Owning guns in DC: the current situation

Status
Not open for further replies.
@EddieNFL: I'm sorry, that came out more like I was criticizing you. Your misspeaking, which is really no big deal at all, got me to thinking "Hmm...what actually *was* overturned?" Following *that* thought was the main point of the post, rather than anything you said.
 
Just to touch back: the basic point of the thread was to update folks on the current DC laws. I myself was behind the curve on many developments, so I thought'd be of interest to some readers.

Where I move or don't is a pretty minor point, and really just on me. Though I appreciate any concrete facts I'm missing (major laws not mentioned on the MPD website, news articles like the above posted on people taking DC back to court again), the larger issues of principle are ones I have to sort out, and any lifestyle issues (crime, transport, taxes) aren't THR pertinent, but should really go over PMs.


If no gunowners move to DC or no DCers buy guns, it's as though the ban still stands. Importing and registering guns is clearly not awesome, but it's ahead of many developed countries. If, theoretically, I move to DC I'm on the bleeding edge of US gun issues, whereas if I stay in VA I don't do much of anything to push the issue forward. In whatever case, gun rights alone will not be a factor in my decision, but if I do move to DC I will make a point of taking one rifle and pistol, both for practicality and on principle, whilst leaving the rest in my safe in VA.

Now that I understand how DC laws have changed, I'm thinking to take my CZ PCR or some other small auto (can only have 10rd mags) and either an M1 Carbine or a Mini-14 (with multiple 10rd mags). Practically speaking, I wouldn't be much less-equipped for utter disaster than if I were able to have my AUG and a stack of 42rd mags, and some 15s for my CZ.
 
Something you need to consider is what happens if you need to defend yourself in your home. How the District will handle such a situation, I'd imagine, would be alot different than how Virginia would handle it.
As a matter of principle, I will not live in an area with such draconian laws.
 
Aside from owning a Triumph and calling it a motorbike, I noticed you used the spelling "rumours." Have you spent a lot of time in England?
 
How the District will handle such a situation, I'd imagine, would be alot different than how Virginia would handle it.
Click to expand...

That's actually a totally legitimate (and THR-related) point which I've been thinking on. Might have to peruse some recent news articles for trends in legitimate self-defense cases.

The areas where I might conceivably afford to live are not awesome areas, but have long-term gentrification potential.
 
Just want to correct a few misperceptions about the District of Columbia. While we might not like the local gun laws, the District does not have a "massive street crime problem." 2009 ended with the lowest number of homicides in the past 45 years. You have to go all the way back to 1964 to find a lower number.
 
MAKster said:
Just want to correct a few misperceptions about the District of Columbia. While we might not like the local gun laws, the District does not have a "massive street crime problem." 2009 ended with the lowest number of homicides in the past 45 years. You have to go all the way back to 1964 to find a lower number.
Click to expand...
It was that way all over the US last year due to the increase in gun sales. Here is a link to the article.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/opinion/op_ed/article/ED-HINKLE15_20100114-180004/317636/
 
It was that way all over the US last year due to the increase in gun sales. Here is a link to the article.
Click to expand...

Whoa, that's quite a Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. There are probably tons of factors involved in lower crime rates, and I'd really have to see some neutral studies showing a correlation. The kind of people who tend to murder and be murdered have minimal overlap with the demographic that buys guns when a Democrat gets elected.


In any case, DC does have a rather high murder rate (31.4/100,000), up there with Baltimore and Detroit. Still half of what New Orleans has (63.6), and nobody gave me this kind of hassle when I moved there.

In any case, pure murder rates don't really answer the whole question. A lot is neighborhood, demographic, line of work, etc. If I'm in a bad neighborhood but not involved in local drug disputes, not a woman married to an abusive husband, etc. that takes a chunk of the problem away. Still the danger of "spillover" violence, but a lot of the danger is concentrated by demographic.
 
I don't think Heller had anything to do with the reduction in crime in D.C. It has more to do with the Metropolitan Police finally getting their act together and also poor people leaving the city and being replaced by professional singles and couples. Most murders in D.C. are thug on thug or stray bullets hitting an innocent person. The increased ownership of handguns by law abiding citizens has no affect on those situations. Despite all the hoopla, the number of people who have actually registered handguns since the new law went into effect has been in the hundreds.
 
We seriously need to give DC back to Maryland. That would solve their no representation problem, without making them the 51st and most liberal state of all.
Click to expand...

Um, MD does not want DC. We have enough gun related BS already.

:banghead:
 
That's actually a totally legitimate (and THR-related) point which I've been thinking on. Might have to peruse some recent news articles for trends in legitimate self-defense cases.

The areas where I might conceivably afford to live are not awesome areas, but have long-term gentrification potential.
Click to expand...

While you're at it, check into the amount of problems with the DC police department. They're not known for keeping their noses clean.
 
MatthewVanitas said:
Whoa, that's quite a Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. There are probably tons of factors involved in lower crime rates, and I'd really have to see some neutral studies showing a correlation. The kind of people who tend to murder and be murdered have minimal overlap with the demographic that buys guns when a Democrat gets elected.


In any case, DC does have a rather high murder rate (31.4/100,000), up there with Baltimore and Detroit. Still half of what New Orleans has (63.6), and nobody gave me this kind of hassle when I moved there.

In any case, pure murder rates don't really answer the whole question. A lot is neighborhood, demographic, line of work, etc. If I'm in a bad neighborhood but not involved in local drug disputes, not a woman married to an abusive husband, etc. that takes a chunk of the problem away. Still the danger of "spillover" violence, but a lot of the danger is concentrated by demographic.
Click to expand...
That study has already been done. Try reading John Lott More Guns Less Crime He goes through a very statistical study to make that point clear.
 
"Most murders in D.C. are thug on thug or stray bullets hitting an innocent person."


This is exactly why D.C. is actually a very safe city to walk around in. Having been born and raised in DC, I have had zero problem in my life, yet go 'downtown' very often. I love the great amount of museums, art galleries, theaters, and dining options. I tried living in a small town, and managed two years in Trinidad Colorado before I was bored out of my skull, and saw that my kids were getting an inferior education. Moved back east and never regreted it.

Yes, firearms ownership is a little bit of a PITA in the peoples republik of maryland, but compared overall to the better acsess to finer things in life, its worth it. I'm sure Mathew is going to have a great time. I love my guns, and my family enjoys going out to the range everyweek, but our life does not revolve around a single issue like our guns. There is other things in life to enjoy.
 
I would hardly count that as "Not that bad". that's horrible! any place that even does not allow magazines that can hold more then ten rounds will not be getting a visit by me. I will stay in Idaho, thank you.
 
You know Matt, I say, go for it. The more of us "behind the lines", the better. It helps put some sway into the climate.
 
Matthew -

As someone who has quite literally "been there, done that" - I say move there. The faster the better. Here's why:

1) I lived in DC for about four years, when I was early/mid 20's. Also when it was the no-holds-barred murder capital and I could not own handguns there. It's not like it's the wild west, for Chrissake, even then. Outside of the bad neighborhoods, it's a fine place. Just don't go there. Simple.

2) I do know how very, very crappy the commute is and the quality of culture life is in most 'burbs compared to DC. That's a huge appeal to quality-of-life. As a place to meet interesting, intelligent, educated people that engage you, I think DC is the 2nd most interesting city in North America next to NYC. I've lived in both of those as well as other major US cities, and spent a lot of time traveling to all other major NA cities. I'm not rating DC the 2nd best NA city over all as a place to live, but just on those criteria. That's worth taking advantage of while you can and are young enough to benefit from it.

3) I hope you are single, as that is one very, very compelling reason to be a guy 30 or under in DC. It's just a great place to be in that regard, wink-wink, nudge-nudge. Know what I mean?

4) You are young, you can move on. That is what I did. DC eventually stopped appealing to me as it was a 'company town' and that company was a stolid and uninteresting bureaucratic morass. But as a young person, I learned quite a lot and improved my career skills. I had fun doing it (see especially #3 above), and I have extremely fond memories of living there of friends I met and cultural opportunities and learning. It served me well.

Go for it.
 
Last edited:
who in their right mind would move from austin to dc? dear god.

registering guns? :barf: what kind of nonsense is that?
 
-Despite rumours of "hundreds of dollars in fees and psychological screenings", the clearly-labeled fee schedule indicated $48 for long-guns and $60 for handguns, total
Click to expand...

One thing to keep in mind is that at the moment, D. C. has no gun store and in order to bring a handgun into the District, you need to go through an FFL. The one licensed FFL in D.C. charges either $125 or $165 (I forget which) for this service. However, he does not maintain any stock so you can't buy directly through him at this time.

There is also the mandated 5 hour firearms safety course, which costs around $175; but isn't included in the fee schedule even though it is a necessary part of the application.
 
I just read on CBS news how since the Heller decision -- all they did was make owning a handgun nearly impossible by making you go through so much red tape; it makes the decision almost negligible. You're required to give employment information including employer history and not to mention restrictive fees. Why even bother moving 10 minutes closer?
 
Last edited:
I saw a TV show one time where terrorists managed to get a suitcase xxxx into DC, and everyone was scared. If the xxxx had gone off, that would have been terrible, I think.......................or maybe not...........
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Any Other DC Residents Here?
Replies
18
Views
1K
Big Bore
B
L
  • Locked
DC gun storage
Replies
18
Views
2K
marklbucla
M
MatthewVanitas
  • Locked
Moved my guns into Washington DC
2
Replies
48
Views
7K
lxd55
L
Z
  • Locked
DC's Response to Heller
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
jakemccoy
J
L
  • Locked
Student From DC
Replies
22
Views
850
OpFlash
O
Back
Top