Author Topic: Breaking News DC Gun laws struck down (Read 1504 times)

lazs2 · « **Reply #15 on:** March 09, 2007, 02:19:17 PM »

Ok all you bush haters and kerrie lovers who own guns...

Do any of you think the DC court would have the nuts to come up with such a ruling if a kerrie or edwards or hillary was in power?

This is the kind of thing I voted for bush for.

If the supremes are forced into ruling soon... I want to have people on the court who know how to read the constitution and have the nuts to reverse all these years of abuse of the second amendment.

lazs

Halo · « **Reply #16 on:** March 09, 2007, 02:24:01 PM »

Excellent news. It has always been amazing that any locality in the United States, especially the nation's capital, would ever pass legislation in effect disarming its law-abiding citizens.

VOR · « **Reply #17 on:** March 09, 2007, 02:28:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Russian
Hopefully CA is.....I want to buy that evil looking ROMAK

Word.

john9001 · « **Reply #18 on:** March 09, 2007, 03:10:06 PM »

this will be a very interesting two years.

Sox62 · « **Reply #19 on:** March 09, 2007, 06:58:02 PM »

The scary part is what this judge stated.

"Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state."

I consider that remark to be pure evil.

So Karen,does that mean the entire bill of rights should be null and void in the District of Columbia?

Toad · « **Reply #20 on:** March 09, 2007, 07:05:17 PM »

I saw that and thought no one can be that stupid. So I assume she was just against the ruling but didn't want to come out and engage on it.

That's a pretty stupid reason to try to hide your dissent behind, however.

Were her opinion upheld at the SC, think of the holy hell that would break loose in DC when the Court told them they weren't entitled to the protections in the Bill of Rights because of where they live.

I am SO suprised it was the woman judge that wrote the dissent. But you have to admire that reasoning......... in the same way you admire a train wreck.

john9001 · « **Reply #21 on:** March 09, 2007, 07:08:32 PM »

DC should be given back to the state of Virgina.

Toad · « **Reply #22 on:** March 09, 2007, 07:15:19 PM »

I very seriously doubt that Virginia either wants it or would take it if offered.

Maverick · « **Reply #23 on:** March 09, 2007, 07:42:05 PM »

Taking this to a "somewhat" logical extreme, that would mean all 3 branches of the govt. contained in the DC area are not in the US and therefore not bound by the constitution. It would also mean that we would not have redress for their actions.

That would be more than a little scary.

Quote

Originally posted by Sox62
The scary part is what this judge stated.

"Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state."

I consider that remark to be pure evil.

So Karen,does that mean the entire bill of rights should be null and void in the District of Columbia?

FBBone · « **Reply #24 on:** March 09, 2007, 07:47:25 PM »

HOLY $H!T!!!!!! Score one for the LAW ABIDING gun wielding citizens!!!!!! Guess the second ACTUALLY has Meaning!!! woot!

FBBone · « **Reply #25 on:** March 09, 2007, 07:49:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Halo
Excellent news. It has always been amazing that any locality in the United States, especially the nation's capital, would ever pass legislation in effect disarming its law-abiding citizens.

My friend, the surest way to control a population is to disarm it. Whats not to get?

E25280 · « **Reply #26 on:** March 09, 2007, 10:57:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
DC should be given back to the state of Virgina.

Last time I checked, DC is NORTH of the Potomac.

DYNAMITE · « **Reply #27 on:** March 09, 2007, 11:02:18 PM »

Quote

Last time I checked, DC is NORTH of the Potomac.

Yes...yes it is...

But keep this in mind... VA and MD both donated land to form the District originally... but VA asked for theirs back. So John9001... you're kinda right. VA just took it back before it got all fluffied up.

DC was supposed to be diamond shaped...

StarOfAfrica2 · « **Reply #28 on:** March 10, 2007, 02:45:02 AM »

So, theoretical timeline here .........

DC appeals to have the full Appellate court reconsider the ruling (if they decide to review it at all). Give it 6 months before they decide if they will review or not. A year to come to a decision if they do review it.

The arguments are very well thought out and I seriously doubt there is much there that can really BE argued. Not enough to justify the full court overturning the ruling anyway. So I'm assuming the ruling will stand.

Give another 6 months or so for paperwork to be filed and for the SC to decide if they want to review the case or not.

If by some miracle they do decide to hear it, we could conceivably have a SC ruling on this case inside 3 years. Even if the Dems do take the White House in 08, I seriously doubt they could F*** this up before it was done and over if DC continues to appeal.

So really the smartest thing the liberals can do ATM is to drop the case and not appeal it. They cant afford a SC ruling that will find against them, no matter how watered down they might be able to get it. They dont need victory, they just need the status quo. An outright loss would really be damaging to them and they cant afford it.

Its a great time to be alive aint it?

Xargos · « **Reply #29 on:** March 10, 2007, 05:18:35 AM »

I'm still waiting on Charon's reply, he always has something cool to say on this subject.

:cool: