Maverick9
Regular Member
See her new piece on Sen F. getting the Chief to let her have illegal weapons. Today's Washington Times.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Emily Miller outs Diane F.
- Thread starter Maverick9
- Start date
JamesCanby
Activist Member
I don't fault Feinstein other than for her making an illegal request. I absolutely fault Lanier and the City Attorney for being complicit in providing -- even importing -- firearms that DC has deemed to be illegal to possess. This is even more egregious than failing to prosecute David Gregory for breaking DC law by possessing a 30-round magazine.
ETA: Here's Emily's editorial: http://ht.ly/pE1EI
Last edited:
JamesCanby
Activist Member
Please cite where a responsible court has declared DC law to be unconstitutional, keeping in mind that Heller only overturned that portion of DC law that made keeping a handgun in one's home illegal.
It might be that in your opinion the DC laws against possessing certain classes, makes or models of firearms outside one's home are unconstitutional, but until a competent court makes that ruling your opinion is just more spitting into the wind.
Last edited by a moderator:
davidmcbeth
Banned
I disagree. Our rights are not subject to a vote. Even by guys wearing robes.
Do you have the right to breath? No court has said so and none need to.
JamesCanby
Activist Member
Inane sophistry. No legislature has created a law that denies your right to breathe.
It may be your opinion that the DC law is unconstitutional -- and I may agree with you about that -- but neither your nor my opinion makes that a fact.
How about you trotting on down to DC from Connecticut and be the test case by bringing your fully loaded AR or AK with you. Once you have been arrested, arraigned, tried and convicted, and from your prison cell, you file an appeal based on unconstitutionality. After the DC Circuit denies your case and you appeal to the SCOTUS and they overturn the ruling (being optimistic here), you may still be young enough to once again exercise your right to keep and bear arms outside your home in DC.
Last edited:
EPA has ruled
You should be aware the EPA has ruled that your exhaled breath is composed of CO2, which it deemed a pollutant and will be enforcing laws to reduce emissions. The EPA would probably not stop you from breathing - that will be HHS and the IRS, who are enforcing Obamacare and the death panels - they'll have access to your medical records and if you breathe too much, they can recommend not giving you expensive medicine or medical procedures you might need to keep living in the future.
You should be aware the EPA has ruled that your exhaled breath is composed of CO2, which it deemed a pollutant and will be enforcing laws to reduce emissions. The EPA would probably not stop you from breathing - that will be HHS and the IRS, who are enforcing Obamacare and the death panels - they'll have access to your medical records and if you breathe too much, they can recommend not giving you expensive medicine or medical procedures you might need to keep living in the future.
va_tazdad
Regular Member
Feinstein, one of America's 535 best
Example of an elected lying idiot with Rectal Cranial Insertion Disorder. She has plenty of company in DC.
Funny how the laws she doesn't like "don't apply" to her. If you or I did that we would have been charged and incarcerated.
Example of an elected lying idiot with Rectal Cranial Insertion Disorder. She has plenty of company in DC.
Funny how the laws she doesn't like "don't apply" to her. If you or I did that we would have been charged and incarcerated.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Two wrongs do not make a right, and it could never be "egregious", or wrong, to not charge someone for something like this. It is (and remains) wrong to have charged anybody else in the first place.
Do not succumb to petty reprisal, otherwise you lose your rightful moral high horse.
Last edited:
DocWalker
Regular Member
This is my favorite part of your comment and the most amusing I might say. Can you please site a "competent court" for me I find them all to be far from competent.
JamesCanby
Activist Member
^^^ Useless, inane reply to the use of a legal term. And it's "cite," not "site."
Last edited:
JamesCanby
Activist Member
We should all be equal under the law. What is illegal for all must not be ignored for some just because they have celebrity.
I do not disagree that the law should not exist, but while it does anyone who violates that law should be charged regardless of their celebrity, station or position in life, and surely the "authorities (in this case, Lanier) must not abet an unlawful act simply to curry favor with the powerful.
Maverick9
Regular Member
Thanks for linking this up. I was on my way out the door and wanted to get it up.
So who spent a late night out drinking 200 proof vodka?
carolina guy
Regular Member
In the spirit of Bill Clinton...all one would have to do is "not exhale" to remain legal, imo.
jegoodin
Newbie
If the weapons were the property of or at least in the custody of the DC police and merely on display while they remained in their control, what law was broken?
Is it known for a fact that the weapons were just handed over by the police and that a police officer was not present?
Is it known for a fact that the weapons were just handed over by the police and that a police officer was not present?
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Wrong.
jegoodin
Newbie
in the spirit of bill clinton...all one would have to do is "not exhale" to remain legal, imo.
lol
davidmcbeth
Banned
Inane? :lol::lol:
Also, I would not be arrested. Why should I be? I have have handguns etc in DC before w/o incident.
See, I live in America ...
It's their opinion that its illegal, not mine. They are wrong. I don't need guys in robs telling me that. And I sold hundreds of handguns to folks in Chgo when they had their anti-handgun laws. Look, I'm still free...
When I have issues I consult my legal firm of Smith & Wesson.
Prosecution via bad laws benefits no one.Originally Posted by JamesCanby
I do not disagree that the law should not exist, but while it does anyone who violates that law should be charged...
If we would defend a pro-gunnie for inadvertently having one piece of spent brass in his cup holder because he had no ill intent, so to must we extend the hand of fairness to all.
Thundar
Regular Member
The DC Court of Appeals in Otis Jackson v. United States.
Link: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...6103&q="bear+arms"&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=2,49
Last edited:
DocWalker
Regular Member
Thanks for the english lesson, I will be sure to put spelling and grammer errors in all my post from now on as to stroke your ego as an english teacher. I hope you feel better about yourself.