Mike Stollenwerk's video testimoney to DC Council re Ensign amendment last night (7 APR 09)

Mike · Apr 8, 2009

imported post

go to http://oct.dc.gov/services/on_demand_video/channel13/april2009/04_07_09_STATEHOOD.asx

Start time hack 3.04.50 for my panel start (Brady Bunch speakers lead off).

Start time for my testimony: 3:16:40

Panel then stayed up there for a while council members made anti-gun statements and asked me weird questions about prostitution in Nevada.

Quote of the night: "How do you feel Mr. Ramsey . . . when you have to compete against groups like the NRA [and] OpenCarry.org . . . to try to get as much of a level playing field as you can?" - DC At Large Council Member Michael Brown at time hack 03.39.50.

Mike Stollenwerk
co-founder, OpenCarry.org
& DC Gun Rights Examiner for The Examiner.com

ChinChin · Apr 8, 2009

imported post

I love the councilmen's comment about how it is "extreme" to have an outsider try to govern them.

He doesn't take into account the RIFE corruption and city mismanagement which populates the first 5 minutes of local news at least once a month, if not more.

Last night it was the DC DMV inspectors taking bribes to pass DC taxis. Previously it was the city controller’s office and the embezzlement of millions of dollars.

It's obvious to all but them that they need outsider's to govern them given the half-baked job they do of governing themselves. Illinois has nothing on the District when it comes to political corruption and mismanagement.

Get your own house in order; THEN you may be indignant on being able to govern yourself.

IanB · Apr 8, 2009

imported post

Ok... Why should DC be allowed to regulate prostitution but not guns? Answer is simple: Prostitution is not a constitutionally protected right, gun ownership is.

IfAmerica creates a amendment stating "The rights of the people to pay for sex shall not be infringed" I would also support prostitution preemption for DC as well.

Also, his belief that Stollenwerk does not pay taxes to DC is FALSE. Every US citizen pays taxes to the treasury.Congress then allocates at LEAST several HUNDRED million dollars to DC as part of the yearly "District of Columbia Appropriations Act".

And what's up with Mendelson's beef with semi-automatic shotguns? No problems with semi auto rifles, but shotguns are bad? What gives with that?

Smurfologist · Apr 8, 2009

imported post

Mike wrote:

go to http://oct.dc.gov/services/on_demand_video/channel13/april2009/04_07_09_STATEHOOD.asx

Start time hack 3.04.50 for my panel start (Brady Bunch speakers lead off).

Start time for my testimony: 3:16:40

Panel then stayed up there for a while council members made anti-gun statements and asked me weird questions about prostitution in Nevada.

Quote of the night: "How do you feel Mr. Ramsey . . . when you have to compete against groups like the NRA [and] OpenCarry.org . . . to try to get as much of a level playing field as you can?" - DC At Large Council Member Michael Brown at time hack 03.39.50.

Mike Stollenwerk
co-founder, OpenCarry.org
& DC Gun Rights Examiner for The Examiner.com

Eight (8) against one (1) is not fair (smile)!!:cuss:You held your own, Mike!!:celebrateYou hang in there and keep up the fight.

Maybe one day, everyone will be able to protect themselves inside and outside of their homes! The council members (in my opinion) need to understand that there are guns in the District already that are being used for criminal purposes. Since 1974, guns have been banned in the District and there were still murders with guns!!!:banghead:THEY DO NOT GET IT!!!:banghead::banghead::banghead:That Mr. Brown was dumbfounded when you told him that you wanted his kids to have the right to carry guns (to make them the same......paraphrasing, of course).

Stay the course, Mike! You're DA Man!!

The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1787!!:X

Citizen · Apr 8, 2009

imported post

I like your style, Mike.

I also like that you introduced the political elements about critical mass, and we'll be back.

I wonder if there is any utility in pointing out the ridiculous disconnect between claiming a basic right to congressional representation, yet denying a basic human right to self-defense, or burdening it so much as to discourage its exercise.

And, I wonder if a little plain speaking might not be useful. A little bit of, "Lets be honest here, you all want congressional representation not for the people of DC but for your own political power."

Smurfologist · Apr 8, 2009

imported post

Citizen wrote:

I like your style, Mike.

I also like that you introduced the political elements about critical mass, and we'll be back.

I wonder if there is any utility in pointing out the ridiculous disconnect between claiming a basic right to congressional representation, yet denying a basic human right to self-defense, or burdening it so much as to discourage its exercise.

And, I wonder if a little plain speaking might not be useful. A little bit of, "Lets be honest here, you all want congressional representation not for the people of DC but for your own political power."

+1!!

The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1787!!:X

Notso · Apr 8, 2009

imported post

I'm not at all familiar with how things work in DC, but I'm wondering how much(if any)of my federal taxes goes to supportthe district'sinfrastructure - money that would(or at least should)go away if they became a state.

And also, what part of 'criminals will have guns anyway' don't they understand?

Smurfologist · Apr 8, 2009

imported post

Notso wrote:

I'm not at all familiar with how things work in DC, but I'm wondering how much(if any)of my federal taxes goes to supportthe district'sinfrastructure - money that would(or at least should)go away if they became a state.

And also, what part of 'criminals will have guns anyway' don't they understand?

That's just it, THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND!!:banghead::banghead:IMHO, the DC Council equates criminalswith law-abiding citizens. In their discussions, they do not distinguish between the two, which is not fair to us law-abiding citizens!!

There is so much that Mike could have said. It is regrettable that he only was given three (3) minutes to do it. The fact is that the DC Council could care less about what he says.........I am just glad that he said it in the manner that he did and he made it clear that the fight will continue (at least that is how I understood him)!:celebrate

The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1787!!:X

demnogis · Apr 8, 2009

imported post

It seems to me that the main points of the Panel's arguments (against RKBA) hangs on:

1) DC's right to institute regulation as a "state" under their own home rule.

2) 2nd amendment only applies to self defense.

3) Mike was not a resident of DC and therefore should not have a valid opinion.

4) Gun control reduces violence.

I don't see any of these, logically, as valid argument points.

Smurfologist · Apr 8, 2009

imported post

demnogis wrote:

It seems to me that the main points of the Panel's arguments (against RKBA) hangs on:

1) DC's right to institute regulation as a "state" under their own home rule.

2) 2nd amendment only applies to self defense.

3) Mike was not a resident of DC and therefore should not have a valid opinion.

4) Gun control reduces violence.

I don't see any of these, logically, as valid argument points.

My sentiments exactly!

The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1787!!:X

NightOwl · Apr 8, 2009

imported post

I can already see that holding off on commenting till the end is more than I can bear. Ms. Chen sounds completely off her rocker. Every single sentence she says is so...out there. "We cannot be complicit in this attempt to pass laws for our own protection and safety". What the...? "Yet, we're told, as the price of possibly getting voting rights we're required to give up that protection". Is she...aware she's in the USA? Has she everheard ofthe Constitution? I'm flabbergasted by everything she had to say. If any of you skipped past it, give her a listen, she's the first person after Mr. Brown opens up the discussion. She thinks that the post Heller laws are reasonable!?

Mike, yourrestraint is far greater than mine. I would have been standing up yelling at her for being looney right off the bat. These people...they all seem to want the perks of an actual state, yet don't want to have to stick to the Constitution...anyhow, thanks for posting this video, after seeing these people I can only start seriously considering contacting my congressmen/senators and advising that they deny statehood to this bunch of...people, since they're clearly out of touch with reality.

ghostrider · Apr 8, 2009

imported post

NightOwl wrote:

I can already see that holding off on commenting till the end is more than I can bear. Ms. Chen sounds completely off her rocker. Every single sentence she says is so...out there. "We cannot be complicit in this attempt to pass laws for our own protection and safety". What the...? "Yet, we're told, as the price of possibly getting voting rights we're required to give up that protection". Is she...aware she's in the USA? Has she everheard ofthe Constitution? I'm flabbergasted by everything she had to say. If any of you skipped past it, give her a listen, she's the first person after Mr. Brown opens up the discussion. She thinks that the post Heller laws are reasonable!?

Mike, yourrestraint is far greater than mine. I would have been standing up yelling at her for being looney right off the bat. These people...they all seem to want the perks of an actual state, yet don't want to have to stick to the Constitution...anyhow, thanks for posting this video, after seeing these people I can only start seriously considering contacting my congressmen/senators and advising that they deny statehood to this bunch of...people, since they're clearly out of touch with reality.

I believe it is Ms. Cheh. It's hilarious that she would even have the audacity to quote Patrick Henry when her intent is to strip citizens of their rights.

It's nothing but a power grab.

oilfieldtrash11 · Apr 8, 2009

imported post

why no semi auto shotguns? they are awesome for dove hunting......

either way, the gun shoots the bullet, it doesnt matter what weapon it is, it will shoot the bullet. if they take guns away, people will build zip guns, i just dont think that they know enough about guns to really make a good case, if they knew about guns, they would realize they all do the same thing.

edit- i love the way the room was silent when you told him that you want his kids to have the right to carry and own firearms. his points made no sense, the brady campaign was talking about common sense laws and mike, you have more common sense than every one of those people testifying in that room. i like how they say you basically slapped the people of D.C. in the face, when really all they did all night was slap you in the face.

CARRY ON MIKE!

Dianosis · Apr 9, 2009

imported post

nakedshoplifter wrote:

Ok... Why should DC be allowed to regulate prostitution but not guns? Answer is simple: Prostitution is not a constitutionally protected right, gun ownership is.

Took the words outta my mouth. And to Mr Mendelson, if I had the choice betweenyour ideas of safety& security, or my freedom, I'll take my freedom thank you.

DanM · Apr 9, 2009

imported post

NightOwl wrote:

Mike, yourrestraint is far greater than mine. I would have been standing up yelling at her for being looney right off the bat.

The calmness that Mike displayed--putting out the facts,sitting back to let the officials make fools of themselves with everything they said, and answering only direct questions with short, sensible answers--actually does far more to highlight anti-gunner'slooniness than being verbally confrontational with them.

There is an old truism in the arena of public discussion/debate: if your opponents are falling down, simplystep back and get out of the way. I'm sure Mike realized how foolish those guys sounded to any reasonable person and he simplylet themtake themselves down instead of being verbally confrontational and going down with them in the eyes of sensible folks.

Most of the time, letting fools be fools without dignifying their foolishness with a response is the most effective thing you can do.

Mike · Apr 9, 2009

imported post

oilfieldtrash11 wrote:

why no semi auto shotguns? they are awesome for dove hunting......

Can you expand on this? Last time I hunted it was with my dad using a pump action 20 guage for hunting for pheasnats in PA.

What states let you use semi-auto shotguns for hunting and for what game? Slugs for deer?

And what sports use semi-auto shotguns?

I will be following up my comments to the DC City Council with a memo as soon as I have some time.

Mike · Apr 9, 2009

imported post

oilfieldtrash11 wrote:

why no semi auto shotguns? they are awesome for dove hunting......

Can you expand on this? Last time I hunted it was with my dad using a pump action 20 guage for hunting for pheasants in PA.

What states let you use semi-auto shotguns for hunting and for what game? Slugs for deer?

And what sports use semi-auto shotguns?

I will be following up my comments to the DC City Council with a memo as soon as I have some time.

IanB · Apr 9, 2009

imported post

Mike wrote:

What states let you use semi-auto shotguns for hunting and for what game? Slugs for deer?

And what sports use semi-auto shotguns?

Kansas:
http://www.kdwp.state.ks.us/news/Hunting/Hunting-Regulations

Deer

Legal shotgun for deer - 20 gauge or larger, using only slugs.

Migratory birds:

Bow and arrow, falconry, or shotgun no larger than 10-gauge. Shotguns shall not be able to hold more than three shells.

Turkey:
http://www.kdwp.state.ks.us/news/Hunting/Hunting-Regulations/Turkey/General-Information

Legal Equipment: Shotguns 20 gauge or larger using shot sizes 2-9; long, recurve or compound bows

Sports:

Trap: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap_shooting

Semi-autos are popular due to the low recoil and versatility because they can be used for singles, handicap, and doubles

Skeet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeet_shooting

Many shooters of American skeet and other national versions still use inexpensive semi-auto and pump action shot guns with great success

Clays:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sporting_clays

Although the sport is challenging, it is quite popular with novice shooters and ordinary hunters. While many shooters opt for expensive double-barreled shotguns, the game is equally enjoyable with an inexpensive pump-action shotgun or autoloading (semiautomatic) shotgun.

IanB · Apr 9, 2009

imported post

Closer to D.C. here are VA's regulations off the DGIF site:

http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/hunting/regulations/general.asp

No restrictions on shot size except for spring gobbler season when it is unlawful to have any shot in possession larger than number 2 fine shot while hunting.
Shotguns must not be larger than 10 gauge.
Unplugged shotguns are legal for hunting non-migratory game.
Shotgun barrels must be at least 18 inches long.
Shotguns with rifled barrels are permitted in areas where slugs may be used.
All game birds and animals, except deer, may be hunted with shotguns from boats. Hunters must have permission from the landowner to hunt/ retrieve game located on private land.

Mike · Apr 9, 2009

imported post

OK, let's focus on the semi-auto shotghun issue - are semi-auto shotguns banned for hunting in many or most states? i need some kind of link proving semi-autos are generally legal to use in hunting.

Mike Stollenwerk's video testimoney to DC Council re Ensign amendment last night (7 APR 09)

Site Co-Founder

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Site Co-Founder

Site Co-Founder

Regular Member

Regular Member

Site Co-Founder