Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DC Councilman In Gun Denial
Fox News DC ^ | 7/2/2008 | Self

Posted on 07/02/2008 5:09:02 AM PDT by angkor

About 45 minutes ago, Fox News DC broadcast a live interview with morning anchor Bob Sellers and a DC councilman whose name I didn't get.

During the 2 or 3 minute discussion, the councilman asserted several times that last week's SCOTUS ruling somehow reinforced or supported the city law requiring that gun in the home be "disabled" and equipped with gun locks.

To which Fox's Sellers (who lives in Virginia) kind of shook his head and repeated that assertion as if to ask for clarification. I'm guessing that - like most of us - Sellers understood the SCOTUS ruling to say (as it does,, verbatim) "...the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional." (page 3)

Sellers could definitely have been more aggressive and held this councilman to the mat, but unfortunately the interview remained dithering on the councilman's rambling and incoherent assertion that "disabled with trigger locks" features of DC law were defensible and still operative.

My observation was that Sellers also was astonished by this councilman's gross distortion of the SCOTUS ruling, but that he didn't want to turn the cheery morning show into a hardcore smackdown (which would have been easy). If I'm not mistaken has asked the councilman to clarify his statement THREE separate times, to no avail.

I think think the councilman was Phil Mendelson but am not certain.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; dcban; guns; heller; secondamendment; triggerlocks
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-93 next last

1 posted on 07/02/2008 5:19:19 AM PDT by angkor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: angkor

In a democracy, you get the government you deserve. Guess who this drooling moron will probably support and vote for as POTUS this November!


2 posted on 07/02/2008 5:25:17 AM PDT by Panzerlied ("We shall never surrender!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: angkor

“I think think the councilman was Phil Mendelson but am not certain.”

More than likely.....

“D.C. Council Judiciary Chairman Phil Mendelson will hold a hearing Wednesday on the topic.

“The Supreme Court’s decision last week was regrettable. Nonetheless, it is the law of the land,” Mendelson said.

“We are moving quickly to respond to the Supreme Court as well as protect our regulatory scheme,” he said.”

http://www.nbc4.com/politics/16762530/detail.html


3 posted on 07/02/2008 5:26:03 AM PDT by ButThreeLeftsDo (Let's Get Ready To Donate...............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: angkor
They are all in denial, all the libtard gun grabbers. All of them from the major gun ban cities keep saying they "will fight to keep their bans!", as if somehow a SCOTUS ruling is something you can just take to court and get reversed at the drop of a hat. They can't believe all their lies and machinations over the years have not borne fruit and that the exact opposite of what they thought was going to happen, happened.

As far as DC is concerned, they better wake up because as soon as SCOTUS handed down the ruling the laws in DC banning handguns and requiring dissembling rifles and shotguns were null and void. DC residents can now, right now, go out and buy guns and put their weapons back together and unlock those triggers.

Lawsuits swamping DC are headed their way and fast.

4 posted on 07/02/2008 5:26:23 AM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: angkor
supported the city law requiring that gun in the home be "disabled" and equipped with gun locks.

Why are libs so interested in honest citizens being unable to defend themselves?

5 posted on 07/02/2008 5:26:32 AM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
Why are libs so interested in honest citizens being unable to defend themselves?

because without guns (or big dogs or men in the home)... people feel unprotected and will be more likely to vote for more police control and bigger government to 'protect' them

6 posted on 07/02/2008 5:31:14 AM PDT by sten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
Why are libs so interested in honest citizens being unable to defend themselves?

Because a citizen using a weapon to shoot a criminal is the ultimate act of independence from government.

It flies against every belief they hold dear. To a liberal, a citzen killing a bad guy is on par with how we would view an Aztec cutting out the heart of a baby and offering it to the rain god, Tlaloc.

7 posted on 07/02/2008 5:33:43 AM PDT by Centurion2000 (Beware the fury of the man that cannot find hope or justice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: angkor
The DC Council is lawsuit slap happy. They're going go ahead and do what the U.S Supreme Court said last week they can't do and face a permanent injunction for their abusive contempt of the Constitution.

"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

8 posted on 07/02/2008 5:34:58 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
Check this out libtards: From my cold dead hands.


9 posted on 07/02/2008 5:35:26 AM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: calex59

I’m sure the hardcore reality and implications of the simple assertion that the RKBA is an INDIVIDUAL uninfringeable right has not fully sunk in,

because they have so deluded themselves over the years that THEY were, and should be, in charge of everyone’s lives and livelihoods.

Combine the individual right with a future ruling that some law imposes an “undue burden” on that right, and voila! you get unlimited abortion... er, gun ownership and carry rights.

(Perhaps we can get a court to rule that those who can’t afford to exercise this right should be subsidized by the taxpayer... /sarc)


10 posted on 07/02/2008 5:36:50 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ButThreeLeftsDo

Is this the genius?

http://www.dccouncil.us/mendelson/about.htm


11 posted on 07/02/2008 5:37:17 AM PDT by xDGx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ButThreeLeftsDo

““We are moving quickly to respond to the Supreme Court as well as protect our regulatory scheme,” he said.””

So he’s trying to protect his power base but not the people he supposedly represents.


12 posted on 07/02/2008 5:39:25 AM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000

You got it -

independence from the collective is anathema to a liberal.

Quoting Michele (AAQQTODB)
“Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”


13 posted on 07/02/2008 5:39:37 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: calex59
They can't believe all their lies and machinations over the years have not borne fruit and that the exact opposite of what they thought was going to happen, happened.

Which is why I've thoroughly enjoyed their lamentations this past week. The gun-grabbing libtards brought this SCOTUS decision on themselves. For years, they've lied about the 2nd Amendment so often, they thought they could actually pull it off by the sheer momentum of their deceit. And they almost did.

Thankfully, freedom and liberty won.

14 posted on 07/02/2008 5:41:25 AM PDT by HoosierHawk (Hypocrisy does not apply to liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sten
people feel unprotected and will be more likely to vote for more police control and bigger government to 'protect' them

The constitution was written to ensure that we would have guns to protect ourselves from government but this American Idol dumbed down public school society that we find ourselves drowning in will eventually drag the rest of us into the totalitarian government that the libtards desire.

15 posted on 07/02/2008 5:41:56 AM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

Nice.


16 posted on 07/02/2008 5:42:54 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: angkor

We need to start filing “contempt of Court” and Title 18 Section 241/242 charges against these morons.


17 posted on 07/02/2008 5:47:44 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: angkor
gun in the home be "disabled"

What greater government "infringement" can there possibly be than to disable a citizen's means of defense.

18 posted on 07/02/2008 5:48:46 AM PDT by MosesKnows (Love many, Trust few, and always paddle your own canoe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Had to look it up - but under 241, I found this interesting little tidbit on the punishment for violation:

"[if by the denial of rights] death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death."

19 posted on 07/02/2008 5:51:37 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
Nice.

I haven't ignored the ammo, either.

20 posted on 07/02/2008 5:56:58 AM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-93 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson