PDA

View Full Version : Anyone read this yet?


truthseeker
03-31-2010, 7:40 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/30/lott-john-gun-controll-dc-handgun-ban/

vantec08
03-31-2010, 7:46 AM
It is my sincere hope that McDonald et al finally smash this nonsense for-freakin-ever.

Wing Nut
03-31-2010, 7:59 AM
Just did, and I agree with it.

Untamed1972
03-31-2010, 10:05 AM
Last September, a Washington Post reporter, Christian Davenport, found out just how difficult it still is to get a handgun in D.C. even after the Supreme Court struck down the city's handgun ban. Excluding the price of the gun, the reporter spent $558.69 in various fees to get through the approval process. But that was only part of the cost. It took him "a total of 15 hours 50 minutes, four trips to the Metropolitan Police Department, two background checks, a set of fingerprints, a five-hour class and a 20-question multiple-choice exam."

That sure sounds like a hell of an infringement to me!

truthseeker
03-31-2010, 10:31 AM
That sure sounds like a hell of an infringement to me!

EXACTLY!!

PatriotnMore
03-31-2010, 10:42 AM
The real question here is, does this read like a Right, or a Privilege? That's rhetorical, the answer is obvious.

Once again, the people are having their Rights, and the Constitutional guarantees taken from them clearly in violation of the Constitution, and replaced with regulations which reduce them to a privilege, unacceptable.


That sure sounds like a hell of an infringement to me!

markw
03-31-2010, 11:01 AM
Haha, this is what you'll get with CCW if you want requirements to CCW. Yeah, we'll give you requirements. Yes, you can CCW, but you first must complete steps 1-100, and pay XX dollars.

JDoe
03-31-2010, 11:04 AM
Haha, this is what you'll get with CCW if you want requirements to CCW. Yeah, we'll give you requirements. Yes, you can CCW, but you first must complete steps 1-100, and pay XX dollars.

And if history repeats itself those minorities who are less equal than others will fail at step 100 which is to guess the number of marbles in the mason jar.

dustoff31
03-31-2010, 11:12 AM
It is my sincere hope that McDonald et al finally smash this nonsense for-freakin-ever.

I'm not sure that it will. McDonald will incorporate the 2A against the states. Heller was specifically directed at DC. That should have been all the judge needed to know in order to rule properly.

After McDonald, why do I believe that we will be reading the same stories with the only difference being CA, NY, MA, etc. substituted for DC?

Pixs
03-31-2010, 11:57 AM
Howdy Folks,

I wounder just how the SC justices feel about Judge Ricardo Urbina and his understanding of reasonable regulation. I'm just saying; maybe it will get spelled out in McDonald. One can only hope.

Best to all,

Pixs:TFH:

Untamed1972
03-31-2010, 12:29 PM
Howdy Folks,

I wounder just how the SC justices feel about Judge Ricardo Urbina and his understanding of reasonable regulation. I'm just saying; maybe it will get spelled out in McDonald. One can only hope.

Best to all,

Pixs:TFH:


I think this Judge Urbina guy sounds like a total idiot!

But as you say....perhaps a case like this will give the SCOTUS a nice opportuinity to really start defining "reasonable restrictions". Cuz I dont see how anyone could read the section of the article I quoted earlier and think that sound like reasonable restrictions / not infringements.