Substituting "books" for "guns" is a false analogy and I would expect better than that from you. We are both gun owners so we can skip the hyperbole about it being illegal to move a gun from one room to another. The closest thing the law says about firearm location is in Section 7-2502.03. Qualifications for registration; information required for registration
Not really but it's useful because presumptive limits on access to books would be grounds for screaming by the ACLU and a lot of other people. I'd be screaming with them, but I find the crickets we hear from the left on 'common sense' gun control measures to be decidedly wrong.
While I have not read the entire text of the Parker vs DC case, I have followed it and I have watched it closely. One of the arguments that the DC attorneys made was that you could possess a firearm in the home but just in an unassembled form. However looking back through the citations. The DC position and law was that Handguns were illegal and that rifles and shotguns must be disassembled. There was no exceptions for self-defense. They stated that that made their 'ban'.
So that basically equates to a book, never to be opened but you could own it. Never mind all book stores had been forced to be closed. You cannot buy handguns out of state. Long arms may be purchased in the next state over. So even IF there was an allowance for handgun ownership IT was still restricted to so much that it was functionally nonexistent as a right.
And looking at the actual court decision by the District Court it's pretty clear that the court felt that 22-4504 prohibited the carry of a firearm even within the home because the code in fact does NOT qualify it as in public. Carrying around your own property is not excepted. No license, you can't carry it.
7-2507.02 required long arms to be disassembled or locked up.
From the decision: "Heller applied for and was denied a registration certificate to own a handgun. The District, in refusing his request, explicitly relied on D.C. Code ยง 7-2502.02(a)(4)."
A: I don't think that we can get that done. But what we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement. The efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers.
What he means is that he doesn't think he CAN get a gun ban passed. But what does a trace system over and above what's already in place vis a vis 4473s? Ballistic finger printing? That's unworkable. Taggants? Also technologically and logistically unworkable. What other forms? Requirements that ALL firearms sales be taxed and registered? The ATF can't keep the NFA registry straight. There's an infinitesimally small proportion of NFA weapons in the NFA registry as compared to the total number of firearms in circulation. Canada can't even get ITS guns registered accurately. How's that going to work in the US?
We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You've got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. Then you've got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets."
There's two realities. One where you have to ask permission of the government and where your rights are closely controlled and restricted and one where you have a right to defend yourself with out the government exerting truckloads of prior restraint. He patently endorses the former and I challenge you to establish otherwise.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2008-02-29 05:18 pm (UTC)Not really but it's useful because presumptive limits on access to books would be grounds for screaming by the ACLU and a lot of other people. I'd be screaming with them, but I find the crickets we hear from the left on 'common sense' gun control measures to be decidedly wrong.
While I have not read the entire text of the Parker vs DC case, I have followed it and I have watched it closely. One of the arguments that the DC attorneys made was that you could possess a firearm in the home but just in an unassembled form. However looking back through the citations. The DC position and law was that Handguns were illegal and that rifles and shotguns must be disassembled. There was no exceptions for self-defense. They stated that that made their 'ban'.
So that basically equates to a book, never to be opened but you could own it. Never mind all book stores had been forced to be closed. You cannot buy handguns out of state. Long arms may be purchased in the next state over. So even IF there was an allowance for handgun ownership IT was still restricted to so much that it was functionally nonexistent as a right.
And looking at the actual court decision by the District Court it's pretty clear that the court felt that 22-4504 prohibited the carry of a firearm even within the home because the code in fact does NOT qualify it as in public. Carrying around your own property is not excepted. No license, you can't carry it.
7-2507.02 required long arms to be disassembled or locked up.
From the decision: "Heller applied for and was denied a registration certificate to own a
handgun. The District, in refusing his request, explicitly relied
on D.C. Code ยง 7-2502.02(a)(4)."
A: I don't think that we can get that done. But what we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement. The efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers.
What he means is that he doesn't think he CAN get a gun ban passed. But what does a trace system over and above what's already in place vis a vis 4473s? Ballistic finger printing? That's unworkable. Taggants? Also technologically and logistically unworkable. What other forms? Requirements that ALL firearms sales be taxed and registered? The ATF can't keep the NFA registry straight. There's an infinitesimally small proportion of NFA weapons in the NFA registry as compared to the total number of firearms in circulation. Canada can't even get ITS guns registered accurately. How's that going to work in the US?
We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You've got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. Then you've got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets."
There's two realities. One where you have to ask permission of the government and where your rights are closely controlled and restricted and one where you have a right to defend yourself with out the government exerting truckloads of prior restraint. He patently endorses the former and I challenge you to establish otherwise.