The DC mayor is a POS....

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by Levin

Nothing is going to happen to this DC law or to Fenty. You guys are sounding a little off kilter. I live in the district, and it's being well received by the public and media. And the lines today to pick up a gun permit in the District for the first time in 30 years? Miniscule.

Congress has bigger fish to fry right now, and they're not going to touch this law. The Republicans got their Supreme Court victory, they can go around touting the decision to the electorate saying, "See, if you elect Obama, he's going to appoint justices who will want to take away your guns; we're only one vote on the Court away from that happening." They're not going to get riled up by some DC obstinates. And please, do you guys not realize the DC gun ban was on the books for almost 30 years and Congress did nothing -- there were plenty of Republican congresses during that time if they really cared. They're not going to care now.

This law will be challenged in the courts, as it should be. It will be a great test case to see what the contours of the 2nd Amendment right will be. The Court said nothing in Heller that makes this law out of bounds. The Court said very little in Heller except to say that the right in the 2nd A. was an individual right, and not a collective right, and that our most common gun regulations are just fine.

So in the end, not only are your comparisons to Wallace and desegregation inapt, they're offensive.

Wow, so quick to take offense. Do you toss that word around for every idea or position you disagree with? I would be highly interested in hearing why you consider the analogy to be "offensive".

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Levin

DC leaders are saying, "The Supreme Court said the reason the 2nd Amendment is an individual right is because of self defense. So we will allow you to have guns for self-defense. If an intruder comes into your home, fire away. But you can't take the gun outside your home."

Did the Supreme Court say that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right only for self defense? OR did it say that it is an individual right, period?

I don't recall ever hearing that it is for self defense only.

[MikeWaters]

I just read an article today, that in the past 30 days, every day in Chicago, a kid in Chicago Public Schools has been murdered.

Why do Chicago and DC have such terrible murder rates?

Chicago has the 2nd most stringent gun laws/bans.

They say "well imagine how bad it would be if we DIDN'T ban guns."

In other words, they are morons.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Did the Supreme Court say that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right only for self defense? OR did it say that it is an individual right, period?

I don't recall ever hearing that it is for self defense only.

You're right, it didn't say it was a right only for self-defense. But self-defense was one Scalia's primary rationales for reading the text the way he did. But all the held at the end of the day was that you can't ban the possession of a handgun in the home. That's it and that's all.

The DC governmetn is just testing what they can do, and they are saying they're only going to go inches at a time. Nothing anywhere says they have to do any more than that.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Levin

You're right, it didn't say it was a right only for self-defense. But self-defense was one Scalia's primary rationales for reading the text the way he did. But all the held at the end of the day was that you can't ban the possession of a handgun in the home. That's it and that's all.

The DC governmetn is just testing what they can do, and they are saying they're only going to go inches at a time. Nothing anywhere says they have to do any more than that.

the city attorneys should be disbarred. that will change their minds real quick.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

Wow, so quick to take offense. Do you toss that word around for every idea or position you disagree with? I would be highly interested in hearing why you consider the analogy to be "offensive".

I wasn't offended. If I was black, I would have been. The comparison is offensive. Do you not see why? Then you need to study the racial history in our country again and the South's massive resistance to desegregating. What DC is doing is not even close. And it's not about race; it's about guns.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Levin

They have absolutely not rearticulated the same ban. Many people will own handguns in the District now, whereas before not a single person could. They will just have to get a background and eye check before they do. How is this effectively the same thing?

The bigger issue is that they will only be able to have it loaded for self-defense.

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.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

the city attorneys should be disbarred. that will change their minds real quick.

At the end of the day, all you are is a bully.

You have no idea why attorneys should be disbarred, obviously.

If anything, they should get a raise for being smart lawyers: complying with the Supreme Court's decision, but only as much as they have to, as the citizens they represent wish.

[MikeWaters]

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.

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

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Levin

At the end of the day, all you are is a bully.

You have no idea why attorneys should be disbarred, obviously.

If anything, they should get a raise for being smart lawyers: complying with the Supreme Court's decision, but only as much as they have to, as the citizens they represent wish.

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.