MD/VA to recover what DC's taking.

And I have yet to understand that whole "collective" right to firearms ownership (implying that only a "well-regulated militia" can have guns). How's the militia supposed to be trained unless they have their own guns? Unless they're stored in some kinda armory; an armory that can be easily locked-down by the tyrannical government that the well-regulated militia is trying to get rid of.

Noticed how easily I segued from sodomy to taxes to firearms. It's because all three are what surround us and penetrate us and bind the galaxy together.

Hillman histrionically wrote: "I'm a gun lover, and in recent years I've come to support a repeal of DC's gun ban, mostly because our police force is a joke. But it needs to be done by DC residents, not by people that don't fucking live in DC, especially since DC is virtually powerless due to a lack of a vote in Congress."

Sorry Dude, but this is a legal matter, not a popularity contest. DC's power to ban guns generally is limited by the Second Amendment, and not just as to DC residents. It's the same as if DC started catching commuters on the 14th street bridge and enslaving them in DC - the thirteenth amendment would kick in and preclude that.

And as for the City of Richmond, gun rights there allow people to LEGALLY fight back and defend themselves. E.g., Jim Nolan, Robber's killer not charged
Grand jury says shooting at Richmond ice-cream store was in self-defense, Richmond Times Dispatch, Nov. 6, 2007, available at http://tinyurl.com/27c8gx.

Hillman does not want to accept that Virginia’s gun transfer laws are among the most stringent of all the states, and writes that majstoll is "misleading at best. VA doesn't require handguns to be registered or licensed. They also don't require background checks, especially at gun shows. And everybody and their dog knows you can buy as many guns at a gun show on any given day as you damn well please. It's the biggest open secret in the state."

Well, look, why talk about "registration or licensing" of handguns when almost no state does this?

But like all states, background checks are required in VA (along with decentralized registration thru dealer records) when buying a gun from a federal dealer. And like all but 4 states, no background check is required when buying a handgun from a private person - like over the kitchen table, at a yard sale, or in the church parking lot after services.

As for buying guns at gun shows, of course you can buy as many **long guns** at gun shows from dealers or private sellers as you want - VA's one gun a month rationing law only applies to HANDGUNS. Anyway, only 5 states block private sales at gun shows.

Try going to a VA gun show and buying more than one handgun from dealers there - your purchase will be halted by the instant check and the police will arrive at the table to talk to you in minutes!

Further, try walking around the gun show, even "The Nation's Gun Show" at Dulles expo center and finding more than 1 or 2 handguns for sale by private sellers - even if you do, just start buying them and try to walk out of there with VA State Police and BATFE undercover agents crawling all over - really Hillman, I'll go with you and quietly video record your antics - can't wait.

No one would disagree that there should be limits on the right to bear arms. I think that gun ownership should be regulated by the state. I have no problem with reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms.

If any area of the country is going to enact gun laws as broad as the District's, I think that it is reasonable to show that those laws work. Here's what Marion Barry said when the DC ban was passed: "What we are doing today will not take one gun out of the hands of one criminal."

Guns were used in 63 percent of the city's 188 slayings in 1976.

Last year, out of 169 homicides, 81 percent were shootings.

Here's my source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/12/AR2007111201818_3.html

This law doesn't work. It only keeps guns out of the hands of normal, responsible citizens. I'm not saying everyone in the district should have guns, but if a citizen, without serious mental issues or a criminal background, wants a firearm they have a constitutional right to it.

Read the article please. 5 states have already joined the case. Virginia is the 6th. I realize that not all DC residents are idiots, but many of those commenting here come across that way.

I think Virginia has more interest than Hawaii. Not least because many Virginia residents work and spend significant time in DC. Every day I come to work in DC my 2nd Amendment rights are violated.

To those that say, 'then don't come to DC'. I say, get out of my country if you can't read the 2nd Amendment.

yes, its far more offensive and anti american that we cant have guns than congressional representation.

i mean democracy is more about shootin' than votin', right?

CA1289:

You inadvertantly bring up a very interesting aspect of DC gun laws.

That is, we have a huge homeless and mentally unstable populace, in large part because we are the nation's capital. And at least in some part because we don't have the political pull to have real federal dollars assigned to combat the problem.

And these aint' your typical garden variety unstable folks. A good many of these folks came to DC to confront government officials for all kinds of oddball reasons.

And most of those folks have never been declared legally mentally unstable (but that sure doesn't stop them from having a hu.

So until the Feds address this issue I'm not real sure we should go arming every person in DC parks, especially since there are so many here on a special mission from God (or the Planet Zircon Supreme Commander) to seek vengeance on various government officlas and targets.

Last, there's the Roe v. Wade nutcases. I shudder to think what the annual Roe v. Wade marches in my neighborhood would be like once the participants were carrying guns.

Actually, yes. Firearms are quite useful for stopping nearly anyone (large, well-trained armies included). Go take a gander through some history books if you think otherwise (pay special attention to the Warsaw ghetto and current Iraq).

People who want to keep giving freedom away for more "safety" don't deserve either.

You can put your trust in government; the only thing I trust them with is being incompetent. That is except for killing people in large numbers...the 20th century is a testament to government's ability to accomplish that.

HCE:

You are right, to a point. Having guns in the house would be more useful in the event of a gubmint takeover than having, say, stacks of the new DC quarters to throw at them.

But the gubmint takeover in the US won't be by force. It'll be by incremental dissolving of basic civil liberties, greatly helped by the hysteria after 9/11. Nobody will notice, and in the end no one will care.

But I dare say we are much too much a Nation of Pussies for anyone to ever stage a resistance like Iraq or the Warsaw Ghetto. We just don't have the stomach for it. Especially in DC, the home of the original passive-aggressive personality.

But the gubmint takeover in the US won't be by force. It'll be by incremental dissolving of basic civil liberties, greatly helped by the hysteria after 9/11. Nobody will notice, and in the end no one will care.

I see someone's been paying attention to Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. Talk about "who cares?"

Hillma