Proposed D.C. Gun Law Violates D.C. Law

Filed under:Firearms, Government, Watching The Watchers, We're from the Government, We're here to help — posted by Countertop on July 15, 2008 @ 7:36 am

In their editorial on D.C.’s proposed new gun law (expected to be passed today), the Washington Post states

Likely to be enacted today by the council on an emergency basis, it would permit only handguns in homes for self-defense. Sawed-off shotguns, machine guns and short-barreled rifles would still be banned. To register handguns, residents would have to complete an application, pass a written firearms test, provide a photo and proof of good vision, and be fingerprinted — all sensible requirements that are generally seen as being able to pass court muster.

I’ll let others point out how ludicrous the machine gun ban – which defines any gun that has the potential to hold 12 bullets in a magazine as a machine gun – is (and how quickly its going to fall).

What I want to discuss are these registration requirements

Application – ok
Written test – well, seems to me some states have already tried to require African Americans to pass poll tests and were rightly struck down.
Photo – ok
proof of good vision – So the D.C. government isn’t only a bunch of racist bigots? Their also anti handicapped? Folks, this forget the smell test – this doesn’t pass either the American’s With Disabilities Act or D.C.’s Human Rights Act

§ 1-2501. Intent of Council.

It is the intent of the Council of the District of Columbia, in enacting this chapter, to secure an end in the District of Columbia to discrimination for any reason other than that of individual merit, including, but not limited to, discrimination by reason of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, family responsibilities, matriculation, political affiliation, disability, source of income, and place of residence or business.

(1973 Ed., § 6-2201; Dec. 13, 1977, D.C. Law 2-38, title I, § 101, 24 DCR 6038; June 28, 1994, D.C. Law 10-129, § 2(a), 41 DCR 2583.)

PROHIBITED ACTS OF DISCRIMINATION

§ 1-2511. Equal opportunities.

Every individual shall have an equal opportunity to participate fully in the economic, cultural and intellectual life of the District and to have an equal opportunity to participate in all aspects of life, including, but not limited to,

in employment, in places of public accommodation, resort or amusement, in educational institutions, in public service, and in housing and commercial space accommodations.

(1973 Ed., § 6-2211; Dec. 13, 1977, D.C. Law 2-38, title II, § 201, 24 DCR 6038.)

§ 1-2532. Discriminatory effects of practices.

Any practice which has the effect or consequence of violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed to be an unlawful discriminatory practice.

(1973 Ed., § 6-2278; Dec. 13, 1977, D.C. Law 2-38, title II, § 268, 24 DCR 6038.)

§ 1-2556. Private cause of action.

(a) Any person claiming to be aggrieved by an unlawful discriminatory practice shall have a cause of action in any court of competent jurisdiction for damages and such other remedies as may be appropriate, unless such person has filed a complaint hereunder; provided, that where the Office has dismissed such complaint on the grounds of administrative convenience, or where the complainant has withdrawn a complaint, such person shall maintain all rights to bring suit as if no complaint had been filed. No person who maintains, in a court of competent jurisdiction, any action based upon an act which would be an unlawful discriminatory practice under this chapter may file the same complaint with the Office. A private cause of action pursuant to this act shall be filed in a court of competent jurisdiction within one year of the unlawful discriminatory practice, or the discovery thereof. The timely filing of a complaint with the Office shall toll the running of the one year statute of limitations while the complaint is pending before the Office.

(b) The court may grant such relief as it deems appropriate, including but not limited to, such relief as is provided in § 1-2553(a).

(1973 Ed., § 6-2296; Dec. 13, 1977, D.C. Law 2-38, title III, § 316, 24 DCR 6038; Oct. 23, 1997, D.C. Law 12-39, § 2(d), 44 DCR 4856.)

I’m looking for a client

7 comments »

  1. The original handgun ban was in violation of the ADA act as well. Unless they want us to believe the average one-armed amputee can safely operate a pump action shotgun in a self-defense scenario with only one hand.

    Comment by Bruce — July 15, 2008 @ 8:58 am

  2. Call me dense, but how can one DC ordinance “violate” another? To the extent that they conflict, doesn’t the newer statute implicitly amend or repeal the older one?

    Comment by Xrlq — July 15, 2008 @ 9:20 am

  3. Um, so if a blind person wants a driver’s license and they don’t give him one, it’s discrimination?

    Comment by Don — July 15, 2008 @ 2:47 pm

  4. Don: if a blind person wants to buy a car on ebay, and have it delivered to his back 40, so he can turn cookies there, he can. No license needed.

    He only needs a license to use it on public roads.

    Comment by Kristopher — July 15, 2008 @ 3:59 pm

  5. Don: if a blind person wants to buy a car on ebay, and have it delivered to his back 40, so he can turn cookies there, he can. No license needed.

    He only needs a license to use it on public roads.

    So … would you support similar legislation for DC? No limits on firearms purchases … only a CCW required to carry one on the streets?

    Comment by Kristopher — July 15, 2008 @ 4:00 pm

  6. Kristopher — Absolutely yes! I belive that’s exactly what the supreme court implied by their recent ruling.

    Comment by Tom — July 16, 2008 @ 11:44 am

  7. Don

    A couple of distinctions.

    First, driving a car is a privilege, not a fundamental right.

    Second, as Kristopher points out, there is no requirement for one to have a license to purchase a car. Only to drive it and use it.

    Third, there isn’t a complete prohibition on driving for people with vision problems. Rather, reasonable accommodation’s need to be made which take into the fact the varying levels of vision. Some can only drive with glasses on, or with contacts. Others can only drive during the day.

    Further more, and to expand on what Kristopher stated, there is a dramatic difference from driving a car on the road where at any one time there are dozens of other moving objects demanding your attention and distracting you from the task of driving. With a gun, the case is very very much different. When you go to the range and go shooting, you are able to focus on the object at hand, take your time to get it in your sites, and shoot it. True, this isn’t going to be the situation within your house, but an old widow who lives alone is only going to have to hit the approach black mass in the middle of the night and not need to possess the extent of the vision required to drive (in which you need to be able to see and read signs and have a strong peripheral function as well as the ability to quickly focus and adjust). All she needs to do is be able to call out Stop who is that . . . and when its not someone she knows to fire at them.

    Of course, most people who use a gun defensivly never even fire it. As we see time and time again, the mere fact of pulling a gun out so a goblin sees it (or even just racking the slide on your pump shotgun) is enough to send most hoodlums and gang bangers running.

    Comment by Countertop — July 16, 2008 @ 2:06 pm

Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post or for TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)




image: detail of installation by Bronwyn Lace

tTracker("UA-8737193-1"); pageTracker._trackPageview(); } catch(err) {}

image: detail of installation by Bronwyn Lace