Sign in to follow this  
SC-Texas

Heller v. DC being heard today

Recommended Posts

I simply think there is more to the subject than a true-believer's notions of it's sanctity above all else, including common sense.

 

Chuck, this post and this one in the thread you started to politicize the Aurora shooting were intended as serious discussion. Is that why you have not responded to either of them? If you seemed at all interested in serious discussion, I would stop mocking your "research" methods. Unfortunately, your recent actions show you are no more serious than ever.

 

Whatever, pal. Carry on with your half-tongue-in-cheek pedantry all you like, I give not a fig for it. The mere fact that this subject comes up again and again and again says more about it's very political nature than any denials or protestations you'd like to make. Bringing up the subject and expressing a contrary point of view is not 'politicizing' anything ... it is already a topic for on-going discussion and will continue to be so every time the body count goes up and the true believers to little more than dig in their heels. That kind of approach can be effective, for a while, but it tends to collapse under its own weight over time.

 

Still not interested in discussion. Got it.

 

BTW, I never said gun control was not a political topic. I was just wondering whether Mitch would scold you for making the Aurora shooting political without even waiting a day. He seemed irritated with me for doing it, when in fact it was you who did it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post needed transplanting so that readers can see what it is I was actually complaining about...

 

Oh, Tommy is on here regularly saying that almost any cost beyond a tiny one is giving up his rights! That is, if it takes 10 more minutes he considers it an affront to his 2nd Amendment rights. He considers the fees (costs) to also be unconstitutional.

 

At least that seems to be what he is saying. I'm relatively certain that he doesn't champion paying the cost to society for insurance, mitigation, wrongful deaths, better registration records, etc.

 

Tom? Calling Tom. Do I have to dig up all your old threads, or do I have it basically right?

 

Digging up quotes instead of mischaracterizing what I have said would be a great thing for you to start doing, so please do. In case you need training, here is an example from jocal's gun proliferation thread:

 

 

...

My thought is that DC's compliance with the Supreme Court decision overturning their gun ban needs to be monitored constantly, since their compliance has been grudging at best. Whatever precedents they set with their grudging compliance will not only affect second amendment rights throughout the country, but can also affect how the courts view other rights, since they do look at how other protected rights have been treated when considering how to treat any of them.

 

Some of us sometimes don't tolerate putting unnecessary barriers in the way of exercising voting rights. We sometimes demand that those barriers be justified or removed, with no third choice for just tolerating them quietly.

 

...

 

I see needless delays, ridiculous hurdles and high fees to register guns in DC as intolerable infringements. If you don't know what I'm talking about, read Emily Miller's linked articles in this thread. The ones that drew not a peep when I posted them.

 

Others react to those needless delays, ridiculous hurdles and high fees by simply saying:

 

It takes what it takes, you will get the gun eventually.

 

 

or

 

Potential voters must go through a registration process.

 

Potential gun owners must go through a registration process.

 

the rest is just details.

 

As you (well, maybe not you, craigiri, but most) can see, I was not complaining about "tiny" fees but fees in the hundreds, equal to or above the price of most handguns that I own. I was not complaining about ten minutes, but about months of delay. My other complaint is about the attitude of anti-gunners like Mitch and BJ Porter, shown above. It seems to me that there is no such thing as a wrongful infringement of second amendment rights in their view. I would love to be corrected on that point.

 

I still see no reason why the costs and fees should be that high, nor why it should take months, and yes, those seem to be unnecessary obstacles placed between citizens in DC and the exercise of their second amendment rights. Basically, DC is trying to continue their unconstitutional gun ban closed registry. I have a problem with gun bans closed registries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heller just may turn out to be one of those Pyrrhic victory's for the NRA, like the Fugitive Slave Act was for the slave owners.

 

The FSA sent gangs of bounty hunters running around in the north, creating the condition essential to Lincoln in order to start and fight that war. Heller and the NRA sent gangs of lawyers and lobbiests running around...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post needed transplanting so that readers can see what it is I was actually complaining about...

 

Oh, Tommy is on here regularly saying that almost any cost beyond a tiny one is giving up his rights! That is, if it takes 10 more minutes he considers it an affront to his 2nd Amendment rights. He considers the fees (costs) to also be unconstitutional.

 

At least that seems to be what he is saying. I'm relatively certain that he doesn't champion paying the cost to society for insurance, mitigation, wrongful deaths, better registration records, etc.

 

Tom? Calling Tom. Do I have to dig up all your old threads, or do I have it basically right?

 

Digging up quotes instead of mischaracterizing what I have said would be a great thing for you to start doing, so please do. In case you need training, here is an example from jocal's gun proliferation thread:

 

 

...

My thought is that DC's compliance with the Supreme Court decision overturning their gun ban needs to be monitored constantly, since their compliance has been grudging at best. Whatever precedents they set with their grudging compliance will not only affect second amendment rights throughout the country, but can also affect how the courts view other rights, since they do look at how other protected rights have been treated when considering how to treat any of them.

 

Some of us sometimes don't tolerate putting unnecessary barriers in the way of exercising voting rights. We sometimes demand that those barriers be justified or removed, with no third choice for just tolerating them quietly.

 

...

 

I see needless delays, ridiculous hurdles and high fees to register guns in DC as intolerable infringements. If you don't know what I'm talking about, read Emily Miller's linked articles in this thread. The ones that drew not a peep when I posted them.

 

Others react to those needless delays, ridiculous hurdles and high fees by simply saying:

 

It takes what it takes, you will get the gun eventually.

 

 

or

 

Potential voters must go through a registration process.

 

Potential gun owners must go through a registration process.

 

the rest is just details.

 

As you (well, maybe not you, craigiri, but most) can see, I was not complaining about "tiny" fees but fees in the hundreds, equal to or above the price of most handguns that I own. I was not complaining about ten minutes, but about months of delay. My other complaint is about the attitude of anti-gunners like Mitch and BJ Porter, shown above. It seems to me that there is no such thing as a wrongful infringement of second amendment rights in their view. I would love to be corrected on that point.

 

I still see no reason why the costs and fees should be that high, nor why it should take months, and yes, those seem to be unnecessary obstacles placed between citizens in DC and the exercise of their second amendment rights. Basically, DC is trying to continue their unconstitutional gun ban closed registry. I have a problem with gun bans closed registries.

 

Tom, you clearly want the guns to flow off the dealers' shelves inimpededly. Others see the folly in that. The second amendment.IMO, should not be taken as a crazy firearms panacea, but it has obviously become that.

 

Again, the pro-gun side has had plenty of means and opportunity to deal with the problem, and they didn't step up. In fact, they made the problem worse and now thay have to face it.

 

The second amendment is not pixie dust, Tom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, jocal, I agree with prohibiting sales to criminals (even if the ATF says it's OK) and the mentally ill and I have undergone background checks for virtually every gun I have bought, since most were bought new. Many of those at gun shows, where dealers have to perform background checks, by the way. No post of mine objects to any of those things.

 

I just think that if we are going to have registration, it should be about, well, registration. Not a mechanism for preventing gun ownership, as DC, Chicago, California and other places seem to want to make it. I have yet to see a reason why it should take months and cost hundreds of dollars. Voter registration, auto registration, boat registration and others do not take so long or cost so much, mainly because those registries are about registration, not prevention. None of those registries have been closed, as gun registries have in places like DC and Chicago.

 

If I saw the slightest hint that the other side could treat registries reasonably, like we treat others, I would not be so opposed. But I have yet to see any evidence pointing in that direction.

 

And Mark, gun ownership seems a bit different than slavery to me and the Brady Bunch, along with the NRA's partner in exclusion from the DISCLOSE Act, the Sierra Club, also send swarms of lawyers and lobbyists. Are they also equivalent to slave owners in your view?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of the statement was about unintended consequences of "victory's", not a comparison of guns to slavery.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Learn English, you should." -Yoda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, jocal, I agree with prohibiting sales to criminals (even if the ATF says it's OK) and the mentally ill and I have undergone background checks for virtually every gun I have bought, since most were bought new. Many of those at gun shows, where dealers have to perform background checks, by the way. No post of mine objects to any of those things.

 

I just think that if we are going to have registration, it should be about, well, registration. Not a mechanism for preventing gun ownership, as DC, Chicago, California and other places seem to want to make it. I have yet to see a reason why it should take months and cost hundreds of dollars. Voter registration, auto registration, boat registration and others do not take so long or cost so much, mainly because those registries are about registration, not prevention. None of those registries have been closed, as gun registries have in places like DC and Chicago.

 

If I saw the slightest hint that the other side could treat registries reasonably, like we treat others, I would not be so opposed. But I have yet to see any evidence pointing in that direction.

 

And Mark, gun ownership seems a bit different than slavery to me and the Brady Bunch, along with the NRA's partner in exclusion from the DISCLOSE Act, the Sierra Club, also send swarms of lawyers and lobbyists. Are they also equivalent to slave owners in your view?

 

They are cramping your style, I agree. It could be part of an agenda which I feel I can explain.

Say, your post is reasonable and well-phrased. Are there other "preventive" mechanisms you have spotted?

 

Tom, do you think WE are dealin' with reasonable attitudes? Not at all. It's generally a fixation with guns, a worship of guns, featuring knee-jerk references to imminent US fascists and DEFINITE civil war over this---all the Heston-era cold-dead-hands rhetoric.

 

Once bitten, twice shy, Mr. Ray.

Seemed that once we were mainly sympatheic to your hunter/sportsman rap, then you failed to pick good leaders.

.

The pro-gun side "as is" is scary, starting with you have dodged registration every way you can think of with every excuse you can think of. And it didn't stop there. Much legislation has been blocked or loopholed into uselessness as the problem grows. Your side has no real plan except to resist and proliferate.

 

So the non-gun John Doe says hell, screw the guns then, Make 'em pay more, and sure let's make 'em wait, no more nice guy.

 

Now watch this: you (pl) will be the worst enemy of your best leaders, but you need them now.

 

Boothy and LaPierre are crowing to the rancher, who owns a hatchet.

 

 

 

Tom, when next might the SCOTUS address, expand, or clarify Heller?

Interesting stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of the statement was about unintended consequences of "victory's", not a comparison of guns to slavery.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Learn English, you should." -Yoda

 

A victory can't possess anything. Even a bunch of victories can't.

 

"Learn English, you should." -Yoda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

 

Are there other "preventive" mechanisms you have spotted?

 

Tom, do you think WE are dealin' with reasonable attitudes? ...

 

 

Tom, when next might the SCOTUS address, expand, or clarify Heller?

Interesting stuff.

 

Closing and unnecessarily restricting registries are the main preventive mechanisms, but unreasonable rules that do not relate directly to registries are also out there. For example, Chicago has interpreted the finding in Heller that guns can not be completely banned through a closed registry to mean that they must allow one gun only, and only within the home. Not the porch, not the garage, nowhere else. Their rules were too restrictive for the 7th Circuit and a week or so ago in the case of Moore v Madigan they were ordered to allow guns outside the home. Discussion of that case is (sort of) ongoing in the "shitcago" thread.

 

No, you are not dealing with reasonable attitudes from some, particularly those who think our government needs to be overthrown. I called out another one just today, not for the first time.

 

I have not been keeping up well enough to answer your last question. Go ask it here for a better answer than I could provide. Try to be polite or you will be quickly kicked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

 

Are there other "preventive" mechanisms you have spotted?

 

Tom, do you think WE are dealin' with reasonable attitudes? ...

 

 

Tom, when next might the SCOTUS address, expand, or clarify Heller?

Interesting stuff.

 

Closing and unnecessarily restricting registries are the main preventive mechanisms, but unreasonable rules that do not relate directly to registries are also out there. For example, Chicago has interpreted the finding in Heller that guns can not be completely banned through a closed registry to mean that they must allow one gun only, and only within the home. Not the porch, not the garage, nowhere else. Their rules were too restrictive for the 7th Circuit and a week or so ago in the case of Moore v Madigan they were ordered to allow guns outside the home. Discussion of that case is (sort of) ongoing in the "shitcago" thread.

 

No, you are not dealing with reasonable attitudes from some, particularly those who think our government needs to be overthrown. I called out another one just today, not for the first time.

 

I have not been keeping up well enough to answer your last question. Go ask it here for a better answer than I could provide. Try to be polite or you will be quickly kicked.

 

There's a really interesting thread drift about the 2nd & militias going on over there.

 

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=509535&page=3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Transplanted post:

 

Waiting times are all relative.

 

The compliance for checking the identification to buy beer is short compared to buying a gun, the compliance check is much simpler for a beer.

 

The last gun I bought had a compliance check that took a day or two, I don't actually know, I came back a week later.

 

The compliance check for government contracting security took about twice as long as the gun check.

 

If my wife and I ever adopt a kid the compliance will probably take a year or so.

 

Why worry about the waits? If we really decide that we don't have the time to wait a few days or weeks or years for some various compliance, we can change the law and not require compliance on that thing.

 

Because in the case of DC requiring a wait of months, multiple trips to the police station to see the only gun dealer in town, and hundreds in costs and fees, what I see is a clear effort to defy the Supreme Court's order forcing DC to end their gun ban reopen their gun registry, and no reason offered as to why it should take that long or cost that much (or, for that matter, why a city so large should have only one gun dealer and why he should be located in the police station.)

 

Rules that are made just to restrict the exercise of our rights are not OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because in the case of DC requiring a wait of months, multiple trips to the police station to see the only gun dealer in town, and hundreds in costs and fees, what I see is a clear effort to defy the Supreme Court's order forcing DC to end their gun ban reopen their gun registry, and no reason offered as to why it should take that long or cost that much (or, for that matter, why a city so large should have only one gun dealer and why he should be located in the police station.)

 

Rules that are made just to restrict the exercise of our rights are not OK.

 

I think that all voter registration and polling places in urban inner cities should be inside police stations. I wonder what effect that would have on voter turnout there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because in the case of DC requiring a wait of months, multiple trips to the police station to see the only gun dealer in town, and hundreds in costs and fees, what I see is a clear effort to defy the Supreme Court's order forcing DC to end their gun ban reopen their gun registry, and no reason offered as to why it should take that long or cost that much (or, for that matter, why a city so large should have only one gun dealer and why he should be located in the police station.)

 

Rules that are made just to restrict the exercise of our rights are not OK.

 

I think that all voter registration and polling places in urban inner cities should be inside police stations. I wonder what effect that would have on voter turnout there?

 

That would probably be considered racist when it comes to voting. Not so much when it comes to guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because in the case of DC requiring a wait of months, multiple trips to the police station to see the only gun dealer in town, and hundreds in costs and fees, what I see is a clear effort to defy the Supreme Court's order forcing DC to end their gun ban reopen their gun registry, and no reason offered as to why it should take that long or cost that much (or, for that matter, why a city so large should have only one gun dealer and why he should be located in the police station.)

 

Rules that are made just to restrict the exercise of our rights are not OK.

 

I think that all voter registration and polling places in urban inner cities should be inside police stations. I wonder what effect that would have on voter turnout there?

 

That would probably be considered racist when it comes to voting. Not so much when it comes to guns.

 

On what is the opinion that a meaningful percentage of black voters wouldn't vote if they had to go into a police station to do so based?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because in the case of DC requiring a wait of months, multiple trips to the police station to see the only gun dealer in town, and hundreds in costs and fees, what I see is a clear effort to defy the Supreme Court's order forcing DC to end their gun ban reopen their gun registry, and no reason offered as to why it should take that long or cost that much (or, for that matter, why a city so large should have only one gun dealer and why he should be located in the police station.)

 

Rules that are made just to restrict the exercise of our rights are not OK.

 

I think that all voter registration and polling places in urban inner cities should be inside police stations. I wonder what effect that would have on voter turnout there?

 

That would probably be considered racist when it comes to voting. Not so much when it comes to guns.

 

On what is the opinion that a meaningful percentage of black voters wouldn't vote if they had to go into a police station to do so based?

 

There's a whole thread about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because in the case of DC requiring a wait of months, multiple trips to the police station to see the only gun dealer in town, and hundreds in costs and fees, what I see is a clear effort to defy the Supreme Court's order forcing DC to end their gun ban reopen their gun registry, and no reason offered as to why it should take that long or cost that much (or, for that matter, why a city so large should have only one gun dealer and why he should be located in the police station.)

 

Rules that are made just to restrict the exercise of our rights are not OK.

 

I think that all voter registration and polling places in urban inner cities should be inside police stations. I wonder what effect that would have on voter turnout there?

 

That would probably be considered racist when it comes to voting. Not so much when it comes to guns.

 

On what is the opinion that a meaningful percentage of black voters wouldn't vote if they had to go into a police station to do so based?

 

Probably for about the same reason that billboards touting that illegal voting is a crime was thought to suppress the black vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bans closed registries and heavily restricted registries are virtually indistinguishable in their effects, and when no purpose is served by the heavy restrictions, it sure looks like an attempt to continue the ban closed registry in effect.

 

You'll have to ask the League of Women voters why they think restricting registries disproportionately affects minorities. It's in the other thread, as I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because in the case of DC requiring a wait of months, multiple trips to the police station to see the only gun dealer in town, and hundreds in costs and fees, what I see is a clear effort to defy the Supreme Court's order forcing DC to end their gun ban reopen their gun registry, and no reason offered as to why it should take that long or cost that much (or, for that matter, why a city so large should have only one gun dealer and why he should be located in the police station.)

 

Rules that are made just to restrict the exercise of our rights are not OK.

 

I think that all voter registration and polling places in urban inner cities should be inside police stations. I wonder what effect that would have on voter turnout there?

 

That would probably be considered racist when it comes to voting. Not so much when it comes to guns.

 

On what is the opinion that a meaningful percentage of black voters wouldn't vote if they had to go into a police station to do so based?

 

Probably for about the same reason that billboards touting that illegal voting is a crime was thought to suppress the black vote.

 

The Republicans paid good money for those signs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Probably for about the same reason that billboards touting that illegal voting is a crime was thought to suppress the black vote.

 

The Republicans paid good money for those signs.

 

 

yes, they did. Nothing like a PSA that states the truth. Why would it possibly dissuade black voters from going to the booth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably for about the same reason that billboards touting that illegal voting is a crime was thought to suppress the black vote.

 

The Republicans paid good money for those signs.

 

 

yes, they did. Nothing like a PSA that states the truth. Why would it possibly dissuade black voters from going to the booth?

 

It's a not an uncommon myth among sadly ignorant and/or racist white people that most blacks are thugs who are afraid of going into a voting place, so it back-fired.

 

Why do you think voting should be in police stations in urban areas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Making registration to exercise a right difficult is bad, sometimes... Sometimes it is even racist!

 

A new Florida law that contributed to long voter lines and caused some to abandon voting altogether was intentionally designed by Florida GOP staff and consultants to inhibit Democratic voters, former GOP officials and current GOP consultants have told The Palm Beach Post.

 

In 2011 Republicans, who had super majorities in both chambers of the legislature, passed HB 1355, which curtailed early voting days from 14 to eight; greatly proscribed the activities of voter registration organizations like the League of Women Voters; and made it harder for voters who had changed counties since the last election to cast ballots, a move that affected minorities proportionately more than whites. The League and others challenged the law in court, and a federal judge threw out most of the provisions related to voter registration organizations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably for about the same reason that billboards touting that illegal voting is a crime was thought to suppress the black vote.

 

The Republicans paid good money for those signs.

 

 

yes, they did. Nothing like a PSA that states the truth. Why would it possibly dissuade black voters from going to the booth?

 

It's a not an uncommon myth among sadly ignorant and/or racist white people that most blacks are thugs who are afraid of going into a voting place, so it back-fired.

 

Why do you think voting should be in police stations in urban areas?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Making registration to exercise a right difficult is bad, sometimes... Sometimes it is even racist!

 

A new Florida law that contributed to long voter lines and caused some to abandon voting altogether was intentionally designed by Florida GOP staff and consultants to inhibit Democratic voters, former GOP officials and current GOP consultants have told The Palm Beach Post.

 

In 2011 Republicans, who had super majorities in both chambers of the legislature, passed HB 1355, which curtailed early voting days from 14 to eight; greatly proscribed the activities of voter registration organizations like the League of Women Voters; and made it harder for voters who had changed counties since the last election to cast ballots, a move that affected minorities proportionately more than whites. The League and others challenged the law in court, and a federal judge threw out most of the provisions related to voter registration organizations.

 

I agree with the League and the federal judge mentioned that making the exercise of a right inconvenient can unduly restrict the right.

 

There is no reason that a city the size of DC should have only one gun dealer, nor any good reason the sole dealer should be located in the police station. They are using zoning laws and the refusal to issue business permits to unduly discourage gun ownership, just as they are using needless and onerous restrictions on registration to continue a de facto gun ban closed registry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

Probably for about the same reason that billboards touting that illegal voting is a crime was thought to suppress the black vote.

 

The Republicans paid good money for those signs.

 

 

yes, they did. Nothing like a PSA that states the truth. Why would it possibly dissuade black voters from going to the booth?

 

that's what I don't get - they're good people who just trying to get by like everybody else.. What is this expectation based on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...You could well argue that those fees+restrictions inhibit your preparation for your lawful exercise of that right. However, a priori, you have many legal alternatives. But those fees+restrictions do not inhibit your right of self defense nor do they inhibit your exercise of that right of self defense if and when that becomes necessary.

 

Inhibiting preparation to defend yourself is inhibiting your second amendment right to defend yourself, should the need arise. DC's purpose in erecting barriers to gun acquisition is to continue their unconstitutional gun ban closed registry by "opening" the registry in name only, not in fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably for about the same reason that billboards touting that illegal voting is a crime was thought to suppress the black vote.

 

The Republicans paid good money for those signs.

 

 

yes, they did. Nothing like a PSA that states the truth. Why would it possibly dissuade black voters from going to the booth?

 

that's what I don't get - they're good people who just trying to get by like everybody else.. What is this expectation based on?

Intimidation. It was absolute in the way it backfired, and likely caused some lasting harm to the GOP for those instigating such a short-sighted action. After the election even the GOP acknowledged the loose cannon hyperbole rolling out of control isn't in the long-term interests of the party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...You could well argue that those fees+restrictions inhibit your preparation for your lawful exercise of that right. However, a priori, you have many legal alternatives. But those fees+restrictions do not inhibit your right of self defense nor do they inhibit your exercise of that right of self defense if and when that becomes necessary.

 

Inhibiting preparation to defend yourself is inhibiting your second amendment right to defend yourself, should the need arise. DC's purpose in erecting barriers to gun acquisition is to continue their unconstitutional gun ban closed registry by "opening" the registry in name only, not in fact.

 

Keep fighting the good fight, Tom. It drives the discussion back to what Scalia said in the Heller decision, which is that the door remains open for the Supreme Court to address in a future case what limitations on Second Amendment rights are considered “permissible.” (Be careful what you wish for.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...You could well argue that those fees+restrictions inhibit your preparation for your lawful exercise of that right. However, a priori, you have many legal alternatives. But those fees+restrictions do not inhibit your right of self defense nor do they inhibit your exercise of that right of self defense if and when that becomes necessary.

 

Inhibiting preparation to defend yourself is inhibiting your second amendment right to defend yourself, should the need arise. DC's purpose in erecting barriers to gun acquisition is to continue their unconstitutional gun ban closed registry by "opening" the registry in name only, not in fact.

 

Keep fighting the good fight, Tom. It drives the discussion back to what Scalia said in the Heller decision, which is that the door remains open for the Supreme Court to address in a future case what limitations on Second Amendment rights are considered “permissible.” (Be careful what you wish for.)

 

I don't have to be too careful. I started a thread about exploring those limits, starting with whether the second amendment extends beyond the home and out into public spaces like porches and attached garages. Not too many on the other side seem inclined to discuss the questions. Go ahead, scare heck out of me by answering the question!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably for about the same reason that billboards touting that illegal voting is a crime was thought to suppress the black vote.

 

The Republicans paid good money for those signs.

 

 

yes, they did. Nothing like a PSA that states the truth. Why would it possibly dissuade black voters from going to the booth?

 

It's a not an uncommon myth among sadly ignorant and/or racist white people that most blacks are thugs who are afraid of going into a voting place, so it back-fired.

 

Why do you think voting should be in police stations in urban areas?

 

 

Ladysmith Black Mombazo are all over Paul Simon's later albums. He wrote a song called "Outrageous" awhile back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not watch the video, but it appears to be a black man singing.

 

Searching for some relevance to the Heller decision, I came across this excerpt about the discussion of the second amendment rights of newly freed slaves after the Civil War:

 

3. Post-Civil War Legislation.

 

In the aftermath of the Civil War, there was an outpouring of discussion of the Second Amendment in Congress and in public discourse, as people debated whether and how to secure constitutional rights for newly free slaves. See generally S. Halbrook, Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment , and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866–1876 (1998) (hereinafter Halbrook); Brief for Institute for Justice as Amicus Curiae. Since those discussions took place 75 years after the ratification of the Second Amendment , they do not provide as much insight into its original meaning as earlier sources. Yet those born and educated in the early 19th century faced a widespread effort to limit arms ownership by a large number of citizens; their understanding of the origins and continuing significance of the Amendment is instructive.

 

Blacks were routinely disarmed by Southern States after the Civil War. Those who opposed these injustices frequently stated that they infringed blacks’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Needless to say, the claim was not that blacks were being prohibited from carrying arms in an organized state militia. A Report of the Commission of the Freedmen’s Bureau in 1866 stated plainly: “[T]he civil law [of Kentucky] prohibits the colored man from bearing arms. . . . Their arms are taken from them by the civil authorities… . Thus, the right of the people to keep and bear arms as provided in the Constitution is infringed.” H. R. Exec. Doc. No. 70, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 233, 236. A joint congressional Report decried:

 

“in some parts of [south Carolina], armed parties are, without proper authority, engaged in seizing all fire-arms found in the hands of the freemen. Such conduct is in clear and direct violation of their personal rights as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, which declares that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The freedmen of South Carolina have shown by their peaceful and orderly conduct that they can safely be trusted with fire-arms, and they need them to kill game for subsistence, and to protect their crops from destruction by birds and animals.” Joint Comm. on Reconstruction, H. R. Rep. No. 30, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 2, p. 229 (1866) (Proposed Circular of Brigadier General R. Saxton).

 

The view expressed in these statements was widely reported and was apparently widely held. For example, an editorial in The Loyal Georgian (Augusta) on February 3, 1866, assured blacks that “[a]ll men, without distinction of color, have the right to keep and bear arms to defend their homes, families or themselves.” Halbrook 19.

 

Congress enacted the Freedmen’s Bureau Act on July 16, 1866. Section 14 stated:

 

“[T]he right … to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of estate, real and personal, including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens … without respect to race or color, or previous condition of slavery… . ” 14 Stat. 176–177.

 

The understanding that the Second Amendment gave freed blacks the right to keep and bear arms was reflected in congressional discussion of the bill, with even an opponent of it saying that the founding generation “were for every man bearing his arms about him and keeping them in his house, his castle, for his own defense.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 362, 371 (1866) (Sen. Davis).

 

Similar discussion attended the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and the Fourteenth Amendment . For example, Representative Butler said of the Act: “Section eight is intended to enforce the well-known constitutional provision guaranteeing the right of the citizen to ‘keep and bear arms,’ and provides that whoever shall take away, by force or violence, or by threats and intimidation, the arms and weapons which any person may have for his defense, shall be deemed guilty of larceny of the same.” H. R. Rep. No. 37, 41st Cong., 3d Sess., pp. 7–8 (1871). With respect to the proposed Amendment, Senator Pomeroy described as one of the three “indispensable” “safeguards of liberty … under the Constitution” a man’s “right to bear arms for the defense of himself and family and his homestead.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 1182 (1866). Representative Nye thought the Fourteenth Amendment unnecessary because “[a]s citizens of the United States [blacks] have equal right to protection, and to keep and bear arms for self-defense.” Id., at 1073 (1866).

 

It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you see any reason he might be afraid to sing in a police station, Tom?

 

What did I say to prompt that question?

 

Alas, you've lost the context that post of mine was in. Watching the tape might have given you a clue, but you were too busy. Be careful, all that work may turn you into a dull boy. Like the cows say, "always take time to pause and eat the roses".

 

Ladysmith is a zulu a-capella group, that is a translated version of "How Long Do I Wait For You" and the choreography in the second half is a hoot. Forgot what they call it in Zulu, but a roughly translation is: "The Yoo Hoo Shuffle™.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alas, you've lost the context that post of mine was in.

 

Then I suggest you find it and answer my question.

 

It's obvious, in context.

 

BTW, notice there are nine dancers. Nine is a number that figures prominently in Zulu shamanism. Perhaps they are not as different from us as some like to think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alas, you've lost the context that post of mine was in.

 

Then I suggest you find it and answer my question.

 

It's obvious, in context.

 

 

 

If it is obvious to you and you can find the context, please quote what I said to prompt your question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was nudging you back into context, as the black face caused you to leap to the conclusion it was about American slavery. It was a bump-post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Making registration to exercise a right difficult is bad, sometimes... Sometimes it is even racist!

 

A new Florida law that contributed to long voter lines and caused some to abandon voting altogether was intentionally designed by Florida GOP staff and consultants to inhibit Democratic voters, former GOP officials and current GOP consultants have told The Palm Beach Post.

 

In 2011 Republicans, who had super majorities in both chambers of the legislature, passed HB 1355, which curtailed early voting days from 14 to eight; greatly proscribed the activities of voter registration organizations like the League of Women Voters; and made it harder for voters who had changed counties since the last election to cast ballots, a move that affected minorities proportionately more than whites. The League and others challenged the law in court, and a federal judge threw out most of the provisions related to voter registration organizations.

 

I agree with the League and the federal judge mentioned that making the exercise of a right inconvenient can unduly restrict the right.

 

There is no reason that a city the size of DC should have only one gun dealer, nor any good reason the sole dealer should be located in the police station. They are using zoning laws and the refusal to issue business permits to unduly discourage gun ownership, just as they are using needless and onerous restrictions on registration to continue a de facto gun ban closed registry.

 

Are you mad that I agree with the League of Women Voters or something, Mark? Why keep me guessing about what I posted to prompt your question? Is providing a quote hard? Or maybe impossible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A gun registry has no impact on your 2nd amendment rights.

 

 

A closed one does, as the topic case found.

 

"Opening" it only to those who can afford to make multiple trips to the police station and pay hundreds in associated costs impacts everyone, especially poor people, and is not justified by any compelling governmental interest, so the current DC laws do impact second amendment rights and are unconstitutional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Making registration to exercise a right difficult is bad, sometimes... Sometimes it is even racist!

 

A new Florida law that contributed to long voter lines and caused some to abandon voting altogether was intentionally designed by Florida GOP staff and consultants to inhibit Democratic voters, former GOP officials and current GOP consultants have told The Palm Beach Post.

 

In 2011 Republicans, who had super majorities in both chambers of the legislature, passed HB 1355, which curtailed early voting days from 14 to eight; greatly proscribed the activities of voter registration organizations like the League of Women Voters; and made it harder for voters who had changed counties since the last election to cast ballots, a move that affected minorities proportionately more than whites. The League and others challenged the law in court, and a federal judge threw out most of the provisions related to voter registration organizations.

 

I agree with the League and the federal judge mentioned that making the exercise of a right inconvenient can unduly restrict the right.

 

There is no reason that a city the size of DC should have only one gun dealer, nor any good reason the sole dealer should be located in the police station. They are using zoning laws and the refusal to issue business permits to unduly discourage gun ownership, just as they are using needless and onerous restrictions on registration to continue a de facto gun ban closed registry.

 

Are you mad that I agree with the League of Women Voters or something, Mark? Why keep me guessing about what I posted to prompt your question? Is providing a quote hard? Or maybe impossible?

 

Nope. I had been unaware of that, actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that might have been the lost context you wrote about. Shall I guess again, or will you tell me what I wrote to prompt your question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that might have been the lost context you wrote about. Shall I guess again, or will you tell me what I wrote to prompt your question?

 

It wasn't what you said, it was what you cut and pasted, which had nothing to do with anything in my post, which was in the context of being afraid to vote in police stations. Same thing applies, I guess, on being able to sing in police stations, so I went with the flow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It wasn't what you said, it was what you cut and pasted, which had nothing to do with anything in my post, which was in the context of being afraid to vote in police stations. Same thing applies, I guess, on being able to sing in police stations, so I went with the flow.

 

I thought you were talking about racism, and considered the history of racism in this country as it relates to the thread topic to be relevant.

 

Maybe this is the context that was lost?

 

Because in the case of DC requiring a wait of months, multiple trips to the police station to see the only gun dealer in town, and hundreds in costs and fees, what I see is a clear effort to defy the Supreme Court's order forcing DC to end their gun ban reopen their gun registry, and no reason offered as to why it should take that long or cost that much (or, for that matter, why a city so large should have only one gun dealer and why he should be located in the police station.)

 

Rules that are made just to restrict the exercise of our rights are not OK.

 

I think that all voter registration and polling places in urban inner cities should be inside police stations. I wonder what effect that would have on voter turnout there?

 

That would probably be considered racist when it comes to voting. Not so much when it comes to guns.

 

If so, my comment was in relation to the opinion that the League of Women Voters and I share about rules that disproportionately affect minorities. Getting back to the thread topic, many poor people in DC are black and poor people are less able to afford multiple trips to the police station and hundreds of dollars in fees to exercise their second amendment rights, so it's another case of gun control rules that disproportionately affect minorities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably for about the same reason that billboards touting that illegal voting is a crime was thought to suppress the black vote.

 

The Republicans paid good money for those signs.

 

 

yes, they did. Nothing like a PSA that states the truth. Why would it possibly dissuade black voters from going to the booth?

 

It's a not an uncommon myth among sadly ignorant and/or racist white people that most blacks are thugs who are afraid of going into a voting place, so it back-fired.

 

Why do you think voting should be in police stations in urban areas?

 

 

Bump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

How'z the research coming on AR-15's and Frangible ammunition Mark?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...You could well argue that those fees+restrictions inhibit your preparation for your lawful exercise of that right. However, a priori, you have many legal alternatives. But those fees+restrictions do not inhibit your right of self defense nor do they inhibit your exercise of that right of self defense if and when that becomes necessary.

 

Inhibiting preparation to defend yourself is inhibiting your second amendment right to defend yourself, should the need arise. DC's purpose in erecting barriers to gun acquisition is to continue their unconstitutional gun ban closed registry by "opening" the registry in name only, not in fact.

 

Keep fighting the good fight, Tom. It drives the discussion back to what Scalia said in the Heller decision, which is that the door remains open for the Supreme Court to address in a future case what limitations on Second Amendment rights are considered “permissible.” (Be careful what you wish for.)

 

I don't have to be too careful. I started a thread about exploring those limits, starting with whether the second amendment extends beyond the home and out into public spaces like porches and attached garages. Not too many on the other side seem inclined to discuss the questions. Go ahead, scare heck out of me by answering the question!

 

Try to do a bit better than olsonist. It should not be hard at all. Maybe start by figuring out which case we are discussing and what the issue in question actually is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Are you saying it has nothing to do with militias?

Or are you saying you don't have the right to raise a militia?

Or are you saying militias are not necessary to maintain the free state?

I'm just not sure where you and I disagree on it.

 

Shouldn't we be doing this in this thread?

 

From the majority opinion:

 

Three important founding-era legal scholars interpreted the Second Amendment in published writings. All three understood it to protect an individual right unconnected with militia service.

 

More recently, the Supreme Court decided the Miller case not on the basis of lack of any connection to an organized militia, but on the character of the gun in question (which, I might add, they did not examine very closely, since only one side showed them any evidence on that point.)

 

This holding is not only consistent with, but positively suggests, that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms (though only arms that “have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”). Had the Court believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen.

 

In any case, the amendment means what the courts have interpreted it to mean, just like any other. Your dislike of their interpretation in Heller, like mine in Kelo vs New London, can not change the legal facts.

 

We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They why do they infringe on our rights to supply our militia with RPG and fully automatic weapons? If your interpretation was correct, the Firearms Act of 1934 would be unconstitutional.

 

From the Heller opinion.

 

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.

 

Had Miller or his attorney showed up for his Supreme Court case, they would have likely pointed out that shortened shotguns had been useful in trench warfare and may well have won the case on that basis, but he did not show up.

 

The majority opinion in Heller goes on to say:

 

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

 

I think the machine gun registry was closed for no good reason since machine guns, like their semi-auto only counterparts in the civilian market, are very seldom used in crimes and can be useful for the common defense. I doubt the court will agree with me on that one.

 

As for the "tanks and bombers" thing, I would ask when air power has ever controlled a population? They can kill people, but only people on the ground can control people on the ground. 100 million people with 300 million guns, even guns that are semi-auto only, could be a bit difficult to control by force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the "tanks and bombers" thing, I would ask when has any population won against a force equipped with said "tanks and bombers" without being supplied with weapons to defeat "tanks and bombers" by an outside force.

 

Personal weapons caches defeating government forces? Ask Chris Dorner or David Koresh how well that works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Personal weapons caches defeating government forces? Ask Chris Dorner or David Koresh how well that works.

 

Missing the point and the wife or girlfriend's tits, so fuck off and return with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the "tanks and bombers" thing, I would ask when has any population won against a force equipped with said "tanks and bombers" without being supplied with weapons to defeat "tanks and bombers" by an outside force.

 

Personal weapons caches defeating government forces? Ask Chris Dorner or David Koresh how well that works.

 

Libya?

 

But then, since we have the right to keep and bear arms, we don't need the outside supplies. RPG's and bombs aren't hard to make at all. Mortars are pretty good too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personal weapons caches defeating government forces? Ask Chris Dorner or David Koresh how well that works.

 

Missing the point and the wife or girlfriend's tits, so fuck off and return with them.

 

so you have no data. just as suspected.

 

As for the "tanks and bombers" thing, I would ask when has any population won against a force equipped with said "tanks and bombers" without being supplied with weapons to defeat "tanks and bombers" by an outside force.

 

Personal weapons caches defeating government forces? Ask Chris Dorner or David Koresh how well that works.

 

Libya?

 

But then, since we have the right to keep and bear arms, we don't need the outside supplies. RPG's and bombs aren't hard to make at all. Mortars are pretty good too.

 

really? please detail construction methods for said weapons and ammunition supplies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

so you have no data. just as suspected.

 

 

A hundred million is more than one.

 

In other news, the USSR tried to control Afghanistan and failed and soon we'll finish failing and pull out too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personal weapons caches defeating government forces? Ask Chris Dorner or David Koresh how well that works.

 

Missing the point and the wife or girlfriend's tits, so fuck off and return with them.

 

so you have no data. just as suspected.

 

As for the "tanks and bombers" thing, I would ask when has any population won against a force equipped with said "tanks and bombers" without being supplied with weapons to defeat "tanks and bombers" by an outside force.

 

Personal weapons caches defeating government forces? Ask Chris Dorner or David Koresh how well that works.

 

Libya?

 

But then, since we have the right to keep and bear arms, we don't need the outside supplies. RPG's and bombs aren't hard to make at all. Mortars are pretty good too.

 

really? please detail construction methods for said weapons and ammunition supplies.

 

If you can't figure out an RPG or a Mortar, why should I help you? A quick trip to any fireworks store should be enough of an education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

From the Heller opinion.

 

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

 

 

As for the "tanks and bombers" thing, I would ask when air power has ever controlled a population? They can kill people, but only people on the ground can control people on the ground. 100 million people with 300 million guns, even guns that are semi-auto only, could be a bit difficult to control by force.

 

Agreed. One needs only look at Iraq and Afhganistan for clues as to what efficacy unsophisticated small arms in the hands of the local population can have against the best equipped, trained and motivated military the world has ever seen. All our airpower, all our armor, all our hi-tech gadgets couldn't prevent a small and horribly outgunned "militia" from wreaking havoc and causing enough fatigue that we are giving up and leaving.

 

WOLVERINES!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so you have no data. just as suspected.

 

 

A hundred million is more than one.

 

In other news, the USSR tried to control Afghanistan and failed and soon we'll finish failing and pull out too.

 

and the afghans did it all on their own. not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you can't figure out an RPG or a Mortar, why should I help you? A quick trip to any fireworks store should be enough of an education.

 

LOL

 

fireworks store does not equal rpg capable of defeating armor nor do fireworks shoot down f-16s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you can't figure out an RPG or a Mortar, why should I help you? A quick trip to any fireworks store should be enough of an education.

 

LOL

 

fireworks store does not equal rpg capable of defeating armor nor do fireworks shoot down f-16s.

 

What are you talking about? Mean looking rifles can not only down airplanes, they can blow up railroads!

 

Jesse said so!

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/03/jesse-jackson-repeats-claim-that-semi-autos-can-shoot-down-airplanes-now-they-can-also-blow-up-railroads/

 

“Semi-automatic weapons are not just about gun control, they’re about national security,” Jackson said on Fox News. “You know that these weapons can shoot down airplanes, they can blow up railroads. This is really a whole national security issue.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DC is still trying anything they can to continue their unconstitutional gun ban in practice. This time they want to mandate insurance for gun owners. The NRA objects.

 

 

The liability insurance policy would specifically need to cover any damages resulting from negligent acts, or willful acts that are not undertaken in self-defense, involving the use of the insured firearm while it is owned by the policy holder.

...

 

The misguided city Councilmen who are championing this bill are doing so in spite of the fact that D.C. already has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, yet consistently has one of the highest violent crime rates. Not only will criminals certainly avoid purchasing liability insurance, there are other problems with mandating liability insurance for firearms owners including:

  • It is an affront to law-abiding gun owners—you are not required to carry insurance to exercise any other constitutional right.
  • It is economically discriminatory—insurance is expensive and such a mandate could make firearm ownership even more unattainable for average law-abiding D.C. residents who have an inherent right to self-defense regardless of income.
  • No insurance company will write a policy to cover the intentional or criminal misuse of a firearm. Since the insurance policy B20-170 seeks to mandate does not exist, this could lead to an all-out gun ban in the District of Columbia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew it could be a problem in Mexico, but it turns out that having an empty shell casing is verboten in Washington DC too.

Washington police are operating under orders to arrest tourists and other non-residents traveling with spent bullet or shotgun casings, a crime that carries a $1,000 fine, a year in jail and a criminal record, according to a new book about the city's confusing gun laws.

"Empty shell casings are considered ammunition in Washington, D.C., so they are illegal to possess unless you are a resident and have a gun registration certificate," pens Emily Miller in her investigative book, "Emily Gets Her Gun: ... But Obama Wants to Take Yours."

Under the law, live or empty brass and plastic casings must be carried in a special container and unavailable to drivers. Having one, for example, in a cup holder or ash tray is illegal.


She told Secrets that the police are "under orders to arrest tourists or other legal gun owners from out of state who wouldn't think to empty brass and plastic from their cars or pockets."

 

I'd love to see the Smithsonian museums again, but am going to have to disassemble my wife's car to make sure no casings are hiding under a seat.

 

Is this a reasonable infringement on a protected right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew it could be a problem in Mexico, but it turns out that having an empty shell casing is verboten in Washington DC too.

 

Washington police are operating under orders to arrest tourists and other non-residents traveling with spent bullet or shotgun casings, a crime that carries a $1,000 fine, a year in jail and a criminal record, according to a new book about the city's confusing gun laws.

 

"Empty shell casings are considered ammunition in Washington, D.C., so they are illegal to possess unless you are a resident and have a gun registration certificate," pens Emily Miller in her investigative book, "Emily Gets Her Gun: ... But Obama Wants to Take Yours."

 

Under the law, live or empty brass and plastic casings must be carried in a special container and unavailable to drivers. Having one, for example, in a cup holder or ash tray is illegal.

 

 

She told Secrets that the police are "under orders to arrest tourists or other legal gun owners from out of state who wouldn't think to empty brass and plastic from their cars or pockets."

 

I'd love to see the Smithsonian museums again, but am going to have to disassemble my wife's car to make sure no casings are hiding under a seat.

 

Is this a reasonable infringement on a protected right?

 

 

What happens if you get caught with this bottle opener.

 

50calbulletbottleopener__34473.135473486

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I knew it could be a problem in Mexico, but it turns out that having an empty shell casing is verboten in Washington DC too.

 

 

 

Washington police are operating under orders to arrest tourists and other non-residents traveling with spent bullet or shotgun casings, a crime that carries a $1,000 fine, a year in jail and a criminal record, according to a new book about the city's confusing gun laws.

 

"Empty shell casings are considered ammunition in Washington, D.C., so they are illegal to possess unless you are a resident and have a gun registration certificate," pens Emily Miller in her investigative book, "Emily Gets Her Gun: ... But Obama Wants to Take Yours."

 

Under the law, live or empty brass and plastic casings must be carried in a special container and unavailable to drivers. Having one, for example, in a cup holder or ash tray is illegal.

She told Secrets that the police are "under orders to arrest tourists or other legal gun owners from out of state who wouldn't think to empty brass and plastic from their cars or pockets."

 

I'd love to see the Smithsonian museums again, but am going to have to disassemble my wife's car to make sure no casings are hiding under a seat.

 

Is this a reasonable infringement on a protected right?

 

What happens if you get caught with this bottle opener.

 

50calbulletbottleopener__34473.135473486

That looks even more dangerous than ordinary empty shell casings. It has a scary pointy end and can cause drunk driving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't have an empty shell casing in DC, but having illegal weapons for your press conference is OK if you're an anti-gun Senator. If you're a Senator who wants to show that cosmetic features are cosmetic features, not so much.


Washington Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier seems to think that gun-control laws don’t apply to the liberal elite. The police chief helped Sen. Dianne Feinstein acquire “assault weapons,” which are illegal to possess in the District, for a news conference early this year to promote a ban on these firearms, then tried to cover up the police involvement.

 

...

 

A week after Mrs. Feinstein’s publicity stunt, Republican Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina were refused permission to bring a hunting rifle and an AR-style rifle to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Mrs. Feinstein’s “assault weapon” ban.

 

The Republican senators sent a letter of complaint to committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy, but were still forced to use just a photo of a standard wooden hunting rifle with a plastic pistol grip at the hearing in order to demonstrate that simply adding the ergonomic feature transformed the gun into one that would be illegal under her ban.

 

Mrs. Feinstein’s staff gloated: “I was gratified to hear Sens. Cruz and Graham complaining that getting weapons into their hearing today was ‘unworkable,’” Mr. Mentzer emailed Cmdr. Williams and another officer with a news story about the Republicans not being able bring in even a legal rifle. “I find you guys ENTIRELY practical, for the record.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

 

You can't have an empty shell casing in DC, but having illegal weapons for your press conference is OK if you're an anti-gun Senator. If you're a Senator who wants to show that cosmetic features are cosmetic features, not so much.

 

 

Washington Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier seems to think that gun-control laws don’t apply to the liberal elite. The police chief helped Sen. Dianne Feinstein acquire “assault weapons,” which are illegal to possess in the District, for a news conference early this year to promote a ban on these firearms, then tried to cover up the police involvement.

 

...

 

A week after Mrs. Feinstein’s publicity stunt, Republican Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina were refused permission to bring a hunting rifle and an AR-style rifle to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Mrs. Feinstein’s “assault weapon” ban.

 

The Republican senators sent a letter of complaint to committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy, but were still forced to use just a photo of a standard wooden hunting rifle with a plastic pistol grip at the hearing in order to demonstrate that simply adding the ergonomic feature transformed the gun into one that would be illegal under her ban.

 

Mrs. Feinstein’s staff gloated: “I was gratified to hear Sens. Cruz and Graham complaining that getting weapons into their hearing today was ‘unworkable,’” Mr. Mentzer emailed Cmdr. Williams and another officer with a news story about the Republicans not being able bring in even a legal rifle. “I find you guys ENTIRELY practical, for the record.”

 

 

That's hysterical.

 

Jocal should be along soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Owner of registered guns in DC will be required to re-register them

 

Another obvious attempt to suppress gun ownership rights. As usual, it has nothing to do with crime and everything to do with making gun ownership as burdensome and expensive as possible, at least for those who abide by gun laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dick Heller is back in court. Heller II Challenges Registration Requirements

 


Heller told me in a phone interview Tuesday that, “The city collected every gun restriction they could find from every other state and gave them to us as thumbtacks on the road for our march to Second Amendment freedom.”

He is the lead plaintiff of five District residents who state that their constitutional rights are being infringed by the registration requirements. The city claims the process is necessary for “to protect police officers and to aid in crime control.”

On Tuesday evening, the plaintiffs’ attorneys, Stephen Halbrook and Dan Peterson filed a motion in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia asking Judge James Boasberg for summary judgment. The also asked for denial of the city’s request for summary judgment last month.

The plaintiffs argue in the brief that, “These burdensome requirements appear calculated to discourage persons from registering firearms at all and, for those who do so, to snare them with expiration and re-registration deadlines that, if missed, would turn them into criminals.”

The re-registration requirement starts on Jan. 1. Every gun owners who has registered a gun since 1976 will have to go to police headquarters to be fingerprinted and photographed.


...


“Even if a simple registration requirement for handguns passes constitutional muster, the District’s complex procedures do not,” the lawyers wrote. “No State imposes requirements as onerous as the District’s.”


...


Lt. Jon Shelton revealed that there were only two handgun applications denied by his office in 2011 and 2012. Not a single rifle or shotgun application was refused.

The criminals just aren’t stopping by police headquarters to get fingerprinted and photographed before hitting the streets.

Meanwhile, the police recovered 12,000 unregistered firearms from 2007 to 2013.

Officers only found 36 registered guns in that same six-year period. Even then, only 17 of the those firearms were involved in charges against the registered firearm owner, and only two resulted in convictions of that person for a violent crime.

Furthermore, the police also aren’t using the registration records to solve crimes. “Lt. Shelton cannot recall any specific instance where registration records were used to determine who committed a crime,” except for possession offenses,” the plaintiffs wrote.

Contrary to previous assertions that registration is “critical” to police safety, the plaintiffs’ brief uncovers the truth that officers do not have access to registration records before responding to calls.

“D.C. maintained for years that guns must be registered so that police officers will know whether a gun is present when they respond to a call,” Mr. Halbrook told me.

“Yet no good cop would assume that criminals register guns. Now we know that D.C. police don’t check the gun registry when on the way to a crime scene, and the reason for registration collapses.”

 

So they have never used registration records to solve a violent crime and cops don't check the registry when responding to calls, but it's necessary to drag anyone who has registered a gun since 1976 into the police station to be fingerprinted and photographed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It don't matter, 'cuz the JokeAwfs of this world are bereft of common sense & critical thinking skills. They're just happy to see DC fuck with gun owners......end results be damned.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rick, I can't answer for your common sense, but my own tells me that many who presently have guns in this unrestricted environment are not handling them well. One example: we've had 194 gun-dead children so far this year (not that you care).

 

 

 

 

Whydopeoplebully_zpsae828e2a.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unrestricted? Where the hell do you come up with this shit? All of my (legal) gun purchases, at least in my mind, are waaaaay above being restricted. To the point where I think a few of my rights have been violated in fact. I think I should probably get a lawyer next week while I've got the time....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew it could be a problem in Mexico, but it turns out that having an empty shell casing is verboten in Washington DC too.

 

Washington police are operating under orders to arrest tourists and other non-residents traveling with spent bullet or shotgun casings, a crime that carries a $1,000 fine, a year in jail and a criminal record, according to a new book about the city's confusing gun laws.

 

"Empty shell casings are considered ammunition in Washington, D.C., so they are illegal to possess unless you are a resident and have a gun registration certificate," pens Emily Miller in her investigative book, "Emily Gets Her Gun: ... But Obama Wants to Take Yours."

 

Under the law, live or empty brass and plastic casings must be carried in a special container and unavailable to drivers. Having one, for example, in a cup holder or ash tray is illegal.

 

 

She told Secrets that the police are "under orders to arrest tourists or other legal gun owners from out of state who wouldn't think to empty brass and plastic from their cars or pockets."

 

I'd love to see the Smithsonian museums again, but am going to have to disassemble my wife's car to make sure no casings are hiding under a seat.

 

Is this a reasonable infringement on a protected right?

 

This is a PERFECT example of senseless gun laws that do ZERO to actually address the issue of crime. Jocal, or anyone - please tell me how this actually stops crime? Are DC gangs reloading their own ammo now? Is the DC police afraid the empty shell casing can be filled to a razor edge and give someone a paper cut?

 

It is simply harassment. And things like this push me more and more into the NRA's camp. I'm becoming more like Len P - complete pushback against ALL new restrictions, because the other side has no boundaries. They take and take and take and its obvious their efforts have fuck all to do with safety and more about prohibition. The crime victims are simply a means to an end - they just hate the guns.

 

I think I will renew my NRA membership now. Maybe even go for a lifetime one...... Thanks DC - you fucking douchenozzle cunts!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This is a PEFECT example of senseless gun laws that do ZERO to actually address the issue of crime. Jocal, or anyone - please tell me how this actually stops crime? Are DC gangs reloading their own ammo now? Is the DC police afraid the empty shell casing can be filled to a razor edge and give someone a paper cut?

 

It is simply harassment. And things like this push me more and more into the NRA's camp. I'm becoming more like Len P - complete pushback against ALL new restrictions, because the other side has no boundaries. They take and take and take and its obvious their efforts have fuck all to do with safety and more about prohibition. The crime victims are simply a means to an end - they just hate the guns.

 

I think I will renew my NRA membership now. Maybe even go for a lifetime one...... Thanks DC - you fucking douchenozzle cunts!

 

My wife's sister lives in MD, suburbs of DC. When they were visiting last spring, I took my nephew out to teach him how to shoot. He was excited to have hit a bullseye at 100 yards with the 7 mag, and asked if he could keep the empty case as a souvenir. I said no problem and let him keep it, thinking nothing of it. It is scary that the simple souvenir from a completely legal activity could result in an arrest and criminal record for him or his parents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting read on licensing issues.

http://politi.co/1fqnV2D

 

 

Leaving citizens' rights up to the discretion of local officials instead of using objective standards for everyone never sounded so nice.

 

All that research, and he didn't run across or didn't find significant the violent crime rate among concealed weapons permit holders vs the rest of the population. Those facts didn't have the right bias, I guess.

 

I'm scared of people who don't have concealed weapons permits, since statistics in many states have shown that they are more violent.

 

27 mass shootings since 2007 perpetrated by CWP holders? That doesn't sound right to me. Wish I could check his source, if any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

27 mass shootings since 2007 perpetrated by CWP holders? That doesn't sound right to me. Wish I could check his source, if any.

 

 

Profiles of Killers Legally Carrying Concealed Guns

1.George Zimmerman, 28

Sanford, Florida

February 26, 2012

People Killed: 1

Florida permit holder George Zimmerman, 28, shot and killed

unarmed 17 years-old Trayvon Martin while Zimmerman was

on his neighborhood watch patrol.

2.Jared Lee Loughner, 22

Tucson, Arizona

January 8, 2011

People Killed: 6

Armed with a Glock 19 pistol outfitted with a 33-round

ammunition magazine, Jared Lee Loughner opened fire at

a constituent event held by Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords

outside a Tucson Safeway supermarket.

3.Michael K. McLendon, 28

Kinston & Samson, AL

March 10, 2009

People Killed: 10

Michael K. McLendon, 28, armed with a handgun, two assault

rifles and a shotgun, killed 10 people over a 20 mile trail in rural

southern Alabama. McLendon, who had an Alabama concealed

weapon permit, first killed his mother and the family dogs then

drove 20 miles and shot five members of his extended family.

4.Christopher Speight, 39

Appomattox, Virginia

January 19, 2010

People Killed: 8

Reportedly dissatisfied with arrangements to split family

property, Virginia concealed carry permit holder Christopher

Speight allegedly shot to death his sister, her husband, 15-year-old

daughter, four-year-old son and four other people.

5.Trevor Dooley, 69

Valrico, Florida

September 26, 2010

People Killed: 1

School bus driver Trevor Dooley, a concealed handgun permit

holder, allegedly shot to death a 41-year-old man as the man’s

eight-year-old daughter looked on. The victim, a 20-year Air

Force veteran, had been playing basketball in a park across

the street from Dooley’s home.

6.Richard Poplawski, 22

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

April 4, 2009

People Killed: 3 Law Enforcement Officers

Richard Poplawski shot to death two police officers who

responded to a domestic disturbance call placed by his mother.

A girlfriend had previously filed for a protection-from-abuse

order against him, but he still had a Pennsylvania license to

carry a concealed gun. In 2005, the Marine Corps had

discharged him during basic training.

7.Martino Johnson, 34

Memphis, Tennessee

February 23, 2009

People Killed: 1

Concealed handgun permit holder Martino Johnson, 34,

allegedly shot and killed 26-year-old Terrelle Beasley with a

.40-caliber pistol following a minor car accident in Memphis.

The shooting occurred after Beasley accidently sideswiped

Johnson’s Ford Taurus with his Honda Civic.

8.Michael Joe Hood, 49

Memphis, Tennessee

March 27, 2010

People Killed: 3

Michael Joe Hood, 49, a Tennessee concealed carry permit

holder, shot and killed his sister Susan Hood Binkley, 44, her

ex-husband Dale Binkley, 42, and their 13-year-old son Jackson

Binkley. All four shared a house in Cheatham County. Sheriff

John Holder told reporters that police were looking at two

motives for the multiple shooting. The first was a possible

disagreement over recycling aluminum cans.

9. Paul Michael Merhige, 35

Fort Lauderdale, Florida

November 26, 2009

People Killed: 4

Paul Michael Merhige allegedly opened fire at his family’s

Thanksgiving dinner, shooting six relatives, killing four. The

deceased victims were his twin sisters (one of whom was

pregnant), his 76-year-old aunt, and a six-year-old cousin.

10.Marqus Hill, 28

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

September 12, 2010

People Killed: 1

In 2005 when Marqus Hill was charged with attempted murder,

aggravated assault and other charges, Philadelphia police

revoked his permit to carry a concealed weapon they had only

issued him months earlier. The charges were later expunged

from his record and Hill applied to get back his gun permit in

2008.

11.Robert G. Webster, 63; Charles E. Ingram, 57

Orange Park, Florida

April 28, 2010

People Killed: 2

A long-running neighborhood feud over dog-control issues

ended in gunfire when Charles E. Ingram and Robert G.

Webster, both Florida concealed carry permit holders, pulled

their weapons during a heated argument.

12.Matthew Warmus

Cleveland,Ohio

April 9, 2010

People killed: 1

Matthew Warmus shot and killed parking lot attendant David

Williams, 27, after they argued over a parking space. Both men

had Ohio concealed handgun permits. Witnesses told police

that Williams tried to give Warmus his money back

13.Reginald Royals Jr., 24

Waterside, Virginia

March 22, 2009

People Killed: 1

Virginia permit holder Reginald Royals Jr., 24, allegedly shot

and killed Juan Carlos Ovalle and wounded Marcus McGee

following an altercation in a parking garage.

CC Responsible for at Least 26 Mass Shootings in the Past Six Years

Washington, DC — Private citizens legally allowed to carry concealed handguns have committed at least 26 mass shootings over the past six years — including the recent mass murder at the Washington Navy Yard that left 12 dead and a July shooting in Hialeah, Florida that ended the lives of six innocent victims.

These and other criminal killings can be found in the Violence Policy Center’s (VPC) latest update to Concealed Carry Killers, an online resource that offers examples of non-self defense killings by private citizens legally allowed to carry concealed handguns in public. Overall, concealed carry killers were involved in at least 386 fatal incidents since May 2007, leading to at least 540 deaths including the killing of 14 law enforcement officers.

Concealed Carry Killers is the most comprehensive report available on non-self defense killings by legal carriers of concealed firearms. Because there is no comprehensive recordkeeping of these incidents and many states in fact bar the release of such information, the examples on theConcealed Carry Killers website are taken primarily from news reports and most likely represent a fraction of actual events.

“Mass shootings by concealed handgun permit holders are now a common occurrence. It’s no surprise that the NRA and the gun industry, who benefit financially from lax concealed carry laws, ignore this growing body count. But for the sake of the victims and survivors of these shootings, the human cost of these lethal laws must be exposed,” states VPC Legislative Director Kristen Rand.

Concealed Carry Killers documents 386 incidents in 32 states and the District of Columbia since May 2007, resulting in 540 deaths involving private citizens legally allowed to carry concealed handguns. Fourteen of the victims were law enforcement officers. Twenty-six of the incidents were mass shootings, resulting in the deaths of 125 victims.

Below is a graph that breaks down the types of incidents documented in the report (click here to view the graph online):

In the vast majority of the incidents documented (315, or 82 percent), the concealed carry killer either committed suicide (132), has already been convicted (135), perpetrated a murder-suicide (37), or was killed in the incident (11).

Of the 58 cases still pending, the vast majority (48) of concealed carry killers have been charged with criminal homicide. Four were deemed incompetent to stand trial, and six incidents are still under investigation. An additional 13 incidents were fatal unintentional shootings involving a gun of the concealed handgun permit holder.

The 386 incidents do not include any that were eventually ruled as self-defense. Only 12 of the hundreds of examples tallied in Concealed Carry Killers were eventually deemed lawful self-defense. Such cases are then removed from the site’s ongoing totals.

A detailed summary of each of the 386 incidents is available at http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm. Clicking on each category leads to a state-by-state breakout for the incidents. To review all deaths involving concealed carry killers, click on “Total People Killed by Concealed Carry Killers.”

For examples of non-fatal concealed carry incidents, visit the VPC’s Concealed Carry Killers page on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/?sk=pages#!/pages/Violence-Policy-Center-Concealed-Carry-Killers/258069527568

Pasted from <http://www.vpc.org/press/1310ccw.html>

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How I Got Licensed to Carry a Concealed Gun in 32 States by Barely Trying

I was clueless, hung over, and totally worthless with a firearm. Four hours later, I was officially qualified to pack heat.

—By Tim Murphy

| September/October 2013 Issue

770

Armed and quite possibly dangerous

According to the state of Utah, I earned the right to carry a concealed handgun on a Saturday morning in a suburban shopping center outside Baltimore. Toward the back, next to a pawnshop and White Trash Matt's tattoo parlor, is the global headquarters of Dukes Defense World, a mom-and-pop firearms instruction shop certified by the Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification to teach nonresidents firearm safety as a prerequisite for obtaining a concealed-carry permit.

My achievement doesn't make sense for a number of reasons. One, I don't live in Utah. I'm a resident of Washington, DC, a city that holds concealed handguns in roughly the same esteem as working escalators. I've never shot a gun. And in distinctly un-Utahn fashion, I'm nursing a hangover. Fortunately, none of that matters here. After four hours at Dukes Defense, I have a completed application and a snazzy graduation certificate for my wall. Sixty days after my application is processed, I'll be able to carry a concealed weapon in no fewer than 32 states. It's great for road trips.

Over the last two decades, Utah's concealed-carry permit has emerged as a de facto national ID for handgun owners. It typifies a new era of arming Americans in public: 40 states now recognize some or all out-of-state permits, and 8 have made it legal in all or some circumstances to carry a concealed handgun without any permit at all. In April, the Senate came just three votes short of passing a measure that would have mandated reciprocity for concealed-carry permits—including the ones Utah so freely hands out—nationwide.

As part of a National Rifle Association-backed movement to roll back concealed-carry restrictions, in the mid-1990s Utah became a "shall issue" state. That means it grants concealed-carry permits unless it has a compelling reason (such as a felony record) not to do so. Licensees don't need to demonstrate proficiency with a handgun, and they don't even need to set foot in the Beehive State. They just have to take a class on firearm safety and pay a processing fee (approximately $50) and some of the cheapest renewal fees in the business (as little as 75 cents every five years).

The result has been a boom in out-of-state residents seeking permits and the birth of a cottage industry catering to them. As of June, nonresidents held more than 60 percent of Utah's 473,476 valid concealed-carry permits. Maryland alone has 33 Utah-certified instructors. One, Mid-Atlantic Firearms Training, boasts "No Firearm Qualification Needed"; another, Semper Fidelis Consulting, touts its NRA ties and its convenience. (It makes house calls.)

My instructor is Kevin Dukes, a 20-year Army veteran who runs Dukes Defense World with his wife, Jenny. He's ready for battle in cargo pants, a black polo, hiking boots, and black-rimmed hipster glasses that match his gray goatee. A handgun is on his hip. A black-and-white portrait of shotgun-pumping Hatfields—icons of responsible gun ownership if ever there were—sits in the corner. Across the room is a table with a paper invitation that will be his first topic of discussion: "Join the NRA."

The pitch is straightforward. It costs just $35 to sign on with America's top gun lobbying group, and membership comes with $2,500 of insurance in case anything happens to your piece. Dukes concedes that not everyone is a fan of the NRA's politics, but in his view the group puts together smart training programs and its aim is true—"320 million people a year are being saved by guns, because they're not being killed," he tells us.

"The gun industry should send me a basket of fruit," said a top NRA lobbyist who pushed for concealed-carry laws.

Dukes' presentation focuses mostly on the law, or lack thereof, in Utah. He walks us through the verbal warnings we should give before using lethal force, but ends with a caveat: "In Utah, you're not obligated to do that. You don't have to do the hokey pokey and then turn yourself around." In 1994, Utah was one of the first states to adopt a so-called Stand Your Ground law, the expansive self-defense doctrine now on the books in dozens of states and made famous after George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin.

We listen to a 911 call from a Utah woman whose husband had just killed a home invader. Dukes asks us what we'd do in that situation, and one of my classmates, who has already committed to moving to Texas to escape Maryland's gun-grabbing government, says immediately that she'd pull the trigger. Dukes' lesson: If you're not prepared to kill, you're not prepared to carry.

Gun rights activists boast that issuing more concealed-carry permits drives down crime and protects even non-gun-owners. But claims about millions of annual "defensive gun uses" are not backed up by reliable data. What statistics there are indicate that enforcement is marred by racial disparity: A white person who shoots a black person is 11 times more likely to have the homicide classified as justifiable than in the reverse situation, according to an analysis by the Urban Institute. (Mother Jones' ongoing investigation of public mass shootings shows that 5 of the 23 shootings that occurred since 2010 were carried out by killers using legally concealed handguns.)

While only 9 states had shall-issue laws on the books in 1980, today 41 do—great news not only for the likes of Dukes Defense, but also for the $12 billion gun manufacturing business. As a top NRA lobbyist noted in describing her work on concealed carry in 1996, "The gun industry should send me a basket of fruit." Gun makers have taken to advertising directly to permit holders: Kahr Arms boasts that "Nothing fits better undercover" than its PM9 handgun. An ad for North American Arms' mini-revolver touts that "NO gun is easier to carry or conceal."

There has also been a push to conceal the growin