Heavy Hitters!

"Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court case decided on December 12, 2000. The case resolved the 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush. Only eight days earlier, the United States Supreme Court had unanimously decided the closely related case of Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board 531 U.S. 70 (2000) and only three days earlier, the United States Supreme Court had preliminarily halted the recount that was occurring in Florida."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

if Prez Bush was appointed (as some seem to think) and not elected, then maybe he can run for a 2nd ELECTED term

dmb wrote:

Hounddog wrote:
The right to bear arms to keep yourself safe from the terrorists and criminals that are coddled by liberals.

Nothing about coddling terrorists but that is a common yet dumb argument. Again, is the right to bear arms even of any use if you don't have habeas corpus? Does that gun protect you from the U.S. government putting you in jail with no representation? No I don't think so. And you, like every news agency in America, don't think that constitutional right (habeas corpus) is even worth mentioning. Just your machine guns.

No what's dumb is applying the US legal system to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield. How easy will it be to get them released with no real trail of evidence??? Will every battlefield have to be treated as a crime scene??? Thanks for making things even harder on our military forces, liberals!

And I was listening to some idiot on Air America today saying that the ruling on guns will result in people having gunfights over parking spaces. Why would that suddenly happen due to this ruling??? Does this guy know anything about gun laws that already exist in many states??? And on Air America, they were not talking about "machine guns", they were talking about a goal of removing handguns and everything else. Oh good, that will leave us defenseless against the criminals. Thanks for that, liberals!!!

Obama: Riding Tall In The Straddle

Gun Rights: Obama claims he believes the Second Amendment says you can own a gun but that local communities can still opt out of the Constitution. What will he say as his political hometown is sued by the NRA?

The National Rifle Association likewise announced plans to file lawsuits in Chicago and several suburbs, as well as San Francisco, challenging laws similar to D.C.'s unconstitutional ban. Only police officers, aldermen and a handful of others are exempt under Chicago's ban, which says handguns are illegal within the city and cannot be registered.

Mayor Richard M. Daley, who never goes anywhere without armed security, called Heller "a very frightening decision." Not as frightening as the fact the murder rate in Chicago has risen 13% this year with the handgun ban in effect.

"How can you reconcile those two different positions?" Harris asked. The right answer is that Obama can't. He mumbled something about conflicting traditions of gun ownership and said: "So there's nothing wrong, I think, with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets."

You're saying much more than that, senator — that you want to take legal handguns out of the homes of law-abiding citizens.

Sen. McCain is a straight-shooter. We'll wait for Sen. Obama to finish his waffle.

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.asp ... 9923843477

Question: Did the murder rate really triple under the Washington, DC, gun ban?

Answer: Yes. The murder rate was 26.8 homicides per 100,000 people in 1976, when the ban became law. That would be its lowest rate for the next 30 years. It peaked at 80.6 homicides per 100,000 people in 1991.

Question: What’s the highest the murder rate has been in gun happy West Virginia in that time?

Answer: 6.9 homicides per 100,000 people.

Answer: Ignorance. These are not ignorant men, they just do not know the facts about DC’s murders. The murders are not committed by the lawful exercise of one’s right to keep and bear arms but rather by a city policy that disarms the people and leaves them vulnerable to the very thugs that King complained about.

UPDATE: I must clarify: Murderers commit the murders — not guns, not policy. Thugs. The policy aids and abets the murderers. Abettors can be held are as guilty as the perp in certain cases.

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2008/06/28/4636/

Judge Advises Crime Victim To Arm Herself After Attack
Moon Says No Longer Possible For Police To Protect Citizens

General Sessions Court Judge Bob Moon said Friday that crime in Chattanooga "has become so rampant that it is no longer possible for the police department to protect our citizens."

He told a woman who had been pulled from her car and beaten in the head that she or her mother needed to "purchase a weapon, obtain a gun permit and learn to protect yourself." The woman moved back in with her mother after the May 4 incident on E. 17th Street.

Judge Moon said, "The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that all citizens have a right to purchase a weapon to defend themselves, their families and their homes - unless there is some disqualification that prevents them from owning a weapon."

Does this sound like a city you know? There is much more about the perp in the article.

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_130537.asp

Supreme Court - Bah Humbug!

DC Rejects Handgun Application

WASHINGTON (WUSA) -- District residents can start registering their guns today. But at least one very high profile application was already rejected.

Dick Heller is the man who brought the lawsuit against the District's 32-year-old ban on handguns. He was among the first in line Thursday morning to apply for a handgun permit.

But when he tried to register his semi-automatic weapon, he says he was rejected. He says his gun has seven bullet clip. Heller says the City Council legislation allows weapons with fewer than eleven bullets in the clip. A spokesman for the DC Police says the gun was a bottom-loading weapon, and according to their interpretation, all bottom-loading guns are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns.

Bureaucrats use massive resistance to whatever they dislike. They are used to controlling and intend to keep control.

http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.a ... &catid=158

D.C. Bans Guns with Red Tape

This is bureaucracy at its finest! The article must be read. There is no way to copy and paste.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archiv ... red_tape_/

ibposing wrote:This is bureaucracy at its finest! The article must be read. There is no way to copy and paste.

Sure there is ...

D.C. Bans Guns with Red Tape

James Joyner | Thursday, July 17, 2008

The District of Columbia has made it legal for residents to own a handgun after being so ordered by the United States Supreme Court. But they’re not making it easy.

The plaintiff in the Supreme Court case that overturned Washington’s strict 32-year-old handgun ban was among the first to arrive as the city started registering firearms. Dick Heller showed up early Thursday at the police department, but he’s still upset with the city even after winning his case. He says its strict new rules for handguns still violate the spirit of the court’s ruling defending the constitutional right to bear arms.

They allow handguns to be kept in the home if they’re used only for self-defense and carry fewer than 12 rounds of ammunition.

Gun owners can only register one weapon in the first 90 days. Police say the permitting process could take weeks or months.

Months? How so? Well, there are some not-so-minor bureaucratic hurdles to clear. There are no gun shops in the District and, as previously reported, zoning regulations preclude gun shops. But there’s a workaround: Residents can buy their guns in another state, so long as they have the proper DC paperwork and have the guns shipped to an authorized DC location. Or, should I say, the authorized location:
Charles Sykes is that licensed dealer, and he’s told WTOP he’s willing to handle the transfer of handguns for residents, just has he has for security companies since 1994. “On a low key basis,” Sykes says. “By appointment.”

Inconvenient, no? You don’t know the half of it.

But Sykes has a problem. He lost his lease and has had to relocate, and the District has refused to issue him the necessary permit to open his new office. Sykes told the Washington CityPaper he thinks the city is withholding his Certificate of Occupancy for “political” reasons. He may be right.

A spokesperson for the D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, which issues the permit, could not say what the status of his application is, or why it was being withheld in time for this report. Vince Gray (D-At-Large), chairman of the D.C. Council, says he wants to make it as hard as possible for gun stores to open. “First of all, I don’t want them anywhere,” Gray says, “but if we’re going to have them, we’ll look at things, like keeping them away from schools and churches.”
No worries, though: They’ve made provisions for illegal guns, just not legal ones:

At 7 a.m. Thursday, the Metropolitan Police Department will open its doors at Headquarters and begin taking applications for permits. If you already own an illegal handgun, you’re in luck. Because of the 90 day amnesty program, you can bring your gun (unloaded and wrapped up) to the police and apply for a permit. If, like most people, you don’t have a gun, you can begin the permit process, but good luck getting a gun. Without a gun store, or someone to transfer the gun, it won’t happen legally.

So, what’s an honest citizen to do? Go back to court, of course. But not on the above issues, oddly.

Under terms of the emergency law, passed earlier this week by the D.C. Council, residents must obtain a city-issued handgun permit and may keep handguns only in their homes for self-defense purposes. The permits require every gun owner to pass a written test and vision exam, submit the weapons for ballistic testing and offer proof of residency.
The provisions still rank as some of the toughest in the nation. But perhaps the most controversial aspect of the law, gun rights advocates say, mandates that gun owners keep their weapons unloaded, disassembled or secured with trigger locks, unless they face a “threat of immediate harm.”

The National Rifle Association has signaled it also will challenge the new D.C. regulation, describing the law as extreme and in “complete defiance of the Supreme Court’s decision.” “The current D.C. proposal requires the complete cooperation of the criminal,” NRA spokesman Andrew Akulanandum. “It would require the criminal to call and tell you when they plan to come and attack you.”


Statehood now!

GUN-SEIZURE LAWSUIT

Will it become necessary to go before the Supreme Court everytime a liberal, leftist, gun hating, fool calls the police? If you called, would the police raid your antagonist's home and steal his proplerty? This is a clear case of abusing her government position. I hope Gabriel Razzano wins, causes her to lose reelection, and puts her on welfare.

An outspoken Long Island gun owner's home was raided by Nassau County detectives, who seized two dozen weapons he lawfully owns just one day after Rep. Carolyn McCarthy's office made a 911 call about him.

Freeport resident Gabriel Razzano claims he was targeted in the spring raid for his "unpopular" political beliefs.

Wait a minute! Is this a First or Second Amendment case?

The flap arose on March 19, when Razzano visited McCarthy's Garden City office to discuss an article about an illegal immigrant who was deported but was later nabbed in Freeport for the attempted murder of a cop.

"The office staff felt that Razzano's behavior was disruptive and threatening," said Lt. Kevin Smith, a police spokesman.

So she got her panties in a wad. Is that a sufficent reason to steal someone's guns?

Razzano's home was raided the next morning.

Is this the future for gun owners across the land? Disagree with a government offical and have your home raided and property stolen?

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07212008/ne ... 120836.htm

Excuse Me While I Get My Gun
Washington, D.C., defies the Supreme Court's Second Amendment ruling.

Last month the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the District of Columbia had violated the Second Amendment by making armed self-defense in the home impractical and banning the most popular weapons used for that purpose. Last week the D.C. Council responded by unanimously approving a law that makes armed self-defense in the home impractical and bans the most popular weapons used for that purpose.

D.C.'s political leaders know they are inviting another Second Amendment lawsuit, but they are determined to defy the Supreme Court and the Constitution for as long as possible.

The new law "clarifies that no carry license is required inside the home" to move a gun from one room to another. It also "clarifies" the District's firearm storage requirements, saying a gun may be unlocked and loaded "while it is being used to protect against a reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm to a person" in the home.

Much hinges on what counts as a "reasonably perceived threat." If you're awakened in the middle of the night by a crash, may you carry a loaded gun with you as you investigate? Evidently not. The Washington Post reports that D.C.'s acting attorney general, Peter Nickles, "said residents could neither keep their guns loaded in anticipation of a problem nor search for an intruder on their property." According to Nickles, if you see an armed criminal charging your home, or in the event of "an actual threat by somebody you believe is out to hurt you," you're allowed to get your gun, unlock it, and load it.

Speaking of registration, the District has established a burdensome 12-step process that involves multiple trips to gun dealers and government offices, fingerprinting, a written exam, and ballistic testing. How long does all this take? "Up to 14 days," according to one police department publication. "Approximately eight weeks," according to another. "There are circumstances where it could take months," says Police Chief Cathy Lanier.

Registration easily could turn out to be so onerous or capricious that it effectively denies D.C. residents the right to keep and bear arms. The District's revised firearm storage requirements are even more clearly unconstitutional, since they unreasonably interfere with the very function, self-defense in the home, that the Supreme Court said is protected by the Second Amendment. Likewise the arbitrary ban on semiautomatic handguns, the most commonly used self-defense weapons.

http://reason.com/news/show/127686.html

Bank customer shoots gunman after robbery

I'll bet the Gazette is upset over this. Look for an article listing all the things that could have gone terribly wrong. Things like a child could have been hit, the bullet could have gone theough the robber and hit a perfectly innocent person, the bullet could have ricocheted and hit a perfectly innocent person, and hundreds of other bad possibilities.

Two bad thjings did happen: The aim of the man who was robbed was slightly off, and the caliber of his gun was too small.

A bank customer shot a robber after an armed confrontation in a Kansas City parking lot Saturday.

The robber was wounded in the head and was in stable condition at a hospital, police said.

http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/731604.html

Way back in this discussion DMB was talking about how owning a hand gun will not keep you from being detained as a terrorist by your own government if the president deems you to be a threat to the country for any reason. The writ of Habeas Corpus being suspended means that the government can hold you without telling you why you are being held.

The original meaning of the 2nd Amendment allowed for the forming of militias to stave off attacks from bandits, rogue military, and native Indians. It was also written to establish militias that became our state National Guard.

I do not need a militia to shoot someone invading my property...I can do that by myself, and I will, legal or not!

thats opinion, LJ. And taking handguns away from law abiding citizens will not stop criminals from using them to commit crimes.

"The original meaning of the 2nd Amendment allowed for the forming of militias to stave off attacks from bandits, rogue military, and native Indians. It was also written to establish militias that became our state National Guard."

Fortunately, neither the founding fathers, 75% of Americans, and five members of the Supreme Court believe that liberal, leftist crap.