press1280
Regular Member
This issue is perhaps the ONLY logical and reasonable reason that DC should be granted statehood...
Aa a "District," DC is not bound by the Interstate Commerce Clause, FOPA, or any other Federal or Constitutional laws that require states to treat out-of-staters fairly and under rule of law. Because of this, DC can charge you with things like "not registering guns in DC" when you're not a resident, and there are no provisions for non-residents to do so.
They also say he had no license to carry in DC... NOBODY has a "license to carry" in DC--they do NOT issue carry permits to citizens--PERIOD. There are NO provisions under DC Statute or Code to issue a permit to carry--openly or concealed, unless you have a badge, and even THEN, if you're from out-of-state, it can get pretty dicey, because according to DC Metro, they don't have to recognize LEOSA--because DC is not a state...
Also, the article says he volunteered info that he had firearms in his vehicle to the LEOs. Apparently, he doesn't know that his most important Constitutional Right when dealing with LEOs is STFU... :banghead:
DC is bound by FOPA. DC is trying to argue that FOPA is a 2A equivalent in the Palmer case. This guy obviously didn't know the gun laws and STOPPED in DC. At that point he lost any FOPA protection.