Heller Tries to Register Gun, DC fails to comply with SCOTUS Ruling

Other 2nd amendment and gun rights sights are covering this story, but I feel like I need to add my thoughts as well. Today is the first day of firearms registration in Washington, DC. The plaintiff (and victor) in DC v Heller, Dick Heller, was the first person to arrive at DC police headquarters to attempt to register his weapons. The result? His application was rejected on two technicalities.

To be fair, it should be noted that though Heller arrived with a lawyer in tow, he did not bring the firearms with him as required. He feared retribution from the city, and wanted express written or recorded verbal consent that actually bringing firearms in from outside the city, even for registration purposes, would not get him arrested. Heller has been storing two firearms he owns with a friend in neighboring Maryland and did not want to fall victim to any legal loopholes in the District's emergency legislation that might make him an accidental felon.

After Assistant Police Chief Peter J. Newsham promised Heller in front of a dozen reporters and news cameras that he would "absolutely not" get in trouble for bringing a revolver into the city, von Breichenruchardt said Heller would do so another day.

While this part of the story may seem fair, things take a bit of a turn when it comes to Heller's other firearm: a .45 caliber semi-auto pistol. Though DC is now allowing the legal registration of handguns, the restrictions are still draconian. Guns must still be unloaded and disassembled, trigger-locked, or be kept in a locked safe - you may not load and assemble the arm until there is "threat of immediate harm to a person." Most egregiously, the city will not allow registration of semi-automatic firearms that can be used with a clip that holds more than 12 rounds, a rule which encompasses 100% of semi-automatic handguns. Do these regulations and restrictions honor in good faith the Supreme Court ruling? Would they pass legal muster? Let's take a look at some excerpts from the majority opinion to get an idea:

Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun.

Scalia also speaks directly about what sort weapons can be banned and what are protected:

Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Semi-automatic pistols make up approximately 3/4 of all handgun sales in the United States, which I think would qualify them as "in common use." In addition, .45 automatic pistols have been issued to the military as a standard sidearm since 1911. It appears that even though Mayor Fenty went on air after the Heller ruling and urged a quick solution to comply with the Supreme Court's decision, this was only lip service. He and the DC city council appear to be adamant about skirting the law and wasting taxpayer money in more legal action that will surely end in defeat for the city.

In response to Heller's failed attempt at registration, Asst. Chief Newsham said:

Firearms registration is a pretty complicated set of rules and regulations, and they can be interpreted by reasonable people in different ways...

The real question is, does it have to be? Does registration need to be so complicated that two reasonable parties can interpret it in different way? Let me submit a piece of anecdotal evidence for a frame of reference. In my home state of Washington, there is no such thing as firearms registration, not for long guns or handguns. Our two largest cities, Seattle and Spokane, have a murder rate below the national average. Washington, DC's murder rate? 5.75 times the average. Food for thought...