What is the purpose of this other than to harass law-abiding Americans?
WASHINGTON (CBSDC) — Big changes for gun owners in the nation’s capital will impact tens of thousands of law-abiding citizens, many of whom have no idea the change is coming.
The new requirement for gun owners in the District goes into effect next year and failure to comply could mean jail time.
Starting Jan. 1 all registered gun owners in D.C. must re-register their firearms within 90 days. D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier says notices will start going out to gun owners soon.
“Every three years you’ll have to confirm you still live in the District and you still have your firearm.” Lanier tells WNEW.
The re-registration requirement will impact anyone who registered a firearm in the District from 1976 to 2010.
“There are probably between 40,000 and 50,000 people who registered a gun during that time.” Lanier says. […]
“Of the 50,000 or however many people there are, at least one person won’t comply,” Shapiro says. “Not willfully, but because they haven’t heard about the new law and all of a sudden they’ll be in technical violation of the law which has serious penalties.”
The penalties for not re-registering a gun range from a $13 fine to a $1,000 fine and a year in jail, according to an MPD spokesperson.
“A person who fails to renew their firearms registration within 90 days of the deadline (meaning, 90 day renewal period + 90 day grace period = 180 days total) will have their firearm registration cancelled, will be in possession of an unregistered firearm, and may face criminal charges punishable by a fine up to $1,000 or 1 year in jail, or both,” MPD spokeswoman Gwendolyn Crump wrote in an email.
What makes the re-registration fee more cumbersome for many is that the vast majority of re-registrations have to be done in person at police headquarters.
A friend of mine recently forwarded me a question a friend of his had posed: “If/when our Federal Government comes to pilfer, pillage, plunder our property and destroy our lives, what good can a handgun do against an army with advanced weaponry, tanks, missiles, planes, or whatever else they might have at their disposal to achieve their nefarious goals? (I’m not being facetious: I accept the possibility that what happened in Germany, or similar, could happen here; I’m just not sure that the potential good from an armed citizenry in such a situation outweighs the day-to-day problems caused by masses of idiots who own guns.)” If I may, I’d like to try to answer that question. I certainly do not think the writer facetious for asking it. The subject is a serious one that I have given much research and considerable thought to. I believe that upon the answer to this question depends the future of our Constitutional republic, our liberty and perhaps our lives. My friend Aaron Zelman, one of the founders of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, once told me:
“If every Jewish and anti-nazi family in Germany had owned a Mauser rifle and twenty rounds of ammunition AND THE WILL TO USE IT (emphasis supplied, MV), Adolf Hitler would be a little-known footnote to the history of the Weimar Republic.”
Note well that phrase: “and the will to use it,” for the simply-stated question, “What good can a handgun do against an army?”, is in fact a complex one and must be answered at length and carefully. It is a military question. It is also a political question. But above all it is a moral question which strikes to the heart of what makes men free, and what makes them slaves. First, let’s answer the military question. Most military questions have both a strategic and a tactical component. Let’s consider the tactical.
In November the Obama administration said military families need to sacrifice. And, they meant it.
Senate Democrats voted to put illegal aliens above US veterans. The Democrats will cut $6 billion in veteran benefits but will allow illegals to continue to receive benefits. The Daily Caller reported:
Senate Republicans were unable to stop military pension cuts when Senate Democrats blocked a vote on an amendment to prevent the cuts by closing a welfare loophole for illegal immigrants Tuesday evening.
The two-year budget deal brokered by Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, would cut military pensions by $6 billion over ten years, leaving some Senate Republicans scrambling to stop the cuts.
“Removing this unbalanced treatment of our military retirees ought to be one of the key actions we should take before this legislation moves forward. In fact, greater savings than this can be achieved by passing a legislative fix recommended by the Inspector General of the U.S. Treasury that would stop the IRS from improperly providing tax credits to illegal aliens,” Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions said Monday, announcing his co-sponsorship of Mississippi Republican Sen. Roger Wicker’s amendment to restore the military retirement benefits Monday.
Additionally, the Alabama Republican offered his own amendment to restore the cuts by targeting a child tax credit loophole that illegal immigrants have used to unlawfully obtain welfare benefits.
In 2011, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration found that “individuals who are not authorized to work in the United States” and therefore did not have a valid Social Security number were still able to obtain billions in Additional Child Tax Credits by filing returns with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number.