It took 58 years to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson, and that affected the whole country. I think we’ve got a few more years before Dick Heller’s right to own a Glock hits the same level of indignation as governmental discrimination of millions of U.S. Citizens.

When the crappy law infringes on an explicit constitutional right, we should probably pay a little more attention to it.

The efficacy of the law is not the question here. Legislators pass crappy laws all the time with no requirement that they prove their effectiveness. The question here is if the requirements of the laws in D.C. violate Heller, which will presumably be determined after lengthy legal battles. Hooray!

Mojo,
Gin makes me amorous. Tequila makes me want to get into a knife fight.

If you really want to prevent gin violence, shouldn’t we start by scheduling an intervention for Dr. Bombay? Zing!

A little common sense in this whole process would go a long way. It is harrassment – how else would you characterize a program that doesn’t work, but requires an inordinate amount of effort on the part of the citizen in order to comply with the law? I did a little research, and as far as I can tell, Maryland has had the ballistic fingerprinting rules on the book since around 2002 and they have yet to solve a single case with it. Not one.

If there were rules about voting that required anyone who wanted to vote to take a test, pay a tax, register in person, take another test, present two forms of ID, be fingerprinted and photographed etc. would you call that reasonable precautions to prevent voter fraud, or would you call it harassment? I’d call it harassment.

Of course not. My point is simply that you’re making fun of the idea that people may need to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, and I’m pointing out that none of us would be arguing here if the Founders hadn’t done exactly that.

As for the ballistic fingerprint issue, the difference is clear – first, there’s no mandatory fingerprinting for every citizen in order for them to exercise a constitutional right. Second, its far more expensive than regular fingerprinting and its less efficacious. There’s no AFIS for ballistic fingerprints. Has anyone in MD been convicted because the gun they used was matched to its ballistic fingerprint? If so, does it happen as often as it does with fingerprints? I doubt it.

If I were still a DC taxpayer, I’d question why the city council is enacting useless nonsense like this that can only be explained as harassment of gun owners when they can’t fill potholes.

Maybe since you don’t have the right to vote for representation in Congress, the Founders decided that you should get guns instead?

Jack and Show,

You two behave, or I’m going to pistol whip you both.