Guns & Patriots

D.C. resists correcting gun laws

Washington’s Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) has had two weeks to remove false information about the city’s gun transport laws from its forms and website. It has no interest in doing so.

flashMPD officials refuse to admit that they have been giving out incorrect information over the past four years, much less fix the problems. With the D.C primary election taking place on Tuesday, it’s important to know if the city council will use its oversight powers to force a correction.

The man who wrote the gun law, D.C. Councilman Phil Mendelson, was made aware of the errors uncovered by my series. He’s determined to get them fixed.

As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the at-large Democrat has oversight of the firearms office in the police department, and his office said that he will be asking MPD to ensure that the proper facts about taking a firearm through the nation’s capital are provided to the public.

MPD’s firearms registry has at least six full-time staff who answer questions about gun laws and regulations asked over the phone or in person. Unfortunately, the  police officers do not appear to understand the legal code they are in charge of interpreting, which means gun owners are being given bad advice regarding activities that could result in a felony arrest.

The registry’s website is not user friendly and totally out of date. The first page is  about the “recent regulatory changes,” which refers to the list of handguns allowed in the District after the Supreme Court overturned the 30-year ban in 2008. Next on the site is the section for “legislative changes,” which then lists links to the full text of the legislation passed in 2009 in the wake of the court’s decision.

The site then gives office hours – weekdays from 9am to 5pm, meaning you have to take off work to register a gun so that the police don’t have to work on weekends. You’ll have to scroll down a full page to find the red text with the gun laws.

Since the registry office won’t accept anything on the page is wrong, I’ll point out the mistakes:

• Registry office information: “No person shall carry or possess a firearm on public space in the District of Columbia unless traveling directly to or from a lawful firearm-related activity (registration, hunting, shooting at a practice range, etc.).”

False. You are allowed to transport your gun for any lawful purpose. You do not have to be coming or going to a firearm-related activity.

Read the rest of the article at The Washington Times online.

Sign Up
  • Edd Campbell

    For me, a CHL holder in the state of Texas, the hardest thing to grasp is just how all these restrictions and conditions came to be allowed in the first place. Perhaps it was possible because of a general ignorance and the inherent ambiguity regarding the second amendment, coupled with the common tendency of good and honest people to obey the law; however, if we were to revise the wording of the second amendment, AND adopt the rightful attitude of  “law abiding” as described in American Jurisprudence, 2nd, Sec 177, perhaps all this would be put to rest.

    Revised Second Amendment:  “Being necessary for the preservation of a free state, and for the personal protection of life and property, the rights of the people to maintain a well regulated militia and to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    There, no more ambiguity !!!  It’s for the Individual, and it’s without restriction of statutory law.  If you don’t understand why, read on …

    Am Jur, 2nd, 177 (in pertinent part): “The general perception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statute to be valid must be in agreement.  It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail …”. ” No one is bound to obey an unConstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”

    Emily, it’s a good and noble thing you do.  I pray for your success.  I would also hope that We the People will some day arise to reclaim our God given Rights, and place in proper perspective the relationship between the law and the Law.  We should move to revise the second amendment which was shortened in the interest of brevity, and reword it to suit the current need for clarity.  In the days of our founding the right and need to keep arms was without question, and I don’t think the founders ever dreamed of a day when that would come to issue. I would argue that we should REVISE (as opposed to repeal) the second amendment (as I’ve read some would like to do), because it does not need to change meaning … it simply needs to be less ambiguous.  Besides, who wants to start saying “I stand on my 35th amendment right to keep and bear arms” … no, “Second Amendment” is both a national and international icon.  Let’s just make it clear according to the founders’ intent, and let’s all move to put its detractors’ attention to other evil endeavors.

    God Bless America !!!  Long live Liberty !!!