Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Short update on Heller vs DC

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769

    Post imported post

    Sorry about the length, but well worth the read.

    A short up-date on the 2nd Amendment case before the High Court. It looks like the Justices are leaning the right direction. God Bless!!



    D.C. v. Heller; Eyewitness - RIGHT TO LIFE
    Postgame Highlights #1

    [font=Georgia][color=#555555][size=4]
    [font=Arial][size=2]The bottom line is, I think we're going to be OK.

    When Justice Kennedy flat out said he believes in an individual right under the Second Amendment, there were no gasps in the hush of the High Court, but you could tell the greatest stellar array of gun-rights experts ever assembled, all there in that one room, breathed a sigh of relief. We had five votes to affirm the human and civil right to arms.

    The transcript will be a key for analysis going forward until June, when the decision is expected, and I'm working without the benefit of that at the moment. Digesting the fleeting and immensely complex speech that took place for one hour and thirty-eight minutes a few hours ago, it's hard to see how any line of thought could be strung together to support the idea that the D.C. total ban on operable firearms at home can be seen as reasonable regulation, even though Mr. Dellinger, the city's attorney, tried to suggest it was. He was shot down on this repeatedly, found no quarter from any of the Justices, though several found room to move on what amounts to reasonable restrictions.

    And it is easy to see, from the non-stop rapid-fire comments and questions of eight of the Justices (Thomas asked nothing, extending his legendary running silence), how even the most permissive standard of review imaginable for gun-ban laws, could tolerate the District's level of intolerance toward some sort of right to keep and bear arms. That would give the pro-rights side what it so sorely wants - an unambiguous admission that the Second Amendment protects something for "the people," and the rest of that pie can be baked later.

    Dellinger tried to suggest that rifles, shotguns and handguns had different usefulness, actually implying rifles are better for self defense in an urban home, because handguns were so inherently bad or dangerous that cities had a legitimate interest in banning them, but the Court wasn't buying it, and noting that D.C.'s ban banned everything.

    Packed into that short rabidly intense section, the Justices examined:

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769

    Post imported post

    the rest of it (maybe)

    Packed into that short rabidly intense section, the Justices examined:

    Packed into that short rabidly intense section, the Justices examined:



    AW HECK, just go to

    [size=2]http://www.gunlaws.com and search

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    390

    Post imported post

    LOL what kind of moron would use a rifle for self defense in a crowded urban area? If I fended off an intruder with my Mosin Nagant, I'd kil half my neighbors in addition to the perp. Some people.

  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Dr. Fresh wrote:
    LOL what kind of moron would use a rifle for self defense in a crowded urban area? If I fended off an intruder with my Mosin Nagant, I'd kil half my neighbors in addition to the perp. Some people.
    Use the bayonet. Heck you can probably stab the perp to death before they even get near you.

  5. #5
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    Dr. Fresh wrote:
    LOL what kind of moron would use a rifle for self defense in a crowded urban area? If I fended off an intruder with my Mosin Nagant, I'd kil half my neighbors in addition to the perp. Some people.
    Not if you loaded it with soft-point hunting rounds. It would expand and release a good majority of the energy in the perp and likely leave a hole out the back the size of Nevada.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    And then you can use the bayonet?
    :P

  7. #7
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    sv_libertarian wrote:
    And then you can use the bayonet?
    :P
    Well, sure, if you want to back up a couple steps first.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Post imported post

    For scraping the "icky" stuff off your deck...

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran Right Wing Wacko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    645

    Post imported post

    Shoot... I could probably STAB the Neighbor with the Bayonet also!

    I swear the only reason those guns are so accurate is that one can put the end of the barrel on the target 200 yards away

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •