In District of Columbia vs. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the ban on guns in Washington, D.C. was unconstitutional. The majority opinion stated specifically that banning handguns, the weapon of choice for self protection, and rendering all other guns nonfunctional, violated the Second Amendment and the people’s right to keep and bear arms.
Evidently, the District doesn’t agree and seems to be challenging the ruling inviting further lawsuits. In attempting to comply with the ruling and maintain its strict regulations on guns, the District’s council is trying to push through new rules and regulations that amount to absolutely nothing in complying with the Supreme Court.
It appears that the only change the Council is suggesting is to allow people to own a handgun but only in the home and that any and all guns kept within the home must be rendered non functioning except for, get this, “reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm”.
So, while you’re trying to assess whether a threat is “reasonable”, you must then go get your gun and assemble it or remove the trigger lock and get it loaded before the “reasonable” threat kills you.
After the Supreme Court’s ruling, most people agreed there would be an influx of lawsuits around the country in order to flesh out just how many regulations states can put on guns and still be in compliance with the Court’s ruling. Not many of us assumed places like the District of Columbia would thumb their noses at the High Court in total disregard of the law.
More on District of Columbia vs. Heller
Tom Remington
