Local gun enthusiasts, note these words: “reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm.”

That there, laid out in a law likely to be passed tomorrow by the D.C. Council, lays out exactly when you’ll be allowed to actually load a gun in the District of Columbia for self-defense purposes.

This policy was announced this afternoon at a Wilson Building press conference featuring Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, Interim Attorney General Peter Nickles, police chief Cathy Lanier, council Chair Vincent C. Gray, and various councilmembers. Much of the presser was devoted to the nuts and bolts of actually registering a handgun—you’ll be able to apply for a handgun permit likely later this week, Nickles said, and the whole process should take “weeks or months.” That includes taking a written firearms safety test and getting fingerprinted, plus a ballistics sample for every registered gun. Getting your hands on a gun is a trickier process; you can buy a gun in another state then have it transferred to a dealer in the District (for a fee)—last week, WTOP’s Mark Segraves found the one guy in town who’s willing to do that for you: one Charles Sykes, Jr.

As to where you can load that gun, given a “reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm,” it’s only in your home. Not your yard. Not your car, which might be parked in front of your home, but in your home. Now, as for the use of the gun once it’s loaded, the statute will say nothing about that; use of a weapon in self-defense is governed by reams of case law, Nickles says.

The District’s proposed standard is likely to attract additional legal scrutiny from folks who feel that the policy in not in full compliance with the Heller decision, but Nickles says it was drafted to comply fully with the holding. “When you do almost anything in this city, you get a lawsuit,” he said.

Lots more info in the press release after the jump. Read the rest of this entry »

Yeah, you’ve heard about the Supreme Court ruling and its fallout. It’s been blogged, re-blogged, hashed and rehashed.

So what do folks on the street think of it all? Watch the video and find out.

Trouble viewing? Try the YouTube version.

A brief perusal of Roget’s suggests a galaxy of promising adjectives for describing one’s reaction to a troubling Supreme Court decision.

For one, there is “troubled.” “Shocked,” “outraged,” and “concerned” come to mind. Further options include “chagrined,” “mortified,” “aggrieved,” “offended,” “incensed,” “riled up,” and “scared shitless.”

In their press releases, however, District politicos have been sticking to one word with alarming regularity:

Disappointed.

First, there is Ward 5 Councilmember Harry “Tommy” Thomas, Jr., who “expressed his extreme disappointment with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the District gun ban, and indicated that the Council must now establish strict standards to regulate the sale of handguns in the District of Columbia.”

Then we have Fenty, Nickles, and Lanier, who weigh in as follows:

Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, Interim Attorney General Peter Nickles, and Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy Lanier announced their disappointment in today’s ruling of the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller…. “I’m disappointed in the Court’s ruling and believe introducing more handguns into the District will mean more handgun violence,” said Mayor Fenty.*

Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray includes the following in his statement:

Although I am disappointed by the court’s decision, working collectively with the Mayor, the Metropolitan Police, legal authorities, and residents, the Council will do all it can to prevent violence from escalating further as a result of today’s un-welcome weakening of our gun laws.

Ward 4 Councilmember Muriel Bowser:

I am disappointed in today’s Supreme Court action which ruled that the DC law banning private handgun possession at home violates the Second Amendment.

At-Large Councilmember Kwame Brown:

My disappointment in the Supreme Courts ruling cannot be merely expressed by words. Every time I hear of another youth, another mother or child gunned down in our communities is yet another reminder of why we need these protective measures in place.

[Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton issued a statement in which the d-word was conspicuously absent, as did Adam Clampitt, Independent Candidate for DC Council At-Large.]

Come on, folks! Disappointed is when your team loses in spring training. Disappointed is when your kid doesn’t crack a B in algebra. Disappointed is when your dog relieves himself under the dining room table.

Whatever happened to “I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna take it anymore!”

*The Post imputes “dismay” to Fenty. Over-editorialize much lately?

Now that the gun ban’s been overturned, stay tuned for the live news conference on NBC4.com at noon.

File your celebration / complaint in the comments.

Photo by rrafa.

I gotta admit, I agreed with folks who said George W. Bush was only pandering in his first post-9/11 address to Congress. That was the speech where he said that we were attacked only because “they hate our freedoms” and originally declared America’s “war on terror.”

It wasn’t until yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling on voter IDs that I realized that this decision and all others like it from the past six years and change are part of a plan—a brilliant plan—put together by the administration and its robed friends to foil our haters and win this war the only way possible: By taking away our freedoms!

How you hate us now, Osama?

And if I can’t find my passport, birth certificate, driver’s license and Food Lion MVP Card by Nov. 4, well, I can only imagine how American I’ll feel sitting out the election…

Obama is great for just being Obama, says Marc Fisher. “Win or lose,” the senator from Illinois has changed the way Americans view race, he writes in his most recent column. “It’s one thing to believe in a picture we’d like to be true — a society moving toward a colorblind ideal — and something entirely different to live each day with a personification of that ideal.” And which generation has advanced this new way of thinking? Not today’s youth, but the youth of yesteryear. That’s right: Boomers! They always get credit for everything.

While the District hopes to stop handguns from coming in, Mayor Ray Nagin from New Orleans is …

Logic schmogic. Maybe Roger Clemens and his former trainer are both telling the truth (check out the second photo), even though they are saying diametrically opposite things.

Do not slip while running in Adams Morgan. In some places, it’s a long way down.

Over the summer, I met Supreme Court lawyer Tom Goldstein, and since then, I’ve been looking for some reason to write about him. Today, finally, I get my chance.

There are several reasons why Goldstein is pertinent to this blog:

1. He resides in Washington D.C. (usually reason enough for a post).
2. He wrote a big story on Slate.com about the Supreme Court’s upcoming term, which may include the famed DC handgun ban case, District of Columbia v. Heller.
3. As lawyers go, Goldstein has a pretty crazy story: Though he was a big-time debater in college (University of North Carolina), he was a mediocre student who got rejected from every law school he applied to. Luckily, he had a relative who worked at the law school at American University. So, he got in. He argued his first case before the Supreme Court when he was 28. Shortly thereafter, he left his firm and, with his wife, started a boutique practice, specializing in the Supreme Court. (The main office was the family laundry room.) To make a long story short: Goldstein is one of the top Supreme Court lawyers in the country, having argued 17 cases at the ripe age of 37. He currently heads up the Supreme Court practice at Akin Gump in the District. He also runs scotusblog.com.

But what clinches the deal (the deal in which I say to myself: OK, now this sounds blogworthy) is that Goldstein’s firm is representing the District in the handgun ban case, and his Slate piece includes interesting thoughts on the case’s future. Goldstein says that there’s no precedent for a case like this to hint at the justices’ ruling. “Still, the district has a cascade of arguments for reversal. And the decision is likely to break down along ideological lines, with the four members on the left of the court advocating against gun rights.” Goldstein goes on to say the case could have far-reaching political repercussions: “The success of the NRA shows that there is a significant portion of the population that favors and mobilizes around gun rights. The court’s decision could have a profound effect on whether those voters go to the polls. By contrast, those who favor greater gun regulation overwhelmingly are not ’single issue’ voters.”

So, glad I could share.