Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 37

Thread: Well Heller will by out by Thursday...

  1. #1
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    The suspense is killing me!

  2. #2
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    They are saving the best for last. Just like that big christmas present for your kid.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    333

    Post imported post

    If SCOTUSblog.com is to be believed, the court has said they are releasing all three remaining decisions on Thursday at 10a Eastern. Less than 24 hours to go.

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

    Post imported post

    amlevin wrote:
    They are saving the best for last. Just like that big christmas present for your kid.
    I'm single. All big presents are for me and me alone! Bwwaahhaahhhaaa!!!!

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    77

    Post imported post

    sv_libertarian wrote:
    amlevin wrote:
    They are saving the best for last. Just like that big christmas present for your kid.
    I'm single. All big presents are for me and me alone! Bwwaahhaahhhaaa!!!!
    lucky, im at the level of sox and dress shirts now....with 4 kids you'd think the creativity would be higher. I swear im buying myself a sig for christmas this year

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    rysa wrote:
    sv_libertarian wrote:
    amlevin wrote:
    They are saving the best for last. Just like that big christmas present for your kid.
    I'm single. All big presents are for me and me alone! Bwwaahhaahhhaaa!!!!
    lucky, im at the level of sox and dress shirts now....with 4 kids you'd think the creativity would be higher. I swear im buying myself a sig for christmas this year
    I always buy myself a Christmas present. I put it under the tree and tag it To: Daddy From: Daddy.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    rysa wrote:
    sv_libertarian wrote:
    amlevin wrote:
    They are saving the best for last. Just like that big christmas present for your kid.
    I'm single. All big presents are for me and me alone! Bwwaahhaahhhaaa!!!!
    lucky, im at the level of sox and dress shirts now....with 4 kids you'd think the creativity would be higher. I swear im buying myself a sig for christmas this year
    I always buy myself a Christmas present. I put it under the tree and tag it To: Daddy From: Daddy.
    I use the to "Dad from Santa". This way they know I bought it but there is no proof that will stand up in court, even her court. Besides would anybody doubt that Santa wouldn't give me a present? I'm always on the good boy list.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bellingham, ,
    Posts
    608

    Post imported post

    I just told the wife, "hey, your getting this for me for christmas... as i got off the phone setting up the purchase"

    she told me i had to wrap it though.

    ..... so i went and bought a holster!

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    157

    Post imported post

    What impact does this case have on the current laws in this state if they strike down the DC law? Could it be applied to the situation in say, Seattle where they want to make it illegal to carry in parks?

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Izzle wrote:
    What impact does this case have on the current laws in this state if they strike down the DC law? Could it be applied to the situation in say, Seattle where they want to make it illegal to carry in parks?
    No because in this state we have a higher protection of rights, plus preemption. In this case the higher protection of rights would be applicable.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    157

    Post imported post

    gotcha, so really it wont affect anyone in washington as the laws stand now

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    But depending on how the ruling is worded and the scope that is encompasses, providing it is in our favor, it could cause any future federal firearm ban to be unconstitutional.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    71

    Post imported post

    I am so anxious...

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bellingham, ,
    Posts
    608

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    But depending on how the ruling is worded and the scope that is encompasses, providing it is in our favor, it could cause any future federal firearm ban to be unconstitutional.
    or possibly (overreaching here) do something about the full auto thing, which could with the hand of a few legislators and a good lawyer or two do something about washington's restrictions on types of firearms.


    does anyone else here really want to cut down a tree with an m-60, or is it just me?

  15. #15
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    5$ says they rule DC's ban unconstitutional, but say 'reasonable' regulation is OK.....(registration,licensing,etc)
    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    TechnoWeenie wrote:
    5$ says they rule DC's ban unconstitutional, but say 'reasonable' regulation is OK.....(registration,licensing,etc)
    That's sucker bet. They alluded to that greatly during the arguments.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    uncoolperson wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    But depending on how the ruling is worded and the scope that is encompasses, providing it is in our favor, it could cause any future federal firearm ban to be unconstitutional.
    or possibly (overreaching here) do something about the full auto thing, which could with the hand of a few legislators and a good lawyer or two do something about washington's restrictions on types of firearms.


    does anyone else here really want to cut down a tree with an m-60, or is it just me?
    That would be great but there is no way in hell they are going to touch that with a 50' pole. If they did that it would basically be an end to banning any "arm" that is used in the military.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    390

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    uncoolperson wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    But depending on how the ruling is worded and the scope that is encompasses, providing it is in our favor, it could cause any future federal firearm ban to be unconstitutional.
    or possibly (overreaching here) do something about the full auto thing, which could with the hand of a few legislators and a good lawyer or two do something about washington's restrictions on types of firearms.


    does anyone else here really want to cut down a tree with an m-60, or is it just me?
    That would be great but there is no way in hell they are going to touch that with a 50' pole. If they did that it would basically be an end to banning any "arm" that is used in the military.
    Not if they define "bear" as any weapon that can be carried and deployed by one person. Then you don't have to worry about nukes, etc.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    TechnoWeenie wrote:
    5$ says they rule DC's ban unconstitutional, but say 'reasonable' regulation is OK.....(registration,licensing,etc)
    I disagree. The 2nd is the only one of the ten that says, "shall not be infringed" which by that wordings means no restrictions can be applied.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    Dr. Fresh wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    uncoolperson wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    But depending on how the ruling is worded and the scope that is encompasses, providing it is in our favor, it could cause any future federal firearm ban to be unconstitutional.
    or possibly (overreaching here) do something about the full auto thing, which could with the hand of a few legislators and a good lawyer or two do something about washington's restrictions on types of firearms.


    does anyone else here really want to cut down a tree with an m-60, or is it just me?
    That would be great but there is no way in hell they are going to touch that with a 50' pole. If they did that it would basically be an end to banning any "arm" that is used in the military.
    Not if they define "bear" as any weapon that can be carried and deployed by one person. Then you don't have to worry about nukes, etc.
    The Justicestalked about it during the questioning phase and the inference was that if shall not be infringed is in fact the actuallymeaning then the NFA is unconstitution. Besides that law has never prevent one BG from using a machine gun when he felt like it.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Dr. Fresh wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    uncoolperson wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    But depending on how the ruling is worded and the scope that is encompasses, providing it is in our favor, it could cause any future federal firearm ban to be unconstitutional.
    or possibly (overreaching here) do something about the full auto thing, which could with the hand of a few legislators and a good lawyer or two do something about washington's restrictions on types of firearms.


    does anyone else here really want to cut down a tree with an m-60, or is it just me?
    That would be great but there is no way in hell they are going to touch that with a 50' pole. If they did that it would basically be an end to banning any "arm" that is used in the military.
    Not if they define "bear" as any weapon that can be carried and deployed by one person. Then you don't have to worry about nukes, etc.
    You ever hear of a battlefield nuke? Carried and shoulder fired by a single person.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    Dr. Fresh wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    uncoolperson wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    But depending on how the ruling is worded and the scope that is encompasses, providing it is in our favor, it could cause any future federal firearm ban to be unconstitutional.
    or possibly (overreaching here) do something about the full auto thing, which could with the hand of a few legislators and a good lawyer or two do something about washington's restrictions on types of firearms.


    does anyone else here really want to cut down a tree with an m-60, or is it just me?
    That would be great but there is no way in hell they are going to touch that with a 50' pole. If they did that it would basically be an end to banning any "arm" that is used in the military.
    Not if they define "bear" as any weapon that can be carried and deployed by one person. Then you don't have to worry about nukes, etc.
    You ever hear of a battlefield nuke? Carried and shoulder fired by a single person.
    Read the Federalist Papers, it says that the Founding Fathers meant for everyone to have a militarily compatible weapon. In this day and age that would be M-16, m-4, AKs, FAL, etc. So SAWs and other heavier weapons would be included. Besides has no one here never seen an M-16 with an M-40grenade launcher mounted?

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Arlington, Washington, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    Need to get myself a 10/22.

  24. #24
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    nofoa wrote:
    Need to get myself a 10/22.
    Like the one in the bottom of this pic? Or more vanilla? :P



  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    Now that's a purdy pic! I have an actual Winchester Model 77 .22LR built in the late 60's. Only an 8 shot mag, but still loads of fun and super accurate!


    Attached Images Attached Images

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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