Lew Hodgett wrote:

"DGDevin" wrote:

It took a ruling from the Supreme Court to finally stop Washington
DC from banning the ownership of handguns by law-abiding citizens,
and apparently DC is interested in ways to get around that ruling if
they can.

That's only temporary.

How so? Most of the rulings that have come down since the recent landmark
2nd Amendment case have upheld existing laws. What's to stop DC from
putting in regulations so onerous that they amount to a ban (which is what
they've already discussed doing)?

So far as I've heard Chicago hasn't done away with their equally
ineffective handgun ban either, ineffective in the sense that
criminals happily ignore it.

Interesting observation, just as Chicago is an interesting place.

If criminals being armed while law-abiding citizens are disarmed is
"interesting," I guess so.

If you can point out how fear of handgun bans amounts to "NRA
propaganda" despite laws such as these existing for decades, that
might be interesting.

Huh!

Ummm, what?

What will registration accomplish? Do you think any criminal will
choose to register a firearm?

Not hardly; however, when the registered firearm is found in the hands
of a felon, the possibility of legal recourse exists.

You don't need registration to accomplish that. A law requiring firearms
transfers to be done through dealers does the same thing. The last owner of
record has to explain why his gun was found at a crime scene, if it turns
out he sold it without going through a dealer then he can be prosecuted for
that.

Really, is that how it worked in Britain, Australia and Canada,
registration didn't precede bans and confiscations?

Personally could care less, I don't live in those places.

Lew

Hmmm, interesting that some folks would like to see U.S. law become more
like the law in those places however. Naw, no way it could happen here....