Since D.C.'s handgun ban ended, well-heeled residents have become well armed

[shadowrider]

In the 2½ years since the U.S. Supreme Court ended the District's handgun ban, hundreds of residents in Washington's safest, most well-to-do neighborhoods have armed themselves, registering far more guns than people in poorer, crime-plagued areas of the city, according to D.C. police data.

Since the landmark court ruling in June 2008, records show, more than 1,400 firearms have been registered with D.C. police, most in the western half of the District. Among those guns, nearly 300 are in the high-income, low-crime Georgetown, Palisades and Chevy Chase areas of Northwest.

In all of the neighborhoods east of the Anacostia River - a broad swath of the city with more than 52,000 households, many of them in areas beset by poverty and drug-related violence - about 240 guns have been registered.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/07/AR2011020706450.html?wprss=rss_metro

The poor are apparently left out.

Also, IMO, the guy in the picture is an idiot. NEVER, EVER put your finger on the trigger, or rest it on the trigger, unless you have identified your target and are ready to shoot.

[X_Digger]

1. Here's one reason why..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/01/AR2009090103836.html?sid=ST2009090103944

It took $833.69, a total of 15 hours 50 minutes, four trips to the Metropolitan Police Department, two background checks, a set of fingerprints, a five-hour class and a 20-question multiple-choice exam.

The actual gun cost was $275.

And those impediments? Intentional..

Reluctantly, Mayor Adrian M. Fenty's administration set up a process through which about 550 residents -- now including yours truly -- have acquired a handgun. But as my four trips to the police department attest, D.C. officials haven't made it easy.

Which was exactly their intent. The day the Heller decision was announced, Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray (D) vowed that the city was still "going to have the strictest handgun laws the Constitution allows."

[Euromutt]

3. And it's pretty amazing the WaPo article doesn't even touch on that

It's open to conjecture why residents in some of the District's toughest neighborhoods have registered fewer guns than people in other parts of the city. D.C. police Lt. Jon Shelton, head of the firearms registration unit, said it could be simple economics.

"You have to figure, what are legitimate guns costing now?" he said. "A basic revolver is going for $350 or $400. And you're talking about $650, $700 for a quality 9 millimeter. So who's got that kind of money to just throw out there for a gun?"

More importantly, who can spare $800+ and four or more days off work to get the local government's permission to exercise a constitutional right? Ya think about that, lootenant?

[SteveM]

4. Well, it's not that amazing...

Otherwise, the WaPo would have to concede that the tools of obfuscation, poll-tax equivalency and delay were employed. Just as they were in the Jim Crow South.

[YllwFvr]

42. Who can spare it?

The article makes that very clear. The elite. DC is nearly as bad as chicago.

Isnt the approved gun list also a load of BS? They specify gun color, like a glock is approved but one with an OD frame isnt?

[jpak]

5. Good - impede away

yup

[lawodevolution]

7. I'm not surprised you support racist and classist gun control laws. You are certainly being

Consistent here.

[jpak]

10. Then we should give away glocks to all the "poor people" in DC - everyone over 18

and give them a few boxes of ammo to boot.

problem solved

:rofl:

[Hoopla Phil]

11. So you support Article I Section 8 Paragraph 16 of our Constitution?

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia"

[jpak]

12. Yes - a million man militia of "poor people" from DC armed to the teeth

yup

:rofl:

[Hoopla Phil]

13. I don't make a distinction of income level - nor does our constitution.

yup

[jpak]

14. Then you agree that the federal government can limit the magazine capacity of firearms

cuz they do it now!

:D

[Hoopla Phil]

15. Nope.

And they don't. They do regulate the number of bullets you can put into a gun for the purpose of hunting though.

yup

But you knew that already.

yup yup you shuuurree diiid now didnt-cha.


You also knew that there is no constitutional protection for hunting.
yup yup you shuuurree diiid now didnt-cha. LOL

[jpak]

17. I think that all civilian arms should be single shot - just like the Founding Fathers intended

yup!

[lawodevolution]

19. They wrote "arms" in the 2A, not "one shot firearms" so that means that no matter what guns

You want to ban, including my AK47 with my 75 round drum magazine, you can't do anything about it and I will continue to posses it and buy more as I care to do so. I hope you find a productive way to cope with this reality; you could try donating to the Brady center if you feel like helping advertise for the gun industry.

[jpak]

24. The only arms in the US at that time were single shot

So your AK is not protected by the Holy 2A.

nope

[Hoopla Phil]

28. The 2A evolves just like the 1A to new modern devices.

But you knew that already didn't you?

Yup



Or do you want to limit the 1A to only protecting the Gutenberg Press?

[rl6214]

34. The 1st amendment did not include computers

Turn yours off right now and throw it away or turn it in.

[jpak]

38. Freedom of Expression is not limited to a well regulated militia

nope

[Hoopla Phil]

41. Your mixing your Amendments.

But you knew that

Yup, "All Down But Nine" or maybe it's intentional when confronted with the illogic???

[X_Digger]

20. There were guns with 20 round magazines at the time of the signing of the second amendment..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle

It fired a .51 caliber ball at a velocity similar to that of a modern .45 ACP and it had a tubular, gravity-fed magazine with a capacity of 20 balls.

Lewis and Clark carried one.

eta: Should the first amendment be limited to quill pens and hand-crank printing presses, too?

*snort*

[jpak]

23. Umm...the Constitution was written in 1777 years before the Air Gun. But I will play

We should limit all civilian fire arms to single shot and the Girandoni Air Gun Standard.

Praise be the Holy 2A!!!111

:rofl:

[Hoopla Phil]

26. So you want the 1A to apply only to the Gutenberg Press then?

[X_Digger]

36. Umm.. you can't even get your dates right.

1787 - constitutional convention, Girandoni - 1779.

[Hoopla Phil]

21. That is not what the founding fathers intended. And that is the beauty of that living breathing

document that is our Constitution. It adapts well to changing times and technology. Could you consider if the 1A only applied to Gutenberg presses???? Glad the 1A can grow and adapt. The 2A does that too.

you seem to like "cowboy slang" so I'll leave you with this as it seems appropriate for you. "All Down But Nine"

[jpak]

22. Yes, the Founding Fathers prophesied automatic weapons and large cap mags- praise the lawd!!1111

:rofl:

A strict interpretation of the Constitution clearly stipulates that only single-shot weapons were intended by the Founding Fathers for the well regulated militia.

Praised be be the Holy 2A!

I win

yup!

:D

[Hoopla Phil]

25. Nope. It says nothing about guns or firearms. It says arms.

Not single shot, not arms that shoot a single projectile, not arms that shoot a projectile smaller than a certain caliber, and not blades that are shorter than 3 inches. (By the way, there WERE multi shot firearms at the time the Bill of Rights was signed. See up thread a bit for the reference.)


So you DO believe that the 1A only applies to the Gutenberg Press?

Nope, you really are "All Down But Nine" and I'll suggest you "Amputate Your Timber" as you clearly no not of what you speak nor do you care to open you mind and learn something new.

[jpak]

27. Nope I will not "Amputate Your Timber" as it is my 1A right

yup!

[Hoopla Phil]

29. Only if you use a Gutenberg Press.

Or stand on a soap box and yell it.

Yup!!

[jpak]

37. No, I use a keyboard and a computer and the Internets!!!!1!

:rofl:

[Hoopla Phil]

40. Live what you claim.

yup "All Down But Nine"

[krispos42]

39. And the Founders also prophesized worldwide instant communication...

...and computers that can sent out a thousand emails a second. Truth, lies, propaganda, whatever, it's all protected.

Do you think if the Founders could have foreseen Faux News they would have written the First the way they did?

[rl6214]

33. Single shot

And you know this how?

Please share your time machine with the rest of humanity, it will do so much good.

[rl6214]

32. Exactly where in his post

did he say that?

[Hoopla Phil]

35. I never did and he/she knows it. He/she was trying to play a juvenile grab ass game

to toss out his hunting restriction argument that he/she got his ass handed to him on.

Very sophomoric attempt.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x373301

[lawodevolution]

16. No, you came up with this one. The 2A protects the right of an individual to keep and bare arms,

Which means the government shall not write laws to oppress or suppress the ownership of firearms (which DC is clearly in violation of) but the BOR lists natural rights that indicate what the government cannot do and have nothing to do with the idea of supplying guns to people. Just suggesting that we should supply everyone with a glock shows that you do not understand what freedom is or how our government is supposed to function.

[X_Digger]

18. No, the government isn't obligated to drive you to the polling place..

Nor provide free crowd control for your protest, nor provide pews for your church.

Not charging to exercise a right is different than the government providing you the means to exercise a right.

Any more asinine statements to make?

[rl6214]

31. Actually

they would have to be over 21. Learn the laws.

[X_Digger]

8. Any other rights you'd like to impede for the less well-off?

Disgusting.

[rl6214]

30. Just as good

to impede your ability to post on the internet.

Right.

[Atypical Liberal]

2. Very progressive policies DC has there.

DC's gun control laws are clearly regressive in nature. They allow the wealthy to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, but artificially raise barriers making it harder for the poor to do so.

This should be done away with just like redlining was for mortgages.

[lawodevolution]

6. Gun control in DC is still racist and classist.

The poll tax was meant to keep the poor and minorities from voting.

Gun control (in DC) is meant to keep the poor and minorities disarmed while arming up the rich. They share something in common with Alabama of the 60s and 70s.

[spin]

9. K&R (n/t)