Maverick9
Regular Member
See her new piece on Sen F. getting the Chief to let her have illegal weapons. Today's Washington Times.
I don't fault Feinstein other than for her making an illegal request. I absolutely fault Lanier and the City Attorney for being complicit in providing -- even importing -- firearms that DC has deemed to be illegal to possess. This is even more egregious than failing to prosecute David Gregory for breaking DC law by possessing a 30-round magazine.See her new piece on Sen F. getting the Chief to let her have illegal weapons. Today's Washington Times.
Well the ban is unconstitutional. She should have brought in her own firearms however.
--Moderator edited quote--
Please cite where a responsible court has declared DC law to be unconstitutional, keeping in mind that Heller only overturned that portion of DC law that made keeping a handgun in one's home illegal.
It might be that in your opinion the DC laws against possessing certain classes, makes or models of firearms outside one's home are unconstitutional, but until a competent court makes that ruling your opinion is just more spitting into the wind.
I disagree. Our rights are not subject to a vote. Even by guys wearing robes.
Do you have the right to breath? No court has said so and none need to.
Do you have the right to breath? No court has said so and none need to.
I don't fault Feinstein other than for her making an illegal request. I absolutely fault Lanier and the City Attorney for being complicit in providing -- even importing -- firearms that DC has deemed to be illegal to possess. This is even more egregious than failing to prosecute David Gregory for breaking DC law by possessing a 30-round magazine.
ETA: Here's Emily's editorial: http://ht.ly/pE1EI
This is even more egregious than failing to prosecute David Gregory for breaking DC law by possessing a 30-round magazine.
"competent court"
This is my favorite part of your comment and the most amusing I might say. Can you please site a "competent court" for me I find them all to be far from competent.
Two wrongs do not make a right, and it could never be "egregious", or wrong, to not charge someone for something like this. It is (and remains) wrong to have charged anybody else in the first place.
Do not succumb to petty reprisal, otherwise you lose your rightful moral high horse.
I don't fault Feinstein other than for her making an illegal request. I absolutely fault Lanier and the City Attorney for being complicit in providing -- even importing -- firearms that DC has deemed to be illegal to possess. This is even more egregious than failing to prosecute David Gregory for breaking DC law by possessing a 30-round magazine.
ETA: Here's Emily's editorial: http://ht.ly/pE1EI
You should be aware the EPA has ruled that your exhaled breath is composed of CO2, which it deemed a pollutant and will be enforcing laws to reduce emissions. The EPA would probably not stop you from breathing - that will be HHS and the IRS, who are enforcing Obamacare and the death panels - they'll have access to your medical records and if you breathe too much, they can recommend not giving you expensive medicine or medical procedures you might need to keep living in the future.
I do not disagree that the law should not exist, but while it does anyone who violates that law should be charged...
in the spirit of bill clinton...all one would have to do is "not exhale" to remain legal, imo.
Inane sophistry. No legislature has created a law that denies your right to breathe.
It may be your opinion that the DC law is unconstitutional -- and I may agree with you about that -- but neither your nor my opinion makes that a fact.
How about you trotting on down to DC from Connecticut and be the test case by bringing your fully loaded AR or AK with you. Once you have been arrested, arraigned, tried and convicted, and from your prison cell, you file an appeal based on unconstitutionality. After the DC Circuit denies your case and you appeal to the SCOTUS and they overturn the ruling (being optimistic here), you may still be young enough to once again exercise your right to keep and bear arms outside your home in DC.
Prosecution via bad laws benefits no one.
Please cite where a responsible court has declared DC law to be unconstitutional, keeping in mind that Heller only overturned that portion of DC law that made keeping a handgun in one's home illegal.
It might be that in your opinion the DC laws against possessing certain classes, makes or models of firearms outside one's home are unconstitutional, but until a competent court makes that ruling your opinion is just more spitting into the wind.
^^^ Useless, inane reply to the use of a legal term. And it's "cite," not "site."