Standard Mischief

Why not? All the cool kids (squeaky,Tam, Linoge, tieless, Sebastian, etc) are doing it.

If it’s one thing I know for sure, if you want to get the straight facts about carry permit holders, you won’t get them from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership.

Because the Brady Bunch Lie, they’ll ignore the facts that carry permit holders are overwhelmingly more law-abiding than just your average person. Les points this out for us.

This is installment #2. Mark Segraves chooses to go to a gun store in Upper Marlboro, Maryland to buy a firearm. He can buy it, but not take possession because of Federal Law. Instead, he’ll have to get one of the few FFL holders in the DC to handle the transfer. I wonder if Josh of the Violence Policy Center, (an anti-RKBA group with one of the rare Federal Firearms Licenses in DC) will do the deed. After all, Mark has promised to turn the gun in to DC or sell it back to the dealer after he’s all legal like and doing a private sale might legitimize Josh’s license, since you’re generally not allowed to have one unless you are in the business of selling firearms.

Oh yea, it sounds like the guy did a voice over and then he makes a quick video cut right after he erroneously describes the gun he’s buying as a “Saturday Night Special”. The firearm they were discussing instantly changes from stainless to blued. Did he learn his craft at the Michael Moore school of fake video? The good folks at Maryland Small Arms Range more than likely set him straight right then and there about this racist term, but you’ll probably never hear it from Mark.

WTOPnews: Buying a Gun (Part 2) 3:22 min.

Click here to view the video in a pop-up window | Direct link

Yup, I jumped to a conclusion, so let me fix things now without any stealthy redaction.

Here’s a quote from the WaPo from the post-scrubbed article I mentioned in my last post [Pre-scrub not available, but the post-scrub is here]:

The only application received yesterday was from a woman who brought a revolver to the registration office under the amnesty program, officials said.

After the gun was test-fired and the woman completed registration paperwork and a written test, she went home with the gun to await a decision on her application.

By law, she must keep the gun in her home, unloaded and either disassembled or fitted with a trigger lock, and she is not allowed to use it, even for self-defense, unless her application is approved. The process involves a background check for disqualifying factors such as a felony record or history of mental illness.

Yesterday, I speculated that you would, after a visit to the police, only return home with paperwork to protect yourself. That does not seem to be the case.  You seem to get your gun back, you just aren’t allowed to use it or have it in a functional state until you get your license, perhaps after a delay of weeks.

Dick Anthony Heller, plaintiff in the landmark DC v. Heller case, tried to get a permit to keep his fully functional handgun at home in DC with him rather than at a friends house in Maryland yesterday. He was turned down. How did the Mainstream Media cover the event? What important thing happened that isn’t being reported?

The AP via www.chicagotribune.com [link]:

WASHINGTON (AP) _ The plaintiff in the Supreme Court case that overturned Washington’s 32-year-old handgun ban was the first to arrive Thursday as the city began registering firearms.

But security guard Dick Heller was turned away from police headquarters because he didn’t bring his weapon as required….

Hmmm, why didn’t he bring his weapon, as required? Surely he knew the procedure, right?

www.pbs.org [link]

…

Among the first to show up at the police department Thursday was one of the plaintiffs in the case, Dick Heller. Despite his victory in the high court, Heller expressed dismay that the District’s new handgun legislation, which was approved this week by the D.C. Council and Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, is still too strict and violates the meaning of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“It appears that the city does not yet understand the decision and order of the Supreme Court,” Heller told the Washington Post.

…

OK, so he was dismayed. Why? PBS doesn’t even tell you he was turned away.

dcist.com, another blog [link] says:

If you agree with some of the commenters in the Roundup that WUSA’s account of Dick Heller’s experience at the District’s gun registration office this morning was a little confusing, seems like you’re probably right. D.C. Wire has what appears to be a better report that Heller didn’t even bring a gun with him to register this morning, but instead expressed “his frustrations with the District’s continued ban on semiautomatic weapons.” What’s up with that weird report, WUSA?

DCist, at least, knows they’re not getting the straight dope. They also broke the story to me that Mr. Heller is running against Eleanor Holmes Norton for her seat as the District’s “shadow” Senator. Huh? A public figure in a landmark case declares his candidacy at a well represented event with plenty of media and it’s barely mentioned? What’s up with that?

Meanwhile, Mark Segraves of WTOP news, the guy I linked to yesterday, has no fucking excuse. He was there, second in line right behind Mr. Heller, and he interviewed him. Yet he failed to explain why Dick Anthony Heller left his firearms at home yesterday and still tried to register them.

I’m in line with Dick Heller, the guy who brought the lawsuit. He has been told he can bring his revolver from Maryland and register it, but not his semi-automatic. “The city has rejected me again,”

The WaPo let a little truth out, but they have since scrubbed it off the article, so no link:

Von Breichenruchardt stressed that Heller did not need amnesty. “The amnesty does not apply to Mr. Heller,” he said. “He is not asking for amnesty, and I do not want him in a position . . . to ask for amnesty. He has never broken the law.”

OK, so what’s the point I’m trying to make? Well, here’s the paragraph before the one above (also scrubbed):

As Newsham told Heller this morning, those guns can legally be transported into the District provided they are taken directly to D.C. police headquarters for registration.

Here’s the deal. DC lawmakers failed to change the law allowing Heller to bring his lawfully owned firearm into the District. They say it’s okay, that he won’t be prosecuted, but then Mr. Heller would then be relying on the amnesty, which he doesn’t want to do. So, no permission chit, right? Not exactly. Here’s what Scalia said in the majorty ruling in DC v. Heller [PDF link]:

Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. 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.

Emphasis above is mine. So DC must issue him (and by extension every other resident not disqualified) a permit, and yesterday they refused. So now Mr. Heller has standing.

Go sue those bastards!

Update: After this was posted, WTOP uploaded the following video of the Dick Heller interview. It confirms most of my suspicions, he not only feels he was denied, he actually was denied a permit, even though the Supremes told DC that they had to issue one. He’s not as gung-ho to sue those bastards as I am though.

Dick Heller: Losing the War? 1:21 min.
Click here to view the video in a pop-up window | Direct link

Or at least that’s the theory. I’m not really getting any good coverage from the news. Mark Segraves of WTOP radio is jumping through the hoops and blogging about the whole incident.

At 7 a.m. Thursday, the Metropolitan Police Department will open its doors at Headquarters and begin taking applications for permits. If you already own an illegal handgun, you’re in luck. Because of the 90 day amnesty program, you can bring your gun (unloaded and wrapped up) to the police and apply for a permit. If, like most people, you don’t have a gun, you can begin the permit process, but good luck getting a gun. Without a gun store, or someone to transfer the gun, it won’t happen legally.

But I’m going to try.

It’s important to note, I have no desire to own a gun. In fact, once I get the gun, I’ll turn it over to police or sell it back to the gun store where I bought it. I simply want to walk through the entire process to see how it does - or doesn’t - work.

Oh jeez, someone needs to take this poor guy to the range.

He does report this from seeing Dick Heller in line:

I’m in line with Dick Heller, the guy who brought the lawsuit. He has been told he can bring his revolver from Maryland and register it, but not his semi-automatic. “The city has rejected me again,”

If you’re scratching your head over the title I chose for this post, well, I got it from Say Uncle. He links to this story at the WaPo:

An officer from the gun unit will meet the applicant at the door and take temporary possession of the gun to ensure safety at headquarters.

Because, you know, all those violent felons are just begging for a chance to shoot up police headquarters.

Officers will tag the gun and conduct ballistics tests before returning the gun to the owner. Paperwork indicating that registration is in process will be provided.

That last sentence there leads me to believe that the police will hold on to the firearms for weeks until they are reluctantly forced to return them. If I’m guessing right, after the police fingerprint you, take photos of you, take down the information from your DC issued drivers license and take a crowbar to your wallet, the police still won’t let you walk out of there with your firearm. Nope, they’ll hold your firearm for a useless and expensive “ballistics fingerprinting” and you’ll be issued “paperwork indicating that registration is in process” that you can use to protect yourself from crime. Remember to show your paperwork to the criminal that forces themselves into your home.

NRA: The Truth About Ballistic “Fingerprinting” 8:59 min.
Click here to view the video in a pop-up window | Direct link

I also want to note that in Mark Segraves story, he covers the fact that there are no Federal Firearms License holders that are ready, willing, and able to facilitate the transfer of handguns to DC residents. Since we now have NICS, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, is there any reason to keep the antiquated federal law on the books that bar a resident of one state from buying a handgun in another jurisdiction? I’d be far happier if that was struck down rather than having another messy and drawn-out court case that forces DC to approve a firearms dealer in a bricks and mortar storefront.