The DC mayor is a POS....

[Levin]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

No the background and eye checks aren't the issue. Those are standard. The big issue is this language:

"Even then, D.C. gun owners would be prohibited from keeping their gun loaded unless they could demonstrate that, as the city's new gun law says, the firearm is being used against a reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm."

As I reread it I see that it is only talking about having it loaded. I thought it said they had to show a threat of immediate harm to have one at all. That changes my thinking. Still, I don't think that particular language will pass muster because it erects an impossibly high hurdle. I will, however, fess up to having misread it the first time around.

I agree that the "can't have it loaded unless for self-defense" is the issue. That will probably get it stricken.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

seriously, can I file it? I will suggest to NRA friends that they pursue this.

That they can look at the SCOTUS ruling and say that someone can't keep a loaded gun in their home is criminal.

Can you read?

[MikeWaters]

NRA is on the move.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Fe...d.aspx?id=4089

Please consider supporting the NRA.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

unloaded gun is ridiculous. no doubt this mayor has armed body guards, fing hypocrite.

This is why I still think congress will get involved. We'll see. If you take that part out, you have essentially the same laws you have in th surrounding states. I also think the distinction of only allowing revolvers and not, for example, a 9mm is silly and won't hold up. We'll see what congress does.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Levin

Can you read?

I can read and I can f you up in about 5 minutes.

Do you understand what I am saying?

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

NRA is on the move.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Fe...d.aspx?id=4089

Please consider supporting the NRA.

This is exactly as it should be.

A government responding to the wishes of its citizens, while still complying with the dictates of the Constitution as far as they have been articulated. And then people testing the law to see if the Supreme Court wants to say more.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

This is why I still think congress will get involved. We'll see. If you take that part out, you have essentially the same laws you have in th surrounding states. I also think the distinction of only allowing revolvers and not, for example, a 9mm is silly and won't hold up. We'll see what congress does.

Why would Congress act now but leave a complete gun ban on the books for 30 years. Congress won't act, but the people will. They'll bring suits; and I agree with you, that many parts of this law are going to get stricken.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I can read and I can f you up in about 5 minutes.

Do you understand what I am saying?

Exhibit 1,003,345,209 that all you are is a bully. Just a plain and simple bully.

[MikeWaters]

It's a joke and you don't get it. Inside thing. Something between a lawyer here a gay ballet dancer.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

It's a joke and you don't get it. Inside thing. Something between a lawyer here a gay ballet dancer.

I thought you were just being funny too -- just making light of me earlier calling you a bully.