A roaming gun free zone?

You’ve got to give them points for consistency, I suppose. The double-plus goodthinking fathers, mothers and nannies of Washington DC determined long ago that only criminals and cops should have guns, that’s the way they like it, and that’s the way it’s going to stay while there’s breath in their bodies, court orders and bad publicity be damned.

Forced to [appear to] recant by some federal court, the DC city council passed what reasonable people would have considered an unreasonably restrictive concealed carry law. It grants all discretion for deciding who “needs” a license to the police chief, and the police chief is on record as saying that nothing short of celebrity status or multiple sucking chest wounds will ever qualify anyone as having “need.”

Living in a crime-plagued area of the city, for example, where killings have occurred or drug sales are common would not be sufficient cause for a concealed-carry permit, [DC police chief] Lanier said. Owning a home that has been burglarized, even multiple times, also would not necessarily give an applicant standing, she said, because the District has been required since 2008 to allow residents to keep guns in their homes for self-defense.

Rather, Lanier said, for concealed-carry permits, “we’re talking about a specific threat to you. If there is a threat, you have been threatened, you are the victim of stalking, you are the victim of domestic violence,” she said.

But that’s not nearly restrictive enough for the greatly-caring Lanier. No, indeed. She wants the council to go back for another slice of the pie.

She said she would like the council to consider adding provisions in the permanent bill that would ban carrying weapons inside government buildings, in parking lots and in cabs.

But the big problem is that proles with guns must be kept far from their masters at all times. Washington DC crawls with masters as a discarded chicken wing crawls with cockroaches, and they do move about restlessly. How to keep the poor special dears safe from us mouth-breathing civilians? How? How?

The bill would ban the carrying of handguns within 1,000 feet of a public event, demonstration or dignitary under police protection. Lanier said those restrictions are vital because the nation’s capital is a target for terrorists and lone gunmen who would seek to harm the president or other officials.

Yes, they’re specifically worried about motorcades. Which are not exactly rare in DC. And apparently there must be strict guidelines for ensuring that only the right people ever carry guns within 1000 feet of one. Oy.

Lanier conceded that it was difficult to provide advance notice of motorcades carrying dignitaries through city streets and said it was reasonable for gun owners in the vicinity of such events to be personally warned.

The current dispute in council, it seems, is not whether law-abiding people peacefully abiding by the law should be left in peace. No. The dispute is whether they should be warned off whenever a gun-free zone appears around them, or whether they should just be arrested on sight without being even offered an opportunity to withdraw from the precious vicinity of a public servant.

Oy. It ain’t easy being despotic.

About Joel

You shouldn't ask these questions of a paranoid recluse, you know.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to A roaming gun free zone?

  1. Matt says:

    Since the whole area is full of free range idiots, roaming gun free zones makes more sense.

To the stake with the heretic!