Ammo For Sale

« « SayUncle v. Professional Privilege Taxes – updated | Home | Greatest knock-knock joke ever » »

Webbslingin’

The Corner notes a press conference by Jim Webb:

QUESTION: Do you, Senator, feel that you are above Washington, D.C.’s gun law?

WEBB: I’m not going to comment in any level in terms of how I provide for my own security.

You weren’t asked about your own security. You were asked about violating the law (for little people). Now, Webb is pretty darn pro-gun. But that doesn’t excuse how the wealthy/powerful/white get off in this town. And I have some more questions:

What type of gun was it? After all, if (in DC) you have a semi-automatic that holds more than 12 rounds it is a machine gun.

Has it or will it be returned?

Is each round of unregistered ammo a separate violation?

Is there a congressmonkey exception to DC law?

What about other DC residents who want to provide for [their] own security? And they don’t have the capitol police on guard.

Via Insty.

Update: Webb says he didn’t give the guy the gun but he doesn’t say if the gun is his or not. He also says:

“I believe that it’s important ó it’s important for me, personally, and for a lot of people in the situation that I’m in, to be able to defend myself and my family,” Webb said. “Since 9/11 for people who are in government I think in general there has been an agreement that it’s a more dangerous time. Again, I’m not going to comment, again, with great specificity about how I defend myself, but I do feel that I have that right.”

Good. But what about other DC residents?

And there’s this:

Capitol Police rules allow members and their employees to bring a weapon onto Capitol grounds if it is unloaded and securely wrapped. In this case, it was allegedly neither.

Even if the guns are illegal? Which they would be if they are 1) in DC and 2) not registered prior to 1976.

20 Responses to “Webbslingin’”

  1. Guy Montag Says:

    Um, Uncle, they might be illegal “off school grounds” but can still be legal “on school grounds”.

    This whole story is getting really odd now, with the inclusion that employees of members may bring guns into Congressional spaces. Seems he violated the unloaded rule (if that one is accurate) but I am not seeing how he would be charged with unlicensed ammo by the Capitol police since that sounds like a DC charge.

    I believe the following is completly unrelated, but a former IRS security officer (sorry) told me that they got special carry permits from DC if part of their coverage area forced them to leave IRS space. I think they came under the “cop” category or something.

    Looking forward for your sifting through all of this!

  2. Guy Montag Says:

    Is each round of unregistered ammo a separate violation?

    Last I heard, ‘undocumented’ ammo is fined at $500/round.

    Thanks for the link! Got tipped to the machinegun thingie from one of your commentors.

  3. Snowflakes in Hell » The Tangled Webb Says:

    […] Webb stuff is getting interesting just as I have to concentrate on stuff at work.¬† Instapundit and SayUncle are on top of it.¬† I agree that Webb should get on the repeal DC gun ban issue pronto.¬† Some […]

  4. CTD Says:

    As always, one set of rules for them, and another one for us peasants.

  5. joe Says:

    ((former Hill employee with friends among Members and staff still there — if you publish this, please do not use my real name))

    The reference to “members and staff” being allowed to bring guns into the Capitol almost certainly applies only to weapons actually owned by Senators and Representations. During my time in DC there were no shortage of anecdotes about staff members with the misfortune to be searched while returning their boss’s car to a Capitol garage. Once it was determined that the official owned the weapon, the issue went away.

    No matter what the rules re: weapons in the Capitol complex, the minute that weapon crosses into DC, a law is broken.

    As for the Capitol Police filing charges based on DC law, they have full authority to enforce local laws in their area of responsbility, essentially the Capitol complex and the surrounding area.

  6. Countertop Says:

    This makes more sense, as I posted at Kim’s, since I know lots of hill staffers with guns (mostly in their cars).

    Regarding guy’s comment on the IRS agent – DC has on jurisidictio over a federal officer. WHich is more or less the case here – DC law is about 5 rungs down on the ladder for federal employees in the course of their job. But for the attention this has recieve, I would have expected this to disappear pretty quick.

    In fact, it probably still will disappear because DC has no jurisidcation on Capitol Hill (or indeed, anywhere in DC in the face of the federal government).

    If Capitol POlice have it, it will probably be returned. If not, who knows (though I am SHOCKED, SHOCKED that he was turned over to DC police – I suspect it happened prior to senior officials getting wind of whats going on. Capitol POlice are 100% political. WOuldn’t be surprised if someone lost their job over this.)

    Yes, each round is a seperate violation. Haven’t looked at the law recently, but my recollection is each round also carried a seperate jail term.

  7. Ravenwood Says:

    For what it’s worth, he was not charged with possessing an unregistered gun and ammo. The DC District Attorney only filed charges against unlawful concealment.

    My guess is that’s the only one they can get to stick.

  8. Guy Montag Says:

    I must have been remembering the former IRS guy incorrectly, or he might have been making up a tall tale and I fell for it.

    For what itís worth, he was not charged with possessing an unregistered gun and ammo. The DC District Attorney only filed charges against unlawful concealment.

    My guess is thatís the only one they can get to stick.

    So he gets out of the machine gun charge too? DAMN!

  9. GeorgeH Says:

    I am confident that there will be some failure by the Capitol Police to document the chain of custody or something resulting in dismissal of the charges. The head of the hill cops knows who is going to write the bill for their next raise. There is no way they will risk alienating the staffers by prosecuting one of them of following orders.

    Out of curiosity, looking for a way around the DC Gun Law, I reread H.R.218: The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 that permits police officers to concealed carry ‘anywhere’. Make that anywhere in any of the states or their subdivisions. The act seems not to apply to the District.

  10. Blue Says:

    I dunno, Webb’s comments make it seem as if a staffer is about to be thrown to the sharks….

  11. straightarrow Says:

    Isn’t Senator Webb special? He desires to protect himself and his family. Nobody else ever had that desire, er, uh, I mean, uh, er, …. nobody that counts.

    Thank you Senator Webb for your statement as to your opinion of the status of your fellow, though less exalted, citizens.

  12. Bruce Says:

    I’m going with the response I had for Zumbo.

    F*** him.

    That said…

    Throw the book at him. No mercy.

    Don’t like the law? CHANGE IT!

    No special treatment. No mulligans. No forgiveness.

    As someone said on another site I read recently: My giveadamn’s broken.

  13. FreedomSight » Blog Archive » Well, I’ve let a week go by Says:

    […] Say Uncle is asking the sort of question about the Webb gun thing that I would, if I were, uh, which I am, except I’m not writing them down. […]

  14. Xrlq Says:

    Uncle: your reference to “other” D.C. residents implies that Webb resides in D.C.. Do you have any evidence that he does? From what I gather, it appears entirely plausible that the mix-up happened in Virginia, and the gun was never meant to reach D.C. Not that D.C. laws apply on Capitol Hill anyway – Congress is retarded if they do.

    Straightarrow: I have no idea where you get the idea Webb thinks other citizens shouldn’t have the same right to defend themselves that he does. Did you just make that up out of whole cloth?

    Bruce: You say “no special treatment” but I suspect you mean the opposite. The guy spent a night in jail and now faces felony charges for what by all accounts was an innocent, harmless error. That is special treatment.

  15. Nylarthotep Says:

    Webb pegged the Jerk meter on this one. How is it that he left a gun in a vehicle that was no longer in his control? How is it he failed to tell his aide that the gun was there? This jerk is completely irresponsible.

    As for Thompson, the aide, how is it he wasn’t smart enough to check a bag he was carrying into a security area? Personally, I’ve worked in security areas and you always check what you are carrying. It prevents people from pointing guns at you and putting you in jail.

  16. SayUncle Says:

    Xrlq, the incident occurred in DC. I don’t think ‘oops, i meant to leave it in virginia’ is a valid defense. unless you’re a senator, of course.

  17. Robb Allen Says:

    XLRQ, I cannot remember the exact quote but he said “People in my position deserve to protect themselves”. I read that as “FOR ME! NOT FOR THEE!”, but YMMV.

  18. Xrlq Says:

    SU: the arrest happened on Capitol Hill, which AFAIK is subject to its own rules, not DC ordinances – again, unless Congress is retarded, a possibility I can’t rule out. In any event, I’m not aware of any evidence that Webb’s involvement in the incident happened in DC. And no, you don’t have to be a Senator’s aide (the Senator himself wasn’t there, remember?) for cops and prosecutors to exercise discretion and cut you some slack if your violation was unintentional.

    Robb: I’ll grant you that the exact quote was ambiguous on that point, but Webb’s general position on gun rights is not.

  19. markm Says:

    It happened on Capitol Hill, but until teleporters are invented, you can’t get from Virginia to Capital Hill without going through DC. So, unless they got a police officer to transport it to the Hill, every staffer and Congressman with a gun there broke the law at some point.

  20. Xrlq Says:

    Markm, are you sure FOPA wouldn’t apply?