More on Parker

imported post

David Hardy, at his website, www.armsandthelaw.com, has a link to a lengthy debate about Parker at the Federalist Society website. The discussion participants include the Parker attorneys.

Here is the direct link: http://www.fed-soc.org/debates/

Separately, if you get a chance, look through the items on Hardy's website.

imported post

A great read. Thanks Citizen!

imported post

Want a better read? D.C. filed their petition for certiorari this morning. You can get it here. It's good for a few laughs, before you begin slamming your head against the wall. The assertions made are simply laughable!

imported post

I tried to read it. I couldn't. Its as if they were using Cyrillic letters to call up the ghost of Stalin to help their logic. My brainwouldn't process it.:banghead:

imported post

cato wrote:

I tried to read it. I couldn't. Its as if they were using Cyrillic letters to call up the ghost of Stalin to help their logic. My brainwouldn't process it.:banghead:

Click to expand...

It does make a very good argument for banning handguns, while allowing long guns. Albeit, it uses NO logic( not just twisted, but NO logic) in coming to this conclusion.

It asks a simple question: Does banning handguns, while allowing long guns, infringe on the Second Amendment?

If the Supreme Court does hear the case and DOES rule in favor of D.C...

..I'll venture to say that local gun stores will be looking like "Walmart parking lots"

After all.. We're Americans.. If we think something is going to be "banned", we just GOTTA HAVE IT!

imported post

psmartin wrote

It asks a simple question: Does banning handguns, while allowing long guns, infringe on the Second Amendment?

Click to expand...

The question, as presented, tries to make it sound as if these rifles and shotguns that they allow the D.C. residents to keep, are functional as regards the self-defense aspect of the case. We know they are not allowed to keep these guns fully functional and ready to use. This was part of the appellate decision, and will be part of the case, should cert. be granted.

Whatever else we may think of the individual Justices, they are not fools and will not suffer D.C. to make them appear as such.

imported post

It's interesting that they would make the case, though, that handguns are more dangerous than rifles and shotguns, particularly shotguns. To me, it would make more sense for a criminal who is performing an attack to use a 12-gauge shotgun: very powerful, doesn't require as much accuracy, little to no ballistics evidence, and much easier to get. Hell, if I could legally carry a sawed-off shotgun for self-defense, I'd prefer that.

imported post

Allen wrote:

psmartin wrote

It asks a simple question: Does banning handguns, while allowing long guns, infringe on the Second Amendment?

Click to expand...

The question, as presented, tries to make it sound as if these rifles and shotguns that they allow the D.C. residents to keep, are functional as regards the self-defense aspect of the case. We know they are not allowed to keep these guns fully functional and ready to use. This was part of the appellate decision, and will be part of the case, should cert. be granted.

Whatever else we may think of the individual Justices, they are not fools and will not suffer D.C. to make them appear as such.

Click to expand...

I appears more as a "compromise".. Currently ALL functional firearms are banned, from the reading of their press releases, it appears that if "we"(or the Supreme Court) allow them to continue the ban on handguns, they would consider allowing functional shotguns and rifles in the home. (Probably with $1000 per year automobile-like licensing, registration and insurance)