WaPo Puts Biased Spin on D.C. Gun Ban

Gun owners in the nation’s capital will have to continue the good fight it seems, as U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina found that the restrictive laws somehow make the streets safer reports The Washington Post. The paper noted:

“Urbina found that the new regulations were crafted to make the streets safer and aren’t so restrictive that they violate the Second Amendment guarantee of a person’s right to own a gun for self-defense.”

This sounds OK, but what exactly does it mean to “make the streets safer” and what isn’t “so restrictive that they violate the Second Amendment?” Here it is in black and white:

“The judge ruled that the District’s handgun registration process, which requires owners to submit fingerprints and allow police to perform ballistics tests, is constitutional. He also upheld a city ban on most semiautomatic pistols.”

So law-abiding citizens need to be fingerprinted and have their firearms tested. New York City also forces rifle and shotgun permit holders to be fingerprinted for the record. This does seem a little restrictive, especially as many, if not most, criminals won’t be applying for guns through these normal channels. But Urbina also upheld a city ban on “most semiautomatic pistols.” So that leaves revolvers and I suppose flintlock pistols to be owned by citizens. Criminals of course could still be loaded for bear with all sorts of high-powered firearms, but law-abiding citizens are forced to carry weapons that some could argue are less powerful – unless of course everyone runs out to get .375 or .44 Magnums.

Now WaPo continues the bias by giving a voice to D.C Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), chairman of the Committee on Public Safety and Judiciary who is quoted as saying:

“The police remove an awful lot of firearms from the streets every year that are unregistered and owned by criminals, members of gangs and people who rob other folks or shoot other folks. Because law-abiding citizens register their guns, it makes it easier for the police to identify and arrest the criminals.”

How exactly does registration of firearms help police stop crime? Doesn’t this require officers to man the registration offices, and cost city money for the support staff and record keeping? In the end does it really reduce any crime? But it gets worse. The laws are, at least in our opinion, highly restrictive as well:

“The city requires that legally registered revolvers be kept unloaded and either disassembled or secured with trigger locks, unless the owner reasonably fears immediate harm by an intruder in the home. Each resident can register one pistol a month, and registrations expire after three years.”

Keep disassembled? That sounds crazy to us, and we can only imagine the future cases of what “reasonably fears” can mean. But the wording of “registrations expire after three years” is more worrisome. This creates a situation where some owners might be constantly registering gun collections.