New restrictions for DC gun owners already announced

[OmSigDAVID]

imported post

XD Owner wrote:

RedKnightt wrote:

From the DC Wire blog:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dc/2008/06/dc_attorney_general_all_guns_m.html

required to pass a written test to be sure they understand the city's gun laws, [JUST LIKE THEY NEED TO PASS A TEST TO VOTE OR TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES OR TO PRAY IN A PLACE OF WORSHIP] Nickles said.
At least initially, he added, residents would be limited to one handgun apiece. [SINCE YOU ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ONCE, OR PRAY ONCE OR VOTE ONE TIME]...

Nickles said he did not expect the court to undo the ban on automatic weapons.
One major question, he said, was whether the court would undo the city's trigger lock requirement that all shotguns in homes remain unloaded with locks on the triggers. If the court overturns that provision [THEY DID OVERTURN THAT PROVISION,YOU IDIOT!!], Nickles said, the mayor's office likely would propose new legislation to the D.C. Council that would require that guns remain unloaded [EVEN THOUGHSCOTUS ALREADY SAID THISIT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO REQUIRE FIREARMS TO BE UNLOADED] in the home expect in the case of self-defense.
Handguns would only be allowed in the home, Nickles added, with residents banned from carrying them on the streets or into other buildings [SO THERE WILL BE NO WAY TO TAKE YOUR HANDGUN FROM THE GUN DEALER TO YOUR HOME].

For those folks who already own guns--against current law--[which was just STRUCK DOWN, IDIOT!!] Nickles said the city would offer an amnesty program in which they could come forward and register the gun, assuming it had not been used in a crime.

WHAT AN IDIOT!!

NEED TO PASS A TEST TO OWN A GUN? You don't even need a test to own a car!! You don't need a test to vote. You don't need to passa test to enjoy the other parts of the Bill of Rights, but you need a test to own a gun? That does not pass the constitutionality test!!

ONLY ONE GUN? I wrote letters to the editor more than once a year, but I can have only one handgun IF I lived in DC? Give me a BREAK!

REQUIRE GUNS TO BE UNLOADED? That was just struck down by the Supreme Court, idiot!

BANNED FROM MOVING THEM FROM ONE BUILDING, like a gun dealer or armorer's shop, TO ANOTHER BUILDING (like your home)?? So how will a person be able to legally move a gun from the place of sale to the purchaser's home? Maybe it can just go via the Internet, right?

CURRENT LAW WAS JUST STRUCK DOWN, so how can it be against the law??

I think the next case needs to demand punitive damages for infringement of civil rights. Make Fenty Pay (MFP)!

:monkey

When conflict with our enemies becomes necessary, is it better to have wise, sly and crafty enemies against us? or is it better to fight against idiots ?

David

 

[OmSigDAVID]

imported post

timf343 wrote:

On page 11 of the court's opinion there is the following paragraph, emphasis added:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous,
that only those arms in existence in the 18th century
are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret
constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,
849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,
35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding.
​

So I am puzzled how, with this clear text, DC feels it may still ban semiautomatic handguns.

The more stupid the suppressionists are, the more intransigent the suppressionists are, the more contumacious, the more recalcitrant the suppressionists arethe more defiant the suppressionists are, the better it will be for the side of personal freedom. Let them do their worst.

Let 's see what happens.

David

 

[OmSigDAVID]

imported post

timf343 wrote:

crotalus01 wrote:

Because that faggot Fentay will ignore the law and instruct DC Police to ignore it as well, just like the faggot Naggin in N'Orleans has done :banghead:

Heres some irony for you - Naggin, Daley, Fentay and Bloomberg should all be SHOT as traitors :cuss:



Antis...I will never understand...:banghead::banghead::banghead:

Trying to be objective, I understand antis to a point. They want the same thing I want. To be safe and free to live my life. Tim

I must respectfully dissent, insofar as u attribute to the suppressionists the desire to propagate personal freedom.

My observation of them leads me to believe that thay prefer to subordinate freedom of the individual to dominance by the collective, because of their deeply inherent faith in the collective, as a whole; their position is the ESSENCE OF ANTI-AMERICANISM. Toward that end, thay wish to weaken the individual, rendering him ever more progressivelydependent upon the collective, and uponits henchmen, the police.

Their ideal anwere to every problem is deprivation of some freedom -- the adding of another iron chain upon the body politic, until it falls from the weight and is fully immobile. The issue of freedom of personal defense is pivotal; it is a fork in the road leading to freedom and individualism or to politically correct, docile, subservience.

David