Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: LEFTISTS GETTING USSC MAD: GOOD FOR FREEDOM

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    From the Washington Times:

    The District government appears to be headed for disaster as it prepares to craft policies to regulate handgun registration and licensing in response to the Supreme Court's decision declaring unconstitutional the city's absolute ban.

    A hearing last week clearly showed that most members on the D.C. City Council want regulations tailored to discourage, to the point of infringement, the ownership of guns. That isn't surprising considering the handgun ban lasted 32 years, but the city's legislative body should get used to the new limits. Any regulations they pass will likely be the subject of a court action if they go too far.

    * * *

    Council members also want to look at a requirement that all handguns undergo a ballistic imprint or gun fingerprinting with the intent of helping solve gun crimes. There is already evidence that this is ineffective.

    The Maryland State Police Forensic Sciences Division, in January 2005, issued a report on that state's gun fingerprint policy calling for its termination. "There have been no crime investigations that have been enhanced or expedited through the use of [Maryland Integrated Ballistics Identification System] MD-IBIS," the report said. "The program simply has not met the expectations and does not aid in the Mission statement of the Department of State Police." It would be foolish for the city to waste the more than $2.5 million our neighbors did on this system."

    I suspect that the D.C. governmentgetting the USSC mad at themcan be GOOD for freedom loving gun owners.

    David

  2. #2
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    I would ask who has the power to remove DC officials from office, as this may be what it takes to get DC to recognize the Supreme Court ruling.....not just in DC but elsewhere, as other areas that have similar laws preventing people from exercising their 2A rights are basically either ignoring or making up excuses as to why the ruling does not affect them. It will take a major shift in leadership to get this situation totally resolved. And these places will be better for it......

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    compmanio365 wrote:
    I would ask who has the power to remove DC officials from office, as this may be what it takes to get DC to recognize the Supreme Court ruling.....not just in DC but elsewhere, as other areas that have similar laws preventing people from exercising their 2A rights are basically either ignoring or making up excuses as to why the ruling does not affect them. It will take a major shift in leadership to get this situation totally resolved. And these places will be better for it......
    Is this of any help ?


    UNITED STATES CODE TITLE 18



    CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I



    CRIMES CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS



    §§ 241. Conspiracy against rights

    If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten,

    or intimidate any inhabitant of any State, ...or District

    in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right

    or privilege secured to him by

    the Constitution or laws of the United States,

    . . . [/b]

    They shall be fined not more than $10,000

    or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;

    and if death results, they shall be subject to imprisonment

    for any term of years or for life.



    §§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

    Whoever, under color of any law, statute,

    ordinance, regulation, or custom,

    willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State,

    Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights,

    privileges, or immunities secured or protected

    by the Constitution or laws of the United States, . . .[/b]

    shall be fined not more than $1,000

    or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;

    and if bodily injury results shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;

    and if death results shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.


  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    We can only hope that their continued, willful infringement and apparent disregard for the Heller decision leads to an immediate smack down from a court.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Yorktown VA
    Posts
    110

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    We can only hope that their continued, willful infringement and apparent disregard for the Heller decision leads to an immediate smack down from a court.
    That would be entertaining. But I submit that it would be even better if the residents of DC would show the local government the door and elect people more cognizant of the inalienable rights of citizens as detailed in our beloved Constitution. Of course after 32 years of infringement I can't imagine anything so appropriate happening.

    Thankfully they are not represented at the national level of politics.

  6. #6
    Regular Member MetalChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    1,215

    Post imported post

    JosephMingle wrote:
    Thankfully they are not represented at the national level of politics.
    People very similar to them will be come Jan '09.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    736

    Post imported post

    Is USSC supposed to mean "United States Supreme Court"??

    If so, they are usually referred to as SCOTUS - [The] Supreme Court of the United States.

    /Really, I'm confused. :?

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    839

    Post imported post

    grishnav wrote:
    Is USSC supposed to mean "United States Supreme Court"??

    If so, they are usually referred to as SCOTUS - [The] Supreme Court of the United States.

    /Really, I'm confused. :?
    Yeah, I thought it was some college until I read the post.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    grishnav wrote:
    Is USSC supposed to mean "United States Supreme Court"??

    If so, they are usually referred to as SCOTUS - [The] Supreme Court of the United States.

    /Really, I'm confused. :?
    Too long; too many letters.

    does not matter what " they are usually referred to as "

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    839

    Post imported post

    Even if you are an incredibly slow typist (20 words per minute), the average English word is 4.5 letters, which translates to 90 Characters per minute. 2 extra letters accounts for a whole 1.5 seconds that you can spend to make your thread title more understandable.

    Yes, you can make up your own acronyms, but it only leads to confusion, misunderstandings, and gives off an appearance of being uneducated. All for the sake of saving 1.5 seconds?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    asforme wrote:
    Even if you are an incredibly slow typist (20 words per minute), the average English word is 4.5 letters, which translates to 90 Characters per minute. 2 extra letters accounts for a whole 1.5 seconds that you can spend to make your thread title more understandable.

    Yes, you can make up your own acronyms, but it only leads to confusion, misunderstandings, and
    gives off an appearance of being uneducated. All for the sake of saving 1.5 seconds?
    I don 't feel a need of giving off an appearance of being educated (tho I was a trial attorney for over 20 years).

    There is no logical reason against reducing the US Supreme Court to its initials.

    When I was in law school, the federal jurisprudenceprofessor never told me that I have to say "SCOTUS".

    David

  12. #12
    Regular Member Prophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    544

    Post imported post

    OmSigDAVID wrote:
    asforme wrote:
    Even if you are an incredibly slow typist (20 words per minute), the average English word is 4.5 letters, which translates to 90 Characters per minute. 2 extra letters accounts for a whole 1.5 seconds that you can spend to make your thread title more understandable.

    Yes, you can make up your own acronyms, but it only leads to confusion, misunderstandings, and
    gives off an appearance of being uneducated. All for the sake of saving 1.5 seconds?
    I don 't feel a need of giving off an appearance of being educated (tho I was a trial attorney for over 20 years).

    There is no logical reason against reducing the US Supreme Court to its initials.

    When I was in law school, the federal jurisprudenceprofessor never told me that I have to say "SCOTUS".

    David
    True...but if i start using supco and expect people to understand that it is the abbreviated form of Supreme court and not a gas station, i would be fooling myself. The vernacular of this board lends itself to SCOTUS being the common usage and as such is better than just any ole willy nilly term you would like to use. 20 years of law and all aside, this isnt so much law related as it is sociology related in regards to the lexicon a group of individuals have assigned meaning too.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    "Supreme Court of the United States" is commonly abbreviated as"SCOTUS" for the same reason "President of the United States" is commonly abbreviated as "POTUS" and "First Lady of the United States" is abbreviated "FLOTUS," although that one is not as common. Seethe followingstory for more information on this form of usage.

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...53C1A961958260

  14. #14
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Chill out guys, it's only an acronym. Who really cares as long as you can figure it out without wasting too much brain power.You can call 'em MIB (Men In Black)for all I care. It appears that about half of 'em are morons, or leftist activist,anyway.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    736

    Post imported post

    I didn't mean to start a big ol' debate, I was just honestly confused.

    To the OP: Would you consider using SCOTUS in the future -- at least around here -- to save us the confusion?

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    263

    Post imported post

    Hopefully they'll get the TSAFTC (Thorvalds Silly Acronym For The Congress) mad at them. Rep Souter has introduced bills (HR 1331 and 1399) to slap down all of DC's gun laws.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Washington, DC USA
    Posts
    175

    Post imported post

    We must remember that the Federal District Court hasn't issuedthe injunction yet that will order DC to stop enforcing the gun ban.The district court willdecide exactly how the injunctionwill be phrased. DC's arrogance could very well work against them.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    143

    Post imported post

    DC. will probably give in to the law. But Iimagine, as history has showed us. The mayor and council will say "let them eat cake". Watch all the city functions go to hell in a hand basket. May not be a bad thing. But they'll use it to prove there ideology. This is good news otherwise and a good step in the right direction.

Posting Permissions

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