Talk:Gun laws in the District of Columbia

Registration has changed

Registration has significantly changed. No outside training course has been required for over one year now. Online course is taken and certificate is printed up and brought in. You do not and cannot provide" photographs. you are photographed at registry by the police. You do NOT have to declare usage intent. Weapons are NOT fired and filed for ballistics or casings for over a year now. All old source is inaccurate. Even fees have gone down from over $300 to $18 total.11:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.33.56 (talk)

Thanks for explaining, and for updating the article. Here are some references for this. Someone can use these to update the references in the article, or I'll do it myself if I find the time. MPD: Firearm Registration in the District of Columbia; MPD: Changes to Firearms Registration; Miller: D.C. a Bit More Gun-Friendly; Miller: The New Guide to Getting a Gun in D.C.. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I have added some additional facts. EG the two waiting periods, ages for handgun vs long gun; ammo possession; fact that raining is online; and models allowed. I hope the models allowed is clear. for handguns it has to be ON ANY one of the four "rosters" (cali, md, MA or DC). for long guns they are allowed except when listed as not allowed.

There is another point on the law which as far as I can tell is unique to DC. For practical purposes, the way the DC law is structured and as far as I can tell uniquely so, a couple wanting just one handgun really needs to get two. Except in the case of a life threatening situation it is illegal for other household members to handle a weapon, transport it to a range unloaded and locked, or even practice dry fire at home all of which are recommended best practices in safety training. It is an irony that strong gun control can force additional guns. The same phenomena happens with carry laws. A gun owner gets additional legal protection by having a carry permit even if they don't need to carry. I hope this is not considered original research since any editor can double check and call the DC firearms office. They will NOT conduct an NCIS background check or administer a test without a separate serial number gun. In NY, NJ, MA, MD , Cali other states with strong gun laws a spouse who is not a forbidden person can go to the range with a gun or practice dry fire at home with their spouses gun. In DC that is a felony. And one cannot be licensed to touch a gun without a unique gun licensed to them.108.48.225.193 (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Passage laws were incorrect

Appeals courts have already ruled twice that DC is covered by FOPA. Direct transit with "incidental stops" (also already defined by case law) are allowed through DC from one place legal to posses to another legal to possess. 108.48.226.70 (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

cleanup

I am removing the NRA-ILA link on DC gun laws since it is objectively incorrect on so many points. EG it states:

"A person may buy a firearm only from, or sell only to, a licensed dealer in the District."

NRA-ILA has it wrong. Shotguns and long guns can be bought at FFLs in Virginia Maryland etc and never go through the DC-based FFL. If you buy a 10/22 or mini-14 at Bass pro in Maryland, you simply register it with the MPD, and do not use the DC FFL.

"....complete a firearms training course conducted by a state-certified firearms instructor or a certified military firearms instructor that includes one hour of firing training and 4 hours of classroom instruction."

NRA-ILA has it wrong. you now take a 45 minute online free course.

" must submit 2 full-face photographs taken within the prior 30 days"

NRA-ILA has it wrong.

Essentially two years after major changes in the laws, the NRA-ILA has not updated their site, and now has a lot of invalid information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.76.71 (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I provided an updated link — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrorist96 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Handgunlaw.us has one or two minor errors, and their description of the process as "It is a very long and complicated process." is a problematic. Registering a handgun in NJ or Maryland (about 90 to 120 days actual wait time) is much more arduous and complex than DC.

And "before you even buy a firearm you must complete all paperwork" is an objectively false. For handgun, you purchase it first, you do no paperwork first. You then spend 45 minute at home with the online safety course, wait ten days, and spend about 2-3 hours at the firearms office and only DC FFL (down the hallway in the same building) doing paperwork and walk out with the firearm. The claim there is a five day processing time is not at all true. It i a ten day passive wait period. the actual processing time is a few hours.108.18.76.71 (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Then please contact them and ask them to update their listing. Terrorist96 (talk) 23:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Look, I wont remove it. It has the least errors of the three sources that were cited. But as the MPDC procedures page shows, handgunlaw.us does have errors. And those errors skew it to make it look more complex and difficult.

The statement that you have to "do all the paperwork first" is obviously false, since you can't really initiate an application process without a serial number. 08:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.76.71 (talk)

I am also removing "Law Center to prevent gun violence" link since it has even more objective errors. EG: "A holder of a valid registration certificate for a firearm of the same gauge or caliber as the ammunition he or she possesses is not subject to this prohibition" Objectively false. If you are a registrant you can own any caliber not prohibited. If you have a .22 bolt action registered you can own and possess 9mm, 556, 45, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.76.71 (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence has even more errors now. It seems not to be maintained well.Explainador (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Is there a contradiction here:

Under History section Heller III #2: "The case returned to the appeals court as Heller III and on September 18, 2015, the court invalidated the following requirements: (1) re-registration of firearms every three years, (2) not being able to register more than one gun per month,"

Isn't this contradicted by the last part of the "Possession of Firearms" section referenced by 29: "and a 30-day period between purchases of successive handguns."?

Not seeing anything on the MPD's site either, https://mpdc.dc.gov/node/1284996, that indicates a requirement for 30 days between purchases or registration of handguns..

Should part referenced by 29 from the Giffords site be removed?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmesJainchill (talk • contribs) 20:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

ProbablyTerrorist96 (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

DoneAmesJainchill (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

"Assault weapon"

What is this defined as? Someone with more knowledge should either link to an applicable page or add an in-text definition. 71.126.53.8 (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

DC's definition is in the foot notes. For long guns (rifles) it is a) very similar to 1994 federal definition. So if it is both semi-auto and can accept a magazine, it cant have any of the following: (aa) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; (bb) A thumbhole stock; (cc) A folding or telescoping stock; (dd) A grenade launcher or flare launcher; (ee) A flash suppressor; or (ff) A forward pistol grip in a semi-auto firearm.

If it is a semi auto magazine fed rifle, it can have a threaded barrel if the barrel is over 16". If it is a semi auto pistol it can't have a threaded barrel at all.

EG AR-15 with grip beneath the trigger on it: illegal. Mini-14 (ranch configuration): legal. DC also prohibits certain firearms it calls assault weapons by make/model.

more pages 1,2,3 here: http://mpdc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/mpdc/publication/attachments/firearms_eligible_registration.pdf Explainador (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

More clarifications on recent litigation results

Eye test, expiration of registration, requirement to take test on DC laws for registration were all nullified following litigation the past couple of years. I have adjusted text. EG Instead of requiring that registrant go to DMV for an eye test regardless of vehicle license, as had been the case, now you just self certify you are not legally blind, or present a driver's license . Rather than chapter and verse of the litigation results, the current endnotes point to the DC registration site which reflects removal of these requirements.Explainador (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Not shall-issue yet

Recently the article was changed to say that D.C. has a shall-issue policy for concealed carry. But, that's jumping the gun, so to speak. A federal appeals court ruled that their may-issue policy of requiring applicants to show "good cause" was unconstitutional, and D.C. said they would not appeal to the Supreme Court. So as of right now they literally don't have any policy. They have to write a new one, and they're obliged to do so in the near future. A reasonable person might suppose that their new law will be shall-issue, but, the future is uncertain. At any rate it hasn't happened yet. So, the article should be updated to say so. I would encourage any interested editor to make this change, or I'll do it myself if I get around to it. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

It would seem that they have a de facto shall-issue policy now due to the court ruling (mandate has been issued) even if it hasn't been codified (de jure) into law (which I don't foresee happening anyway). They're not obliged to write a new policy (courts can't force legislatures to write laws). Making such a distinction within the article would be a bit pedantic, IMO. There are many instances where unconstitutional laws remain on the books but are unenforced; this seems like one of those cases.Terrorist96 (talk) 07:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm thinking that D.C. is going to change their law, rather than leaving it the way it is and just issuing concealed carry licenses to anyone who's not a convicted felon, etc. But the article shouldn't say what they're going to do in the future, either way. Let me ponder this further. But, here's another point. The article also currently says, "For a brief period of time, Judge Scullin's ruling effectively legalized permitless open and concealed carry with a valid firearm registration card, and non-residents with valid carry permits issued by their home states could carry openly or concealed in the District." I don't think that's the case. And if it is, I'd like to see a reference for that. Something from a news source such as the Washington Post would be ideal. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 10:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking at some articles on the Washington Post, some of which are already cited in the article. This seems to support what I think you're suggesting -- that D.C.'s concealed carry laws are all still in effect, except that applicants no longer have to show "good cause". So in effect it's shall-issue, though the references don't use that term. I still want to think about it some more though. And the part about permitless open and concealed carry, and permits from other states, seems to have no basis in fact. I guess I'll take that part out now.

Here's what I'm looking at (but I can only view the articles when I click through from a Google search, because I don't have a Washington Post subscription):

• "Appeals court order blocks enforcement of D.C.’s strict concealed carry law"
• "D.C. government won’t appeal concealed-carry rights case to the Supreme Court"
• "Some questions answered on the D.C. concealed gun permit decision"

— Mudwater ^(Talk) 10:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Here are some sources on the temporary permitless carry status that D.C. was under: "Federal judge declares D.C. ban on carrying handguns in public unconstitutional" This was when they banned any form of carrying outside the home. This is the ruling that induced them to create their highly restrictive may-issue law. And "Licensed handgun carry now legal in District of Columbia: Palmer v. DC" Note that "licensed" means you have a license to own the gun—not a license to carry it since those did not exist at that point yet. And here's the actual D.C. Chief of Police response to the ruling at the time. I'll undo your edit and include these links for reference.Terrorist96 (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Also like to add this brief statement from Representative Thomas Massie indicating his understanding that D.C. was under permitless carry at the time.Terrorist96 (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Terrorist96: Thanks for the detailed response. I'll study this further when I get a chance. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

None of those articles actually state that there was constitutional carry at any moment. (Unless I missed something) While you could possibly infer/deduce that, that would be WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Did I miss a particular quote that actually backs this statement? ResultingConstant (talk) 01:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

While they don't use the term "constitutional carry", they note that if you legally own your gun in D.C. (or aren't a convicted felon if you're a non-resident), you can carry. In other words, permitless carry/constitutional carry.Terrorist96 (talk) 03:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

About whether or not carrying without a carry permit was temporarily legal, here's another Washington Post article that, to my surprise, seems to support that. As I mentioned above, when I click on a link to a Washington Post story, it's generally not letting me view it, because I don't have a subscription. But if I click through from a Google news search, then it's letting me view it. So, I'm going to include a long-ish quote here.

References

— Mudwater ^(Talk) 19:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

"Note that "licensed" means you have a license to own the gun..."

To be precise, in DC, there is no "license" to own a gun. But rather a *registration* to *possess* one within DC.Explainador (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Let's watch our sources please

Giffords Law is one of the most erroneous sources out there. They appear to have not changed their information despite a huge number of rollbacks in DC law. EG:

"Any applicant seeking to register a handgun in the District must, prior to transfer, present the approved firearm registration application to the licensed firearms dealer selling the handgun and take the handgun directly to the Firearms Registration Section of the District’s Metropolitan Police Department for completion of a ballistic identification procedure, and pay a $12 fee.2 If the applicant purchases from a dealer located in another jurisdiction, the applicant must have that dealer transport the applicant’s handgun to a licensed dealer in the District where the applicant will accept transfer pending completion of a ballistic identification procedure.3 Failure to comply with the ballistics identification requirement will result in the denial of the registration application or revocation of the registration for that handgun, and may subject the handgun owner to criminal charges.4"

This along with very large number of assertions on their site are completely wrong.

Washington Times has also had a lot of errors. Most recently claiming a law specifically titled a penalty "enhancement" for illegal unlicensed carry applied to legal licensed concealed carrying "1,000' from any school. There is no one who is an accredited instructor for DC two day required and approved course on firearms safety and DC firearms law who claims this. In fact here is a specific reading from an actual firearms law firm -- with DC firearms law specialization. In fact the principle has developed the coursework and teaches the class -- and has themselves participated in the appeals court cases on DC law: https://www.arsenalattorneys.com/firearms-blog/dc-becomes-a-shall-issue-jurisdiction-for-concealed-carry-licenses

"There has been some misunderstanding recently concerning where one can carry in the District. A recent Facebook post that has been widely disseminated interpreted the DC Gun Free Schools Act as prohibiting carrying a firearm within 1000 feet of a school and certain other locations, which would effectively make 90 plus percent of the District off limits to carry. This law, however, is an enhancement statute that doubles the penalty for otherwise illegally carrying a firearm. *It does not apply to persons who have the legal right to carry, such as persons with a DC Concealed Pistol License*." Explainador (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting the confusion about this law. I've restored the explanation but changed the wording, and re-added the the sources, which includes a link to the law itself. Please discuss further before removing.Terrorist96 (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

It has been discussed and there is no confusion. Here is the prohibition list for LICENCED carriers:

https://code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/code/sections/7-2509.07.html#

That belongs in the article, not some absurd claim by persons without certified or recognized expertise in firearms code and adjudication.

If we are going add gun crime and "enhanced penalty" section to Wikipedia gun laws within states than I suggest you start doing it for all states, cities and towns -- all across America -- in every state's Wikipedia firearms law article.

The section of law you are referring to is not in the concealed carry section of DC law but in the general gun crime section. Lott's claim that it was added in response to the forcing either of may issue a couple of years ago, or shall issue seven months ago is objectively wrongg since it is decades old.

Did you notice the "enhanced penalty" law (and that is its title) you are citing has no penalty? A gun crime must be committed (armed robbery, assault with a firearm, carrying without a license) to trigger that law, doubling the penalty of the gun crime you committed. If there was a per se crime there would be a penalty there.

Do we put, under the driving laws of a state, a claim that enhanced penalty for traffic based 1,000 or 500' school zones prohibit driving by licensed drivers in school zones?

Lastly every resident in DC, every single one, lives within 1,000 feet of a school, day care or educational institution office. The way Lott's reads it, his contention that there is this law, but everyone is exempt therefore it is moot and has no affect on anyone.Explainador (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

By the way all the IP edits you see the 70.xxx and 108.xxx are all me. All 100% accurate edits to update incorrect, even grossly incorrect information in cited sources. that is from the very beginning of this talk page are from before I had an account here. I have been correcting misinformation, including LOTS of misinformation from Washington Times, Gifford's," Law center to prevent...", John lott, handgunlaw. These are NOT valid sources of data since all of then can be shown to have objectively incorrect information. In the past you asked me to" get in touch" with handgunlaw to have them fix their incorrect info. I do not need to do that since I showed the objective errors. the errors show these sources are not valid. Now I gave the ONLY citation from an actual bar licensed firearms attorney -- who is an authority on firearms law. We don't need a section on how there is confusion.Explainador (talk) 03:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be getting a little hostile and taking this personally. Let's review this one sentence at a time: The law declares that areas within 1,000 feet of a school, college, day care center, playground, library, public housing complex and other public gathering spot to be gun free zones. This is materially true. Quote from the law: All areas within, 1000 feet of an appropriately identified public or private day care center, elementary school, vocational school, secondary school, college, junior college, or university, or any public swimming pool, playground, video arcade, youth center, or public library, or in and around public housing ... or in or around housing ... by the District of Columbia Housing Authority ... shall be declared a gun free zone. The second sentence: However, the Metropolitan Police Department, claims that this restriction does not apply to those who have concealed carry permits, and only acts as a penalty enhancement against those who are carrying illegally. This is also true. Nowhere are we claiming that it is *not* a penalty enhancement. @Mudwater: can you chime in please?Terrorist96 (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The current version of that paragraph seems reasonable to me, with the three footnotes that it has. I have to admit though that I don't fully understand the question or disagreement. That is, I'm not quite getting the argument for why the paragraph should be omitted. That said, I'd be open to further rewording it, if it can somehow be made clearer. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I've looked at this a bit more and I think I have a better understanding. How about if we reword the paragraph to say something a bit more straightforward, such as In D.C. areas within 1,000 feet of a school, college, day care center, playground, library, public housing complex and other public gathering spot are "gun free zones". In these areas the penalties for illegally carrying a gun are doubled. It also might make sense to move it from the "Open and concealed carry" section to the "Possession of firearms" section. It does seem that the law does not apply to legal CCL holders, the Washington Times article notwithstanding. Again though I am very open to further discussion. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

This is an enhanced penalty provision, in fact the title of the law is "enhanced penalty." N34B2 (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

removed "Firearm laws in the District rank amongst some of the most restrictive in the United States."

Given that 30% of Americans live in May Issue states, with May Issue a much much more restrictive gun control regime than DC Shall issue regime, this sentence in the lede hasn't made sense for a few years now. DC has been loosening gun control for the past 13 years in a clear trend, and a number of states increasing gun control.N34B2 (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Prohibition vs registration of "assault weapons" and SBRs

I added a couple of clarifying edits concerning assault weapons and short-barreled rifles. It's not exactly accurate to say that DC prohibits either "assault weapons" or short barreled rifles; there is no statute which prohibits their possession, manufacture, or use (in contrast, there is a specific statute, § 22–4514, prohibiting machine guns, short-barreled shotguns, and silencers). Rather, DC law "bans" assault weapons and SBRs by stating that they cannot be registered, and then prohibiting the possession of any firearms which are not registered. However, there's nothing in the law to prevent someone from registering a gun without any of the "assault weapon" features and then adding those features back later on. 2601:152:882:5430:EC10:37C1:7F73:6FA1 (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I do not think claim/interpretation belongs here as there is no cited legal opinion in support. Just because something could become illegal doesn't mean it is. Registrants are responsible for informing MPD of any changes whatsoever to registration, and registration of semi auto rifles includes make and model, or if assembled, with notes as to type of stock used and any other features. so the changes you mention would invalidate registration.

If DC were allowing people to buy and register lowers solely I suppose anything that person would be responsible for not adding features that makes registration invalid. But DC only did that a few times. they now require at registration an assembled rifle for semi auto that could become an assult rifle.

The fact that you can alter virtually any gun to possibly make it illegal in draconian gun law jurisdiction doesn't mean you will, and doesn't mean you do not have to confirm accuracy of original registration. If you materially alter a gun, in DC and any state with registration, plus code based feature or model control schemes, that jurisdiction would probably argue your registration was self invalidated when you deliberately exceeded the feature number on the gun while in DC without informing DC, as the law requires, in writing, of any changes to your registration.

If you have seen a DC registration for semi-auto rifle, MPD lists either by manufacturer model or if assembled include description of parts like lower and stock. And registrant is is responsible for notifying MPD of any changes errors on your registration. Just moving address requires you as registrant to formally notify DC MPD. just because you can move without telling them does not mean you have no legal liability.

Otherwise you point is kind of a tautology, since even before modular guns becoming the most common and popular types of guns, you could always materially alter a gun after the fact.

When you register your gun they are going to see if there is a grip beneath the action. that is the core thing they are looking for. That is on the serialized lower. And your mechanism for dealing with that (EG thordsen or other method) is going to be noted on your registration, making the registration invalid if you change it.

As far as any other features, they are likely not per se illegal to posses, nor should they be, since they all also can go on firearms that are not even semi auto. There are plenty of single shot bolt action guns that can take a thumbhole stock; folding or telescoping stock; grenade launcher or flare launcher; A flash suppressor; or forward pistol grip that also fit on for example AR-15 pattern and are and should be completely legal to own in DC if you have bolt action they fit on (and there are many bolt actions that do take AR parts).N34B2 (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The only duties of a registrant, as enumerated under § 7-2502.08, are to provide notice to MPD if (1) the firearm is lost, stolen, of destroyed; (2) if the name or address of the registrant changes; (3) if the firearm is sold or transferred. There is no law that requires registrants to notify MPD of changes to the barrel length, feature count, caliber, or any other aspect of the firearm configuration. Your speculation that changes to a firearm configuration must be reported to MPD appear to be both WP:OR and unsupported by any evidence. 50.249.35.102 (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Two recent pushbacks should be added (ghost gun definition; 20 round carry limit)

I don't have time today but if someone wants to add pushbacks on ghost gun definition and 20 round carry limit that would be nice. They are relevant not just because they are material, but also because they are successful pushbacks under threat of litigation. Other (semi) recent/current changes litigation like DC three years ago making >10 round mag a felony and concealed carry on public transportation. The ghost gun changes being here are quite important, since even though this has changed to allow you to make your own firearm, media stories continue to cite old, withdrawn portion of ghost gun law that prohibited that: https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/acts/24-583#%C2%A72(b) N34B2 (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)