PDA

View Full Version : DC Adopts CA AW Ban, CA Roster


hoffmang
12-17-2008, 10:55 AM
All,

Here is an actual copy of the legislation DC adopted yesterday:
http://www.dccouncil.us/images/00001/20081210115303.pdf

It is almost a cut and paste from our laws and it refers specifically to the unsafe roster run by California.

This can only count as excellent news. We will be able to challenge CA's laws in Federal Court absent incorporation issues. This is breaking so I can't speculate on timing or next steps but I am excited!

Please read closely and post thoughts. Note that Harrot doesn't apply to DC directly so there is new "series" language federally. However, Harrot should be instructive and Janice Rogers Brown (author of Harrot) serves on the DC Circuit...

-Gene

JeffM
12-17-2008, 10:59 AM
All,

Here is an actual copy of the legislation DC adopted yesterday:
http://www.dccouncil.us/images/00001/20081210115303.pdf

It is almost a cut and paste from our laws and it refers specifically to the unsafe roster run by California.

This can only count as excellent news. We will be able to challenge CA's laws in Federal Court absent incorporation issues. This is breaking so I can't speculate on timing or next steps but I am excited!

Please read closely and post thoughts. Note that Harrot doesn't apply to DC directly so there is new "series" language federally. However, Harrot should be instructive and Janice Rogers Brown (author of Harrot) serves on the DC Circuit...

-Gene

Hmmmmm.... sounds interesting.

Tagged for further reading.

Dr Rockso
12-17-2008, 11:00 AM
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/29/100276794_548c83c4eb.jpg

Hopi
12-17-2008, 11:02 AM
They must not read Calguns.net......

bwiese
12-17-2008, 11:03 AM
Let's NeRF DC!

We need to get some M1919s in there too.

And I think Staples can kill AW ban there.

bwiese
12-17-2008, 11:05 AM
I would also advise not commenting on workarounds to DC law publicly here.

Anything we figure out here will likely make it into law before enacted - given who reads Calguns.

Let's let them make bad (attackable) law.

Alan Gura will be eating well at the Capitol Grille.

1064chubbs
12-17-2008, 11:14 AM
This is going to get interesting.

sorensen440
12-17-2008, 11:15 AM
I would also advise not commenting on workarounds to DC law publicly here.

Anything we figure out here will likely make it into law before enacted - given who reads Calguns.

Let's let them make bad (attackable) law.

Alan Gura will be eating well at the Capitol Grille.

agreed

caduckgunner
12-17-2008, 11:19 AM
Tag for later

383green
12-17-2008, 11:19 AM
Here are my thoughts, based on a quick first reading. Please let me know if I state anything that is better left un-written in a public forum at this time.

1) The AW portion uses the "series" language that has already been nerfed by Harrott. These guys don't do their homework, do they?

2) I did not find a definition of "detachable magazine". This seems to have interesting implications, though I don't know whether they're good or bad.

3) Microstamping is required for any gun sold after 2011, and I didn't see any contingencies for availability or patent-encumbrance of the technology. If the manufacturers don't want to play the microstamping game (I do not know whether any offer it or plan to offer it), this this is a de-facto ban on handgun purchases after 2011. These DC guys sure make our job easy!

4) While the CA roster is borrowed (I guess they want to let the Great State of California shoulder the cost and responsibility for vetting guns for them), the language also bans possession of non-rostered guns that were not purchased prior to 2009. Combined with the microstamping terms, the DC legislature has effectively painted a giant target on their (presumably giant) collective rump.


My predictions based on this first reading:

1) The flames in which this law will go down are likely to be of epic proportion.

2) Mr. Gura will need to make some tough decisions regarding the paint scheme for his new private jet.


And finally, I have questions for Gene:

1) How does getting to fight portions of the CA law text in federal court help us in CA? It seems to me that they don't directly influence us here prior to incorporation, but getting to start the fight now in DC gives us a head start and provides an entertaining way to pass the time while waiting for an incorporation ruling.

2) Is this part of the promised "two weeks" package, or is this a surprise gift?

aileron
12-17-2008, 11:22 AM
Interesting...


“(e) The Chief shall register no more than one pistol per registrant during any 30-day period; provided that the Chief may permit a person first becoming a District resident to register more than one pistol if those pistols were lawfully owned in another jurisdiction for a period of six months prior to the date of the application”..

How is it possible that they can bar you from bringing in your lawfully acquired possessions because you haven't owned them long enough to satisfy their standards?

How are you suppose to prove it?

So does this also mean if you lost the receipt of a handgun you bought 20 years ago, or even 5 years ago, or last year... you SOL? What if it was a PPT? Or a hand me down from Gramps, or dear ol' dad?

mow
12-17-2008, 11:24 AM
I wonder if DC paid CA . . . CA laws are copyrighted y'know. :D

bwiese
12-17-2008, 11:36 AM
I wonder if DC paid CA . . . CA laws are copywritten y'know. :D

The term is copyrighted :)

CCWFacts
12-17-2008, 11:41 AM
That's cool! I'm so glad the city of DC is so eager to support the NRA and Mr. Gura.

CHS
12-17-2008, 11:45 AM
*snicker*

I really do wonder what color Gura's jet is going to be. What if he gets three of them?

bulgron
12-17-2008, 11:46 AM
1) How does getting to fight portions of the CA law text in federal court help us in CA?

I'll admit to being a computer geek.

We can multi-thread our fights in federal court! The 9th circuit can be one CPU (or core, if you like) while DC can be the other. That allows us to simultaneously fight different parts of our problems here in California by accessing resources outside of California.

For example, we could go after the ban on loaded open carry in this state even as we go after the AW ban in D.C. Dual-track it. Twice the resources. Rights can be re-established twice as fast.

This is cool....

By the way, I say all of this without having any idea as to what the legal strategy planned by All The Right People actually is.

sfwdiy
12-17-2008, 11:48 AM
This ought to be a good time.

:popcorn:

I'll admit to being a computer geek.

We can multi-thread our fights in federal court!

You are in fact a computer geek. :)

--B

hoffmang
12-17-2008, 12:00 PM
1) How does getting to fight portions of the CA law text in federal court help us in CA? It seems to me that they don't directly influence us here prior to incorporation, but getting to start the fight now in DC gives us a head start and provides an entertaining way to pass the time while waiting for an incorporation ruling.

DC Circuit is more conservative than the 9th circuit. We may be able to frontally challenge the entire concept of the safe roster or the AW ban there now and get binding sister circuit precedent. If the 9th goes the other way on the roster or AWs then we have circuit split and SCOTUS. However, this really allows us to reimport the logic post incorporation.

2) Is this part of the promised "two weeks" package, or is this a surprise gift?
Surprise gift!

Also, it's my understanding that this is passed legislation so we can speculate all we want.

Fed: We should get you a DC location!

-Gene

383green
12-17-2008, 12:11 PM
Surprise gift!

Woohoo! It's like an appetizer to settle our rumbling tummies until the "two weeks" course arrives!

Also, it's my understanding that this is passed legislation so we can speculate all we want.

Ok, here goes my speculation:

With the CA-style AW text but without acknowledgement of the Harrott decision's implications, would there be any such thing as an OLL under the new DC law?

With CA's definition of an Assault Weapon, but absent a clear definition of "detachable magazine", would something like a Bullet Button fly in DC?

With a prohibition of post-2009 non-rostered possession, plus a requirement for (non-existent?) microstamped guns after 2011, would a court see this as anything but a de-facto ban on handguns?

Given the non-rostered possession clause, it seems to me that folks should be able to buy (and register?) NRFs, but may not be allowed to assemble them.

Since they now adopt the more traditional machinegun definition, might this give us an opportunity to start and earlier sneak attach on NFA restrictions?

With enemies like these, who needs friends? :D

383green
12-17-2008, 12:16 PM
It just occurred to me that since they co-opted CA's handgun roster, this truly will be a complete handgun purchase ban after 2011 since CA isn't likely to be adding any microstamped guns to its roster (due to our patent encumbrance poison pill). There simply won't be any handguns available after 2011 that are both "microstamp-ready" and listed on the CA handgun roster.

Strike that; they specifically refer to the roster in its 2009 state. Time for me to study this in more depth...

artherd
12-17-2008, 12:26 PM
I have a sudden and extreme desire to move my principle residence to DC and snag an 07.

383green
12-17-2008, 12:28 PM
“(b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

This would appear to outlaw possession of more than ten metal links, or possibly even one link.

sierratangofoxtrotunion
12-17-2008, 12:29 PM
Has anybody called and invited Mr Gura to tomorrow's meeting -> http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1776945&postcount=1? You know, give him the quick primer on these laws and where we're currently at with them.

Librarian
12-17-2008, 12:32 PM
Oh, I quite like this, on p 41: “(b) Except as provided in subsection (e) of this section, beginning January 1, 2009, a 17
pistol that is not on the California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale as of January 1, 2009, 18
may not be owned or possessed within the District of Columbia unless that pistol was lawfully 19
owned and registered prior to January 1, 2009. 20

Roughly, this is
In DC, we haven't registered handguns in many years.

But now that we plan to let the plebs try that, 90% of the gun models manufactured before 2001 are not allowed, and 75% of the gun models manufactured since then are also not allowed.

ETA - Well, maybe they mean 'registered anywhere' - which means anything owned prior to 1968 might be suspect unless it comes from certain urban locations.

Free speech - you can write anything you want, so long as you use only a number 2 pencil and use words only from the Storybook Treasury of Dick and Jane and Friends (http://www.amazon.com/Storybook-Treasury-Dick-Jane-Friends/dp/0448433400/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1229549366&sr=8-2).

It isn't fair that the citizens of DC will be used to balance the national budget through their legal costs.

hoffmang
12-17-2008, 1:09 PM
Has anybody called and invited Mr Gura to tomorrow's meeting -> http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1776945&postcount=1? You know, give him the quick primer on these laws and where we're currently at with them.

You do not need to worry about Mr. Gura being up to the minute on all these issues.

-Gene

DDT
12-17-2008, 1:43 PM
It would seem that it would still requiire incorporation to be applied to us. However; getting the DC banned whacked SHOULD make short work of the AWB and roster as soon as incorporation is settled.

timdps
12-17-2008, 2:01 PM
Just mind boggling. Had to read the thread three times before I believed it.

So in addition to indirectly helping the CA AW laws go away through Heller and incorporation, DC is directly helping make the CA AW laws go away by copying the CA AW laws where they can be challenged immediately.

You have to wonder about the lawyers they consult before adopting these laws. They obviously have no clue...

I'm sure the CA DOJ is happy about this development...:D

Tim

DC Circuit is more conservative than the 9th circuit. We may be able to frontally challenge the entire concept of the safe roster or the AW ban there now and get binding sister circuit precedent. If the 9th goes the other way on the roster or AWs then we have circuit split and SCOTUS. However, this really allows us to reimport the logic post incorporation.

-Gene

KDOFisch
12-17-2008, 2:16 PM
§ 7-2501.01(3A)(A)(iii) Any firearm that the Chief may designate as an assault weapon by rule .

That's page 27, and to me, the scariest part. Anyone else catch that, or am I just overly freaked by that one (and furthermore, that's the easiest way we could strike it down- that's clearly underground legislation at its core.)

bwiese
12-17-2008, 2:25 PM
That's page 27, and to me, the scariest part. Anyone else catch that, or am I just overly freaked by that one (and furthermore, that's the easiest way we could strike it down- that's clearly underground legislation at its core.)

That is the approx. functional equivalent of the old 12276.5 "add-on" rule where Superior Courts (in counties of 1+ million population) could do an preliminary then final finding a given gun was an AW and then 'list' it.

Sounds like DC'll need an AB2728 - and perhaps the instigating drama that, in part, helped bring it about :)

KDOFisch
12-17-2008, 2:43 PM
That is the approx. functional equivalent of the old 12276.5 "add-on" rule where Superior Courts (in counties of 1+ million population) could do an preliminary then final finding a given gun was an AW and then 'list' it.

Sounds like DC'll need an AB2728 - and perhaps the instigating drama that, in part, helped bring it about :)

Gotcha. But that involved a Superior Court, isn't this weird that it involves an LEA to create emergency legislation?
(b) (1) Until January 1, 2007, the Attorney General shall
promulgate a list that specifies all firearms designated as assault
weapons in Section 12276 or declared to be assault weapons pursuant
to this section. The Attorney General shall file that list with the
Secretary of State for publication in the California Code of
Regulations. Any declaration that a specified firearm is an assault
weapon shall be implemented by the Attorney General who, within 90
days, shall promulgate an amended list which shall include the
specified firearm declared to be an assault weapon. The Attorney
General shall file the amended list with the Secretary of State for
publication in the California Code of Regulations. Any firearm
declared to be an assault weapon prior to January 1, 2007, shall
remain on the list filed with the Secretary of State.

(partial copy of the law)

But that mentions the AG, not a CLEO. I didn't know a CLEO (even in a federal district) could create emergency law.

yellowfin
12-17-2008, 3:48 PM
So how soon till they/we get standing and start the chopping?

I can't wait to see Chief Justice Roberts open with the line "Are you mocking me, son? This court will be addressed with respect, do you understand?" from My Cousin Vinny. Talk about the mother of all contempt of court smackdowns.

jamesob
12-17-2008, 3:51 PM
copy and paste. lol

hoffmang
12-17-2008, 3:53 PM
So how soon till they/we get standing and start the chopping?

Two weeks! :reddevil:

Seriously though. Certain parts of this are likely to move quickly.

-Gene

Fjold
12-17-2008, 4:06 PM
In regards to the Washington D.C. council:

"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" - Robert Heinlein

anthonyca
12-17-2008, 4:12 PM
After finding this site and learning about how these laws are struck down through the courts I look at laws in a whole new light. What used to alarm me now makes me smile. Thanks Calguns.

That doesn't mean that I don't still get upset and worried sometimes but that has more to do with gun owners who are not involved.

Gryff
12-17-2008, 4:31 PM
I wonder if this means that Iggy is considering a transfer to DCPD...

trashman
12-17-2008, 4:52 PM
Unbelievable. Can't say I'm happy about watching my property taxes at work there...

--Neill

tango-52
12-17-2008, 5:06 PM
This topic is being discussed right now on Cam & Co on NRA Live

Charliegone
12-17-2008, 5:36 PM
LOL. Seriously I'm laughting right now.

................Calguns......................

:King:



...................DC.......................

artherd
12-17-2008, 5:43 PM
Sounds like DC'll need an AB2728 - and perhaps the instigating drama that, in part, helped bring it about :)

Have Instigator. Will Travel :)

BroncoBob
12-17-2008, 6:59 PM
Let's not bring too much into the light as mentioned in the beginning of this thread. Let's just all rejoice with the news.

hoffmang
12-17-2008, 7:05 PM
Have Instigator. Will Travel :)

I wonder if they've renovated the Watergate Hotel recently?

-Gene

Shotgun Man
12-17-2008, 7:30 PM
Fools. When will they ever learn? It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.


(C) A new paragraph (6B) is added to read as follows: 6
“(6B) Within the last 5 years immediately preceding the application, has not been convicted of 2 or more violations of D.C. Official Code 50-201.05(b) or, in any jurisdiction, any law restricting driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs;”.


Am I reading this right? So one DUI deletes your 2A rights for 5 years? That's too harsh. I would hope that gets overturned.

Hank
12-17-2008, 9:56 PM
All,

This can only count as excellent news. We will be able to challenge CA's laws in Federal Court absent incorporation issues. This is breaking so I can't speculate on timing or next steps but I am excited!

-Gene

Gun bans are never "excellent news" IMHO.

The tide has been turning in favor of liberty for some time with regards to the right to arms both at the state and federal level in a number of ways. However all that is going to "change" inevitably.

In addition the overall practice of the court system is to allow, facilitate, protect, cover-up, justify, and often commit criminal abuses of power. It is quite possible the D.C. ban will certify the CA ban as being "legal" even though it is a gross miscarriage of justice at best- and an open conspiracy to violate our essential rights at worst. I for one believe the CA ban is a violation of the federal law prohibiting the use of the color of authority to violate people's rights.

I have a dream - I dream of a day when criminals who gain political power and use it for criminal purposes are sent to prison for long, long, long periods of time according to the law.

Hank
12-17-2008, 10:13 PM
Fools. When will they ever learn? It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

Am I reading this right? So one DUI deletes your 2A rights for 5 years? That's too harsh. I would hope that gets overturned.

They will learn if they ever do learn after far too much blood is shed.

Re: DUI. Much like the drug, firearms, driving/automobile, zoning & codes, and tax "laws" the state and federal constitutions are not generally applicable in the modern court system. DUI is the latest and possibly the most vicious institution of crime in the government. Check out duiblog.com and go back and read the entries - unless you've been subjected to the new statutes policies and practices and abuses you will be hard pressed to believe this is happening here. The forced blood draws by the cops somewhere in Texas after a judge ordered them to stop the illegal practice is particularly disturbing. This is a nice tie in between the varied battlefields of the war on humans.

Perhaps they should treat firearm and drug violations as they do the income tax on the federal level - they could then fine you for pleading the Fifth Amendment and refusing to incriminate yourself or for quoting the Second Amendment as a defense.

Off topic: I also saw a billboard recently showing a banged up bandaged dude in two identical photographs. The first was labeled "drunk driving" and the second was "buzzed driving" and the caption said "Buzzed driving IS drunk driving". I found that interesting since it takes me 1/6 or less of my legal limit to feel "buzzed". Next up: .02 BAC

383green
12-17-2008, 10:18 PM
I found that interesting since it takes me 1/6 or less of my legal limit to feel "buzzed".

IMHO, if you're intoxicated enough to feel the buzz, you should neither be behind the wheel nor behind the trigger until it wears off.

hoffmang
12-17-2008, 10:57 PM
Gun bans are never "excellent news" IMHO.


Please don't lose the perspective that there is now a new narrower gun ban in a place that just had a wider gun ban thrown out. There is no better place to keep narrowing.

Courts don't like to be toyed with.

-Gene

wilit
12-18-2008, 7:50 AM
Interesting developments. Tagged for future updates.

sigsauer887
12-18-2008, 10:10 AM
idiots

garandguy10
12-18-2008, 10:48 AM
Why is this good news? Obama will have plenty of time to stack SCOTUS and the Federal courts before any of this law gets before them,and likely it will be upheld. I really do not understand some of your optimism in this.

yellowfin
12-18-2008, 1:08 PM
Question: would contempt of court from the Supreme Court count as a federal offense? That could be handed down as some appropriately severe consequences for Fenty, the council, and their minions.

Meplat
12-18-2008, 3:00 PM
Fools. When will they ever learn? It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.



Am I reading this right? So one DUI deletes your 2A rights for 5 years? That's too harsh. I would hope that gets overturned.

Looks like 2 or more to me. Still, not warranted.:rolleyes:

Meplat
12-18-2008, 3:18 PM
In CA .08 will get you arrested. BUT, if you have a class "A" commercial license .04 will get you arrested and your license (livelihood) pulled. That's not in a big rig or commercial vehicle, I'd have no problem with that, but in your private car. What's up with that? I keep up my class "A" and my hazmat endorsement, but have not used it in years. But because I have a class "A" one glass of wine with dinner makes me legally "drunk". MADD is a terrorist organization.:mad:


They will learn if they ever do learn after far too much blood is shed.

Re: DUI. Much like the drug, firearms, driving/automobile, zoning & codes, and tax "laws" the state and federal constitutions are not generally applicable in the modern court system. DUI is the latest and possibly the most vicious institution of crime in the government. Check out duiblog.com and go back and read the entries - unless you've been subjected to the new statutes policies and practices and abuses you will be hard pressed to believe this is happening here. The forced blood draws by the cops somewhere in Texas after a judge ordered them to stop the illegal practice is particularly disturbing. This is a nice tie in between the varied battlefields of the war on humans.

Perhaps they should treat firearm and drug violations as they do the income tax on the federal level - they could then fine you for pleading the Fifth Amendment and refusing to incriminate yourself or for quoting the Second Amendment as a defense.

Off topic: I also saw a billboard recently showing a banged up bandaged dude in two identical photographs. The first was labeled "drunk driving" and the second was "buzzed driving" and the caption said "Buzzed driving IS drunk driving". I found that interesting since it takes me 1/6 or less of my legal limit to feel "buzzed". Next up: .02 BAC

Meplat
12-18-2008, 3:23 PM
The conservatives on SCOTUS are not going anywhere any time soon (unless justice Thomas eats too many Bar-B-Qed ribs) ( is that racest?). Replacing a lib with a lib does not change much. In the lower courts you have a point, he can and will do untold damage.:eek:

Why is this good news? Obama will have plenty of time to stack SCOTUS and the Federal courts before any of this law gets before them,and likely it will be upheld. I really do not understand some of your optimism in this.

DDT
12-18-2008, 4:21 PM
(unless justice Thomas eats too many Bar-B-Qed ribs) ( is that racest?)

I don't know, does he like ribs and eat them regularly? Was your statement based on some personal knowledge of his fondness for BBQ or just an assumption based on the color of his skin. Which brings up the whole problem with legislating thought.

anthonyca
12-18-2008, 4:30 PM
In CA .08 will get you arrested. BUT, if you have a class "A" commercial license .04 will get you arrested and your license (livelihood) pulled. That's not in a big rig or commercial vehicle, I'd have no problem with that, but in your private car. What's up with that? I keep up my class "A" and my hazmat endorsement, but have not used it in years. But because I have a class "A" one glass of wine with dinner makes me legally "drunk". MADD is a terrorist organization.:mad:

I do not drink so this doesn't affect me at all. Here is a list of DUI that people I know have recieved. DUI on a dirtbike off road. DUI driving a boat. DUI on a byecicle. There are reports of DUI on a horse, lawnmower ect.


California has its own site for Off-Roadway Motor Vehicle Recreation and here it notes that a driver’s license is not necessary to operate an OHV in most areas. However, if your driving privilege is suspended in California, you may not operate an OHV on California public lands.

AJAX22
12-18-2008, 4:48 PM
DC Circuit is more conservative than the 9th circuit. We may be able to frontally challenge the entire concept of the safe roster or the AW ban there now and get binding sister circuit precedent. If the 9th goes the other way on the roster or AWs then we have circuit split and SCOTUS. However, this really allows us to reimport the logic post incorporation.

Surprise gift!

Also, it's my understanding that this is passed legislation so we can speculate all we want.

Fed: We should get you a DC location!

-Gene

Heh.... this is waayyyyy cool.

the implications are staggering.

Sometimes I wonder how our opponents can be this stupid... but then I have to remind myself that if they had any semblance of intelligence they'd be on our side.

swhatb
12-18-2008, 7:48 PM
it makes me feel goooooood when a state issue moves to federal jurisdiction ;-)

tag for more reading!

alex00
12-18-2008, 10:39 PM
What affect, if any, does a favorable outcome on this new DC law have on Carolyn McCarthy and her "shoulder thing that goes up"? Would this kill her yearly attempt before it even started, or would we have to wait for passage of a new AWB?

sigsauer887
12-19-2008, 9:44 AM
Why is this good news? Obama will have plenty of time to stack SCOTUS and the Federal courts before any of this law gets before them,and likely it will be upheld. I really do not understand some of your optimism in this.

Were you pessimistic Pre-OLL?

hoffmang
12-19-2008, 11:56 AM
What affect, if any, does a favorable outcome on this new DC law have on Carolyn McCarthy and her "shoulder thing that goes up"? Would this kill her yearly attempt before it even started, or would we have to wait for passage of a new AWB?
Should things go well in DC it would make a federal AW ban a futile gesture.

-Gene

alex00
12-19-2008, 7:09 PM
Should things go well in DC it would make a federal AW ban a futile gesture.

-Gene

Fingers crossed.