So you live in Washington D.C.and you want to own a hangun...how much will it cost?

[spin]

Get a Gun in D.C. -- Do You Feel Lucky?
Not Just Strict Rules Test Your Decision

It took $833.69, a total of 15 hours 50 minutes, four trips to the Metropolitan Police Department, two background checks, a set of fingerprints, a five-hour class and a 20-question multiple-choice exam.

***snip***

Reluctantly, Mayor Adrian M. Fenty's administration set up a process through which about 550 residents -- now including yours truly -- have acquired a handgun. But as my four trips to the police department attest, D.C. officials haven't made it easy.

Which was exactly their intent. The day the Heller decision was announced, Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray (D) vowed that the city was still "going to have the strictest handgun laws the Constitution allows." Fenty decried the ruling, saying that "more handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence."

***snip***

For now, the D.C. regulations are still in place. That meant that on my journey to gun ownership, I had to prove proficiency with a weapon on the range and in the classroom. I had to allow the District government to fire my gun before I did so its ballistics could be recorded. I had to vow that I was mentally sound and not under indictment.

***snip***

So I head out of the city to Maryland Small Arms in Upper Marlboro. After shopping around a bit, I settle on a used Taurus Model 85 .38-caliber revolver. I like it because it's just like the one I used during my instruction, though smaller. And at $275, it was a relatively cheap beginner's gun, even though the dealer tacks on a $35 fee for transferring it to Sykes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/01/AR2009090103836.html

So our enterprising reporter set on on a fascinating journey and ends up with a .38 special revolver. To own this weapon he pays a total of $833.69 total for a used Taurus revolver that only costs $275. He paid $588.69 dollars in fees and spent almost 16 hours to obtain a firearm.

For that amount of cash I could have obtained a brand new S&W .357 revolver and a concealed carry permit from the state of Florida. Our reporter can only have his revolver in his home. I also would have invested far less time and aggravation to accomplish this. Obviously D.C. is setting up hurdles to make sure that "those people" can't obtain firearms easily.

I should note the reporter decided to return the firearm despite the fact that he had "drug dealers in our alley" and a "neighbor abducted in front of her house.". He chose to install better lighting and an alarm system.

That's his choice and a perhaps a wise one. I would follow a different course. First, I would never live in Washington D.C. Homie don't play dat game, period.

Overall the article is an excellent read.

edited for HTML error

[onehandle]

1. You should be required to swear that you believe Obama was born in America before you can buy one.

In all 50 states.

That would cut down gun sales considerably.

[spin]

2. That is a fascinating answer...

Would you demand that the buyer swore that Obama was born in America on the Bible?

[GreenStormCloud]

3. Many Democrats buy guns too. N/T

[GreenStormCloud]

4. He needs a CCW for a gun to help him.

Drug dealers in the alley and abduction from in front of his residence would not be effected by a gun in his home. It needs to be on him for it to help.

The rest of DC's laws would make lawfully taking the gun to a range a hassle for the guy. And he is personally part of the anti-gun world. Being a reporter on that paper almost guarantees that his social world is all anti-gun. The peer pressure on him would be strong.

[spin]

5. My daughter suggested that his wife should take the course...

and do some shooting at the range. After that, the reporter could write a story on her experience and if taking the course and actually shooting the weapon would change her mind. She enjoyed the article and said it needs a chapter two involving the wife.

She pointed out that the dislike of firearms that the wife has dooms the idea of keeping a firearm in the home. The firearm would turn into a major item of contention in the household.

She also mentioned that when I first decided to own a firearm, I went to the range with my wife and we both practiced shooting. We found shooting a enjoyable hobby.

If the reporter wasn't present when a home invasion occurred, the wife might have to be able the proficiently handle the firearm to protect herself and her children. If the husband were present he might be engaged with the invaders and unable to break away and get the firearm. The wife might be able to run and get the revolver. She would need the same training the reporter received. If she was fumbling with the firearm or lacked confidence, the attackers would simply take the firearm from her.

Of course, the wife could simply run and hide and call 911 on her cell phone. From the story, it appears the police in D.C. don't always respond quickly. Praying for a miracle would be an excellent idea at this point.

However, a unloaded firearm locked in a box in a dresser is probably useless anyhow.

[GreenStormCloud]

6. Excellent idea, but I somehow suspect that would cause a major fight in their household. N/T

[spin]

7. Unfortunately, I agree.

The reporter's wife seems to hate firearms.

[-..__...]

8. As a DC journalist ...

he could have avoided all that red tape and headaches if he had had the same connections as Carl Rowan did...

Rowan gained public notoriety on June 14, 1988, when he shot a teenage trespasser, Neil Smith, who was using Rowan's swimming pool in Washington, D.C.. Rowan used an unregistered .22 LR pistol. Critics charged hypocrisy, since Rowan was a strict gun control advocate. In a 1981 column, he advocated "a law that says anyone found in possession of a handgun except a legitimate officer of the law goes to jail—period." In 1985, he called for "A complete and universal federal ban on the sale, manufacture, importation and possession of handguns (except for authorized police and military personnel)." <2> <3>

Immediately after the shooting, Rowan offered several conflicting accounts about where he got the handgun. He first said that he had purchased the gun himself in response to threats on his life (which he later claimed had been made by the Ku Klux Klan). He also initially claimed that the gun had been properly registered. However, when District of Columbia police disclosed that the gun had not been registered, Rowan changed his story, claiming that the gun belonged to his son, who "was an FBI agent and did not have to register it properly registered federally." Police officials pointed out that under D.C. law, all guns must be registered locally; failure to do so was punishable by up to a year in prison and a $1,000 fine.

Rowan was tried but the jury was deadlocked, the judge declared a mistrial and he was never retried. In his autobiography, Rowan said he still favors gun control, but admits being vulnerable to a charge of hypocrisy.<4>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Rowan#Controversy

[TPaine7]

9. Charging almost $600 for the privilege of exercising a constitutional right

Is a great way to ensure that undesirables--the poor, minorities recent imigrants and the like--are excluded.

Thus continues America's long and disgusting history of "sensible gun control."

Eventually the Supreme Court will have to rule on whether a defacto ban on gun possession by lower income people is permissible. They've already ruled once that charging money for the exerise of an enumerated right is unconstitutional. I fear, however, that some of the Justices will use any excuse whatsoever to make it hard for working class and poor people to be armed. Apparently, equal rights for the poor is a right wing, extremist conservative concept.