Posted on 07/15/2008 10:20:10 PM PDT by Christopher Lincoln
It is equally amusing to think of police officers arriving at the home of some resident who happens to shoot an intruder pressing the homeowner as to how they got the drop on the thief when they had to take the gun out of its case and remove the trigger lock with the criminal being unaware. If the resident explains that the gun was loaded and ready to fire, are they going to be prosecuted for being prepared?
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I don’t see anything amusing either, but, it would probably happen.
** “As for unenforceable requirements: Any notion that the city is going to be able to enforce a requirement that guns in the home be unloaded, under lock and key and with a trigger lock engaged is laughable.” **
Their stupidity is beyond humor but dangerous. HOW indeed can these...strike that: how did these lunatic libs get to their positions in the first place?
The lawsuits are not over. If a firearm is not in a state to be readily used, the owner really doesn’t have a meaningful “right to keep and bear.”
Good question. And the answer is: probably. Considering the high crime rate in D.C. we should be finding out before long.
In DC??? Absolutely! The crime of having a gun that can actually be used is far more heinous than burglary or murder or all those other society-caused things. Conscious self-defense is even worse and deserves the harshest penalties.
Unfortunately it will turn on the words “keep and bear” which obviously do not contemplate “use.”
Aside from the legally impossible to enforce standard of storage of firearms, the DC law includes the unconstitutional seizure of evidence as every firearm must be submitted for ballistics evidence. The vision test is likely not supportable under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as this is the licensing of a right, not a privilege. The fees, and the testing, also probably is unconstitutional as well.
The Democratic Party has repeatedly proved that it sides with the criminal elements, domestic and international and against law abiding, normal citizens.
Birds of a feather.....
"Use" notwithstanding,
How does one bear weapons that are not assembled? That's not bearing arms, it's bearing a box of parts.
That clearly violates the wording of the 2nd Amendment. They basically went from violating 'keep' to violating 'bear', and it will fail on the same grounds.
Our nation's capitol is a trash heap, with panhandlers and thugs everywhere. Even the churches have thick steel bars on the windows and everyone knows that walking the streets at night can be dangerous, maybe fatal (my son and his wife were robbed at gunpoint there). The streets are potholed and crimes pile up every night without very much hope that the criminals will ever be discovered, much less punished.
Nonetheless, the fierce scowls on Mayor Fenty's and his police chief's faces are for those terrible people that believe that they should have the right to defend themselves from the madness outside their doors.
We should be ashamed.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Owning a gun should bring the same responsible requirements as driving a motor vehicle - a written test in tandem with a required operational safety test.From a strictly nit-picky POV I'd say, "WRONG!"
To keep and bear arms is a right. To operate a motor vehicle on the public highways is a privilege. You don't get a license to exercise a right.
A tad more practically, I like the Virginia approach where adult can carry openly nearly anywhere, but concealed carry requires a permit which requires evidence of some kind of edumication.
Learn these phrases:
1. My ninja-stealth training
2. On weekends I train in speed load and shoot competitions
3. The heavy insulation in the walls of my bedroom were put there for a reason {wink, wink...}
4. Sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug...
5. Good question, can you submit that in writing to my lawyer?
6. The dog did it? Puppy Boot Camp finally paid off! (high five)
7. Well, you see officer, since your gift. works so hard to strip me of my right to defend myself, and we both know that police rarely deter crime, but rather respond to it once it happens, I've taken it up on myself to think, plan and prepare within the law to not be a victim in a circumstance exactly like this. It kinda went like this.. "what's that noise?" Thumb opens guncase in the dark, hand slides in, pulls weapon through soft lines opening so no noise, safety comes off since round was chambered...grab tactical maglight next..creep on suspect, hit him in the eyes with a 16LED maglight in the pitch dark, he raises a hand gun, I FEAR FOR MY SAFETY and hit him center-mass with 4 slugs in such a tight group the local gun range wants to dedicate a wing of their shot to your practice targets....
In other words, owning a gun and not being an expert is about as stupid as buying an indy car and asking the local valet to be your driver.
Actually the definition of “bear” is to posess and use. So the ammendment is giving rights to keep, posess and use. Very wise to insure that we have the right to posess and keep that are separate rights.
It is a stretch but worse stretches will fuel many ACLU type court cases in the future.
If these folks are truly principled liberals then the lives and safety of the criminals are far more important considerations than the lives, safety, and possessions of law-abiding citizens. Criminals are from oppressed minorities or had bad childhoods i.e. society made them that way. Law abiding citizens are obviously oppressors. They are the society that made the criminals “that way” and are ipso facto guilty. Thus the criminals are actually innocent and merely acting as they are forced to by oppressive society. This is pretty basic to the thinking liberal worldview.
Given how successful the government has been in persuading us that our fundamental right to travel freely on public roads is actually a "privilege," I wouldn't be surprised if in 100 years owning a gun is also reflexively considered a "privilege" by government-educated adults, the Second Amendment notwithstanding.
My response to the article:
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/artic...
Robert Ellis
***
In the good old days of segregation in the American South, every barrier was put in the way of black Americans who attempted to exercise their constitutional right to register as voters. For example, the usual barrier was a literacy test, which, given the general low standard of education, most blacks failed.
One day a black professor turned up at the courthouse to register. The literacy test was no problem for him, so he was asked a number of complicated questions on state constitutional law, which he could also answer. To stump him, he was given a piece by German philosopher Emmanuel Kant to translate, and when he could do that he was given a piece by Voltaire, which he could also translate. Finally, he was given the front page of a Chinese newspaper and asked to explain what it said. “No problem,” he replied. “It says I ain’t gonna vote today.”
***
It took decades for our nation to finally wipe the stain of Jim Crow laws from the books. Let’s hope that Mayor Fenty’s 21st-Century Jim Crow for gun owners won’t take as long to dismantle.
I hope these idiots keep poking the judges in the eye until they find their gun laws subject to routine judicial review and scrutiny (similar to the ongoing Voting Rights Act scrutiny of election regulations in jurisdictions that got caught trying to retain Jim Crow racial disenfranchisements) for the next few decades.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.