sv_libertarian
State Researcher
imported post
The suspense is killing me!
The suspense is killing me!
I'm single. All big presents are for me and me alone! Bwwaahhaahhhaaa!!!!They are saving the best for last. Just like that big christmas present for your kid.
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 yearamlevin wrote:I'm single. All big presents are for me and me alone! Bwwaahhaahhhaaa!!!!They are saving the best for last. Just like that big christmas present for your kid.
I always buy myself a Christmas present. I put it under the tree and tag it To: Daddy From: Daddy. :lol:sv_libertarian wrote: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 yearamlevin wrote:I'm single. All big presents are for me and me alone! Bwwaahhaahhhaaa!!!!They are saving the best for last. Just like that big christmas present for your kid.
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.rysa wrote:I always buy myself a Christmas present. I put it under the tree and tag it To: Daddy From: Daddy. :lol:sv_libertarian wrote: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 yearamlevin wrote:I'm single. All big presents are for me and me alone! Bwwaahhaahhhaaa!!!!They are saving the best for last. Just like that big christmas present for your kid.
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.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?
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.
That's sucker bet. They alluded to that greatly during the arguments.5$ says they rule DC's ban unconstitutional, but say 'reasonable' regulation is OK.....(registration,licensing,etc)
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.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?
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.uncoolperson wrote: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.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?
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.5$ says they rule DC's ban unconstitutional, but say 'reasonable' regulation is OK.....(registration,licensing,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.joeroket wrote: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.uncoolperson wrote: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.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?