No one really knows where Nobama stands on the 2A, but we can be sure any appointments he makes will result in setbacks.
Posted on 07/22/2008 12:36:48 PM PDT by neverdem
In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the District of Columbia's highly restrictive ban on guns is unconstitutional. The ruling was anticipated across the nation. It was the first time the Court made a direct judgment about the right of individuals to keep and bear arms since the adoption of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. One would think that under these circumstances the D.C. government would get the message. Not a chance. The Washington D.C. City Council lives in its own world.
In a unanimous vote, the Council refused to repeal the handgun ban. Instead, it created a new exception under which the handgun ban does not apply to a person who seeks to register a pistol for use in self-defense in the home. According to the National Rifle Association (NRA), D.C. still forbids its residents to own a handgun for protection of a business, for sport shooting, and for other lawful purposes for which citizens own guns everywhere else in the country.
One of the items the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional was the requirement that guns have a trigger lock because such locks bar the use of a firearm for self-defense in the home. So what does the post-Heller D.C. Council do? It permits the gun to be assembled, loaded, and unlocked only "while it is being used." I guess the only lawful way to put the gun together, load it, and unlock the trigger is if someone breaks in and points a gun at the victim. But what if the intruder shoots first? What if the victim does not have time to put the gun together for use? This is utter nonsense.
The Attorney General for the District anticipates lawsuits about this new ordinance. I certainly hope so. The Supreme Court said it is unconstitutional to ban a whole class of weapons which overwhelmingly is chosen by Americans for lawful self-defense. But the Council has outlawed, through its new definition, virtually all semi-automatic handguns, which comprise about 75% of all handguns sold in the United States in the past twenty years.
The D.C. City Council has imposed a very burdensome system of gun registration. Only a handful of states have any registration and none has a system as complicated as that of the District. There is a solution to this tyranny. Congress can pass H.R. 1399, the "District of Columbia Personal Protection Act." The bill, which is supported by the NRA and has 247 co-sponsors, would repeal the D.C. handgun ban and the storage requirement which prohibits keeping a firearm ready for self-defense in the home, two of the provisions found to be unconstitutional in the Heller decision. Moreover, it would repeal the D.C. registration system, which is burdensome in its own right and serves as a vehicle for even more restrictions and skewed definitions. H.R. 1399 would restrict the D.C. Council's authority to impose undue restrictions upon residents' Second Amendment right. It also would repeal the ban upon semi-automatic firearms, conforming the District's law to federal legislation. It would repeal various restrictions on ammunition and the District's "Strict Liability Act," which allows manufacturers of certain types of guns "to be held strictly liable in tort, without regard to fault or proof of defect."
The problem is that time is short in this Congress. There may be enough time for a discharge petition to bring the bill to the floor of the House of Representatives. But in the Senate 60 votes are needed to move anything. The NRA vote count currently stands at 55. The leadership in both chambers opposes H.R. 1399. The NRA wants it passed while there is still a President in office who will sign it. Unfortunately, it appears as if the courts, rather than the legislature, will have the last word on the D.C. legislation. That is not how it should be.
If for some reason Mayor Fenty or a member of the D.C. Council of Tyrants is suddenly faced with a late night intruder that blows their gun-grabbing brains out, we’ll see rapid changes taking place.
For the elite leadership, anyway.
Meanwhile, the peasants can go back to carrying clubs and baseball bats around in their home for protection, while the criminals will laugh their asses off.
I swear they're just like teen-agers.
But after all is said and done, it's us, the voters who are responsible for any mess we're in. I hate to admit it, but these people hold their offices at our pleasure. Granted, individual voters have done everything they can to change the course, but in the end there are more voters who will sell their votes to the highest bidder. They are fed upon by politicians that will sell their soul to the highest bidder.
Nothing goes on forever, good or bad. If we don't get the will to get these people out of office they will sooner or later drive us into the ground and then a new round can start grubbing their way up the power ladder.
Pro-Second Amendment legislation will not pass in a congress dominated by the left. Neither will leftists meekly submit to rulings from the courts. The only way to get leftists to bow to anything they oppose is to remove them from office or make the threat of removal so real that they have to act against their agenda in order to remain in power (and so “live to fight another day”).
I think they are just afraid of being proved wrong by falling crime stats when the population becomes armed.
With next year’s Obama appointments to the court, the Supremes will revisit District of Columbia v. Heller and find the Second Amendment is no longer part of the Constitution.
No one really knows where Nobama stands on the 2A, but we can be sure any appointments he makes will result in setbacks.
The left will not “obey” the courts. They have spent decades constructing the courts as their personal branch of government. If a ruling is in conflict with their goals, they will simply balk and consider it a fluke of no serious consequence. The left owns the courts. The courts were left’s path to rapid installation of an agenda that would have been impossible to legitimately achieve through legislation and support from voters. A contrary ruling is a motivator to the left to increase control over the courts—remember, the left was only one vote from erasing, in effect, the 2nd amendment human right from the Constitution.
There is insufficient public pressure to demand the left comply with contrary court rulings. The left knows it is in the driver’s seat and can do what it pleases. The situation for American freedom is far more dire than it may first appear. The legislative and judicial branches have no real loyalty to the Constitution, the concept of freedom, or even to basic human rights. Soon, there will be no voice whatsoever for the average citizen. Especially tragic in this process has been the shift away from the rule of law to power by a few leftist activists placed in strategically important positions in the courts. Representative government replaced with government by individuals. This is a very important lesson from the Heller decision aftermath. Those Americans who believed the Constitution and its affirmation of freedoms mattered should now see that this is no longer true.
And, you pay dearly for it.
Do you really think they put that much thought into it? Seriously, I’m not sure they are capable of doing that kind of thinking. I cringe every time I see one of them on TV. They are so ignorant and they all have the same line.
My guess is that he's against it, but he is also soft on crime, especially from the traditionally disadvantaged classes, because of his economic/Marxian view of just about everything. That gives you a double whammy: stricter regulation of the law abiding, but easy treatment of gun using criminals.
Of course, he'll obfuscate that position by talking about hunters, and since Heller (but not before) self-defense, but that's while the election is still in doubt.
DC can’t govern itself.
Now that we’ve finally got “the people” defined, it’s time to work on the definition of “infringed”. Taxes, waiting periods, registrations, licenses, limits on numbers, etc., all constitute infringements.
......., governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” ..........it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Thomas Jefferson, 1776.
At least 16 people were wounded when a Palestinian Arab resident of eastern Jerusalem drove a massive tractor from a construction site and rammed into a bus, four cars and pedestrians.
The attack was halted when an armed civilian and a border policeman shot dead the terrorst.
HURRAH for the armed citizen!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=70271
Come November, it is imperative that he be kept out of the WH. Here’s hoping something dramatic will happen to turn the tide. ;)
I believe Obama is being reasonably truthful when he says he's always believed the Second Amendment exists to protect individuals. He knows what the Second Amendment is about, perhaps better than most Republicans. That's why he wants to undermine it.
Michelle Obama in Denver: Barack is candidate of change
"I wish we had time to be divided," she said. "I wish we had time to be upset. To be angry. To be disappointed. I wish we did. Because if we had time for that, then things wouldn't be so bad right now. Instead, we're in a place where another four or eight years of the world as it is will devastate the life of some child."
Scold Sister or Sister Scold Ya?
GUN-SEIZURE LAWSUIT Congresswoman McCarthy from Long Island, NY drops a dime on local gun owner.
Deny the HIV to AIDS connection and you'll be attacked, crushed, and ruined
From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Thanks for the ping!
All too often that is the case, but in this instance the highest court in the land has spoken - correctly, for once - and it's the City Council that believes it should have the final say. Hopefully DC's lawful residents - if in fact there are any - will spit right in the Council's face, just as the latter has done with the Court. When the politicos try to harass them for defending themselves, may they get laughed right out of town (permanently!).
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.