Thursday, July 17, 2008

DC REJECTS HELLER!

District residents can start registering their guns today. But at least one very high profile application was already rejected.

Dick Heller is the man who brought the lawsuit against the District's 32-year-old ban on handguns. He was among the first in line Thursday morning to apply for a handgun permit.

But when he tried to register his semi-automatic weapon, he says he was rejected.
Bottom line, they said as far as handguns, they were only going to accept revolvers...in other words, the bottom feeders don't want their employers to have "bottom loaders."

Somebody needs to kick their bottoms.

This should be interesting...

[Via Ed D]

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

What's interesting is Heller filing petitions to run against Eleanor Holmes Norton:

"Heller Shows Up for Gun Registration With Petitions"
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dc/2008/07/gun_registration_started_down.html

Seems that Heller is planning to run for the House seat currently held by Eleanor Holmes Norton. Heller is seeking signatures to be on the ballot as a libertarian candidate.

Kevin Wilmeth said...

A libertarian candidate, eh? An interesting idea, but the LP appears to be a bit, er, gun-shy these days, doesn't it?

It'll be interesting to see if The Libertarian Enterprise picks up on that.

Kevin Wilmeth said...

I suppose this action gives Heller standing to sue, right? I can't imagine that Heller would be surprised by this result.

Obviously I don't know the guy, but if he's taking that one for the team on purpose, he just went up a notch.

Anonymous said...

Why would one stay in that hell hole by choice?

I say that all law-abiding citizens should move away for 10 years and let the criminals take over everything - not just city hall, the police and all administrative departments.

I know - it's not practical, but let them have their Bradyite Utopian ideal for a while.

Loren said...

The story I saw said the reason he was turned down was that they wanted the handguns present to do the ballistics testing and serial number check. Apparently his lawyer had said not to have the guns unless he had something in writing, so he hadn't brought them in.

That blog touches on this:
"Heller, Duggan reports, was at the doors at 6:30 this morning. He did not bring his weapon with him as D.C. regulations require, however."

We'll see what happens after he does bring in his guns.

Anonymous said...

I suppose someone could register a broomhandle Mauser. They aren't "fed from the bottom"

Anonymous said...

I say that all law-abiding citizens should move away for 10 years and let the criminals take over everything - not just city hall, the police and all administrative departments.

ummm...this is already the case in dc, and has been for some time

SamenoKami said...

I would think that since the SC didn't say 1)'no' semi's, 2)revolvers only, then neither can DC. DC is going to have to be sued again. Heller needs to watch out for a vendetta from the 'Only Ones.'

Anonymous said...

Just about ready to kick some bottoms. It's a short two-hour ride from St. John's Church where Patrick Henry said "Give me Liberty or give me only `reasonable restrictions.' "
No, that's not right...

Luke (alias "Lines With Chrome") said...

Heller and his lawyers were FOOLS to engage the DC government on the gun-grabbers' own terms: they failed to challenge the notion that a citizen can be made to seek PERMISSION from government before exercising a basic right. And the court ruled that any infringement short of an outright BAN on all handguns is "reasonable"

Only PRIVILEGES require fees and licenses.

How about a license fee and test before DC residents are allowed to VOTE? Somehow I doubt that'd go over well with the DC politicians.

jon said...

SCOTUS didn't just say "revolvers only," or anything of the sort. they said:

"Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."

Anonymous said...

The court [correctly] ruled narrowly. One step at a time...

BourneShooter said...

If I remember correctly, didn't the court also say guns in common usage? So the ban on a type of handgun in common usage would be another thing in violation of the SCOTUS ruling wouldn't it???

Anonymous said...

A Mauser pistol would probably be banned as an "assaut weapon" since the magazine is outside the grip. 1890s technology sure is scary.

I say, if you live in DC and have a handgun, and you're not allowed to take it out of your home, there's no need to register it. They don't need to know you have it, and they never will know, unless they start those searches, and then you'll have much bigger problems to deal with than an unregistered handgun. And if you register it, I suspect you won't have it for long.
In THEIR eyes, you'll never be legal ENOUGH.
Don't dance to their tune and encourage them.

Anonymous said...

The original story as I understand it:
Heller worked as an armed security guard. His employer required him to be armed and to purchase his own weapon. All he ever wanted was to be allowed to keep his own property at home when off work instead of in the company lockup.
I have to assume that the weapon he attempted to register is that same duty firearm that has been at the center of this from the beginning.
In fact, a literal reading of the SCOTUS decision IMO referes specifically to that individual handgun.
In this we have a twofer as they say. We have a test of the new DC policy and a challenge of their ridiculous twelve shot machine gun redefinition of reality.
And so DC will bleed the treasure they tax from the citizens in court cases in their attempts to defy the Supremes. Pity congress doesn't have the stones to revoke home rule and take control back from these failed incompetents.