Heller Skelter.

You may be an Attorney General, but you ain't no dancer.

I can't help but notice that Campbell Brown is conspicuously silent on this issue? Coincidence? Or does she have something to hide? Like maybe her Kenyan birth certificate? And why isn't she returning my calls?

I wish Council and the mayor would just come out and reveal that they're trying to subvert the Supreme Court's ruling through excessive legislation.

I also wish Fenty had no bias and no bull, like good ol' Campbell Brown (weeknights at 8pm, only on CNN).

IMGoph, I think those kind of generalities are dangerous, don't you? I'm sure the TSA thinks that the security checks at the airport are onerous, but hey, they couldn't possibly be a bad thing right?

Firearms are not cars. Cars are used in potentially life-threatening ways every single day simply by pulling out into traffic. A gun has a potential to be dangerous, but only if used maliciously or with disregard to safety. A simple instruction on gun safety is all that should be required, not a multiple hour course. MOst drivers never have training anyway, they just have to take a test to show they can drive with basic skill. I'd be fine with the same for buying a gun.

Training for what. Did you hear about the anti-kidnapping expert getting kidnapped in Mexico?
Or the gun expert on You Tube shooting himself in front of his students. I Just...(cue up the Cindy Lauper tune) I just want to have fun...with my gun.

I'm calculating the odds that this thread will quickly degenerate into a flamewar. I figure the odds are pretty good.

"Gun folk" - love. ing. it.

Training is excellent - hoop jumping post-training is at least somewhat questionable. This boils down to a tiny tax revenue stream for the District, less about safety (similar to NY State's proposed requirement that all drivers to buy the new high-reflective license plates).

I wonder how many people this will affect anyway.

I thought that Eddie Eagle® looked familiar. He's plagiarizing Pete the Anti-pedophilia Pidgeon®, down to his "Don't Touch! Leave the Area." warnings. I smell lawsuit.

I don't have a problem with the training, assuming it's reasonably available and not cost-prohibitive.

The re-registration wouldn't be too bad if it were easy to do. I guess I see the reasoning - it would theoretically cut down on guns being resold illegally, etc.

But the key is logistics. If they really mean for these things to be useful, then make them easy to do. Make it easy to get the training, in existing NOVA or MD facilities. And allow for easy re-licensing.

Otherwise, they are intentional road-blocks to gun ownership.

Being DC, anybody want to lay odds on which it really is?

They could use Harriette Walters' face on the training targets. Good way for DC gun owners to vent.

Let me see if I understand this: All these new Council rules that they're making up as they go along will help reduce the chances of guns being used to commit crimes. Right? So.....since DC had the country's toughest gun ban for 30 years and also had one of the highest gunshot rates, clearly the ban worked well with criminals.

Here's an idea for the Council: If a person is caught with an illegal gun, they go to jail for a mandatory minimum of 1 year. If they commit a crime with a gun, they get an additional mandatory minimum of 5 years tacked onto their sentence. If they're convicted of any gun crimes, they lose all rights to public assistance.

Let's stop pretending any Council-mandated hurdles to citizens using their Second Amendment rights is going to stop criminals from using guns the same way they have for the past 30 years the gun ban was in effect. If you want to stop the shootings and killings, then pretend you're serious with the criminals.

"Sure, the city has been, ummmmm, under the gun from Congress to act on the Supreme Court's somewhat vague ruling,..."

Not so vague really, more of an emphatic statement

"In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home." DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (554 U. S. ____ (2008) slip op at 64

The Supremes chose not to address the registration/license issue because they (and the appeals court) assumed that DC would issue them on a reasonable basis. Given that DC is now trying to impose regulations more burdensome than Cali's or Mass' and act as a de-facto bar on ownership again (remember the revolver only regs in the first pass?) It will end up in court again and DC will allow the court to move the bar even farther into the land of CCW and unregulated transfer

Go Team!

You're on a slippery slope, Cranky. If the Council stops rubberstamping pointless, feelgood legislation, what purpose does it serve at all?

I'll tell you what purpose they serve, but first we have to get a giant snowglobe, some panda outfits, a crate of scorpions, and power of attorney.

"I don't want a bunch of (untrained) gun packing DC residents coming to Virginia."

Yeah, Virginia has enough untrained gun packing residents.

Old and Cranky,

The problem with the mandatory sentence idea is that now, with these new regulations, you will likely have a lot of people doing time just because they did not get their annual affirmation to DCPD that they are, in fact, not criminals post marked by the due date.

They pretty much made certain that no one could ever open a gun shop or a firing range, via the zoning code. After all the Zoning Code plus fired up NIMBYs in Ward 5 is the way they got rid of the gay strip clubs after they plunked down that $700 million Lerner family boondoggle in SE. 'Course the feds and the cops have plenty of indoor ranges in the city but, natch, hoi polloi won't be able to use them.

"So.....since DC had the country's toughest gun ban for 30 years and also had one of the highest gunshot rates, clearly the ban worked well with criminals."

Sortof like the super pro-gun laws in Richmond and New Orleans sure curbed those crime rates, yes?

Oh, wait.

No thank you. I don't want a bunch of (untrained) gun packing DC residents coming to Virginia.

Why on earth not? Wouldn't it make Virginia that much safer?

(I mean, if guns prevent crime, and training requirements are unduly onerous, then there's no reason not to welcome gun-toting District residents with open, but safety-engaged, arms.)

I am in agreement with you cranky.

i won't speak for hillman, but my point would be that having pro-gun laws has been associated with increased gun traffiking and even higher gun crime rates for those states with the laws. So my question would be, why not impose minimal regulations if they have been shown to have a positive effect on society?

"Whats your point hillman?"

My point is that gun crime stats are all over the place. Yes, DC has had very high crime rates, with severe gun restrictions. But you could argue pretty successfully that in the case of DC our proximity to Virginia made our gun laws ineffective.

But New Orleans and Richmond both have terrible crime rates, and you're pretty much given a gun at birth in those towns.

And NYC has one of the lowest gun crime rates, with some of the strictest gun control laws.

And I'm sure some cities with loose gun laws have much lower crime rates than DC.

In any event, those that claim either very strict gun laws or very lenient ones will bring us a utopia without crime are fooling themselves, and pointing out only selective cities as examples isn't showing the whole picture.

I actually sent the above email. Wanna take bets on her responding?

The council needs to re-define the term "gun" to mean "any device with a hole in it capable of shooting hot stuff." That way, we can have Jim Graham arrested for possession of a two dangerous devices: his mouth and his wang.

I want people to undergo training before they type on the internet. Martin Austermuhle, you should be required to undergo training before being allowed to post on DCist.

Oh, and you don't understand why the NRA runs training programs and yet opposes these laws? It's very simple so I will try to use short words for you: one is voluntary, the other is mandatory. I understand that is a distinction many liberals have problems with.

There are plenty of things that are fine and dandy but become polluted and corrupted by force. Just think of the difference between sex and rape as one example.

Does anyone know where to get a copy of these bills? Mendelson's office has been promising/stonewalling me for the past two weeks trying to get copies of the proposed bills while the DC Council Legislation website remains un-updated. Anyone else pissed that the Council voted to pass this stuff without giving citizens the right to review and comment on the law?

I'm not impressed.

I just read the first draft...ugh. I don't think the Council could have put MORE laws and restrictions in the bill.

We will have a 21st Century set of restrictions on an 18th Century law which specifically states "shall not be infringed."

I think DC should start imagining what an infringement of nearly any other right they like might look like, then ask if that's fair to do to the 2nd Amendment, if given equal footing. Sorry, DC isn't allowed to have my "assault weapon" which I jumped through all their hoops to get.

I went a bit overboard with a POF 415, which is similar to an AR-15. Great for target shooting, defense, and small game hunting. Have to stick to 10 round magazines, but no worries.

I imagine they'll simply not allow me to re-register it after three years, which will be a great time to take them to court for restricting a weapon "in common use at the time" (ARs are super popular) that is not "dangerous or unusual".