Guns now legal in Washington DC

[The Dark Side of Will]

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258067,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html

Cue rant from EBSB52 about how the Bush/Reagan packed Supreme Court is disregarding convoluted intrepretations of very clear language in service of the repugnican/neocon/devil incarnate agenda:


I'm kinda surprised this hasn't come up already...

Of course it's not like EBS to bring up topics in which his pet viewpoint lost out...

[DiggityBiggity]

Actually... it's not really a win. They are going to issue PERMITS!

They did this in NY some time ago. They first issue permits, then they STOP issuing permits, but since you can still APPLY, everyone thinks that we have the right.

A PERMIT allows you to do something that would normally be illegal. This isn't a win, it's a spin on a destruction of our second amendment.

[whipped]

kind of like the marijuana tax stamp?

[DiggityBiggity]

kind of like the marijuana tax stamp?

Don't know about that

[Kohburn]

current efforts to add laws to replace the gun ban include making semi-automatic handguns illegal but you can still get a revolver untill they realise that those fire everytime you pull the trigger and get classified as semi-automatics.

still amazes me that they are more strict than california - cali is supposed to be THE nazi state of america. :salute:

[Kohburn]

the other issue is that the politicians are SUPPOSED to represent the people that live in their district, 4 out of 5 people interviewed by the news said that they would get a handgun or that you should atleast be able to get a gun for home protection .

[The Dark Side of Will]

the other issue is that the politicians are SUPPOSED to represent the people that live in their district, 4 out of 5 people interviewed by the news said that they would get a handgun or that you should atleast be able to get a gun for home protection .

No shit... what happened to the mayor's constituency?

[Indy]

Add it to the list of stupid gun laws. In Washington state you can pay the $200 NFA tax stamp for a firearm sound suppressor and legally own it there....but you can't use it on a firearm.

Almost as silly as the Short Barreled Rifle registrations, which require rifles with barrels under 16" to be registered and a $200 tax stamp paid. Owning an unregistered SBR would be a crime equivalent to owning a fully automatic weapon or MG...But barrels aren't regulated sales items, and I can order a complete 10" AR upper online and have it shipped to my door.

Stupid.

[Blue Shift]

I'm really hoping that this will serve as ammo (har, har) in court for the NRA to start challenging other laws in other places.

[EBSB52]

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258067,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html

Cue rant from EBSB52 about how the Bush/Reagan packed Supreme Court is disregarding convoluted intrepretations of very clear language in service of the repugnican/neocon/devil incarnate agenda:


I'm kinda surprised this hasn't come up already...

Of course it's not like EBS to bring up topics in which his pet viewpoint lost out...

Hmmmm, should I be like slick willie and declare this thread, "ignorable?" Or perhaps declare that amendment unlikeable, as some do with dictionary definitions? Nahhh, I'll not be scared and I'll address it.

1) All of the other 2nd arguments are supported to my favor with this ruling, as this is the first decision that stated a person, an individual citizen not for a militia has a right to bear arms. From this point forward the CASE LAW INTERPRETATION of the 2nd allows for personal ownership of a firearm; all decisions before this did not guarantee that right so laws like the one in DC supported the other side.

2) As for clear language, as with the 2nd, it is clear that it states arms may be owned for the purpose of militias and that they be well-regulated, so I'm not sure of what clear language you speak of as it pertains to slick willie hiding a 45 under his pillow in contemporary times. Perhaps you'll conjure up your own languge.

3) As for well-regulated, some states have licensing/registering requirements, so let's not reinterperet the new decision that supports those measures/15-day waits, etc.

4) Don't think that the right-wing wants us to have gun rights, as you referenced the last 3 Repub presidents, GHW Bush had his NRA card pulled and I believe that Clinton had a Repub senate when he got his Assault weapons ban and Brady Bill passed. As well, when CLinton's assault weapons ban sunsetted, it went before congress and was shot down, Bush said he would sign it if it crossed his desk. So let's be realistic here.

5) Don't forget, two of the four justices who dissented were repub appointed.

6 For the sake of argument, let's say this decision was wholy the work of the right; was it worth going from 1 trillion debt to nearly 10 trillion, losing other rights as in privacy, habeus corpus, etc, as well as many others? Having our unions busted and instead having this pro-corporate BS shoved down our faces a good trade for this decision that will have little impact on most people outside the DC area? If this is your trophy, it will be sitting in a lonely case, unless there are trophies given for bad deeds.


Finally, I am glad that the decision went this way, but I don't expect it to stay that way forever, hope it does.

[EBSB52]

Actually... it's not really a win. They are going to issue PERMITS!

They did this in NY some time ago. They first issue permits, then they STOP issuing permits, but since you can still APPLY, everyone thinks that we have the right.

A PERMIT allows you to do something that would normally be illegal. This isn't a win, it's a spin on a destruction of our second amendment.

Yea, if we really had unabridged gun ownership, there would be no licenses, registration, wait periods or even serial numbers on guns. This is window dressing by the most conservative justices in hopes the inevitable doesn't happen this November. I bought inot that BS at the end of the GHW Bush era, never again.

[EBSB52]

the other issue is that the politicians are SUPPOSED to represent the people that live in their district, 4 out of 5 people interviewed by the news said that they would get a handgun or that you should atleast be able to get a gun for home protection .

Yes, it's called a Representative Democracy, in application several rungs lower than a Parlaimentary Monarchy. It's really more of a Naziocracy, kind of a Bush word I know.

If the people voted for every measure, this is called a TRUE DEMOCRACY. Speed limits would be much higher, drugs would be legal, etc. So when I say this country is shit, you see what I mean.

[EBSB52]

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258067,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html

Cue rant from EBSB52 about how the Bush/Reagan packed Supreme Court is disregarding convoluted intrepretations of very clear language in service of the repugnican/neocon/devil incarnate agenda:


I'm kinda surprised this hasn't come up already...

Of course it's not like EBS to bring up topics in which his pet viewpoint lost out...

Almost missed it. Isn't it cool when we can selectively pick which part of the very short sentence we post?

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged"

How about the:

- well regulated

- militia

parts?

[The Dark Side of Will]

Grammatically parenthetical.
The wording states that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state in a parenthetical phrase. The requirement (indicated by the word "shall") is as I quoted above.

There is no stated requirement that one must be in a militia to own a weapon. Any interpretation that includes such a requirement does so strictly by inference.

[Kohburn]

I'm really hoping that this will serve as ammo (har, har) in court for the NRA to start challenging other laws in other places.

they are - i get updates from them. yes i am a member, it does have its benefits.

[Kohburn]

If the people voted for every measure, this is called a TRUE DEMOCRACY. Speed limits would be much higher, drugs would be legal, etc. So when I say this country is shit, you see what I mean.

yes i would fully support a true democracy, but i doubt drugs would be legal. maybe the federal would pass it off to individual states.

lol at naziocracy. i like it.

heck you know people got cigarettes banned from public places in maryland so if they are that hard on nicotine then why would they allow harder stuff.

[Gooch]

I have guns.
I love them and I have never committed a crime with them.