BREAKING NEWS — Divided three-judge D.C. Circuit panel holds that the District of Columbia’s gun control laws violate individuals’ Second Amendment rights
By: Pam On: Mar/9/07 - 6 Comments
This ruling will play a key role in future cases. Keep your eye on this post for updates, as InstaGlenn’s an expert.Â
Allahpundit says: “Say what you want about Bush vis-a-vis Reagan, but early indications are his justices will prove on balance to be a lot better than the Gipper’s. Scalia notwithstanding.”
March 9, 2007 - 03:35 PM on March 9th, 2007
Excellent, and as it should be. Cops executing a “no-knock” gestapo-style home raid should get their asses blown away by a legal gun-toting grandma.
March 9, 2007 - 05:21 PM on March 9th, 2007
And maybe they should also declaie the GUN CONTROL ACT OF 1968 and the BRADY GUN LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS WELL:cool:
March 9, 2007 - 05:34 PM on March 9th, 2007
[...] HotAir, Right Voices, and Ace [...]
March 9, 2007 - 09:05 PM on March 9th, 2007
I’d be happy if they’d just overturn the portions of the McClure Volkmer Act of 1986 that bans the importation or manufacture of selective fire and automatic weapons. Not that I really need a submachine gun, but I’d love to get my hands on a WWII vintage Thompson M1 submachine gun just to be able to own such an important piece of history. I was going to buy one from my 1985 tax return but the law went into effect before my refund arrived and drove the prices well out of my budget. What was running $500 (plus $200 nonrefundable tax stamp) before the law is now over $28000. What was a week’s pay is now over 9 month’s worth. Same thing goes for the British Sten guns and the Vietnam Era Mac-10s. All historical items. There are others as well that I’d like, but I’m not one to spend thousands of dollars for something that I would use so infrequently.
BTW for those who are going to scream about people not needing automatic weapons, the facts are that since they started registering them in the mid 30s, only once has a LEGALLY owned fully automatic weapon been used by the owner to commit a crime. Now the illegally owned ones are an entirely different story. But then again, if a criminal is going to commit a violent felony, does anyone really believe that a law against owning a particular weapon is going to stop him? Isn’t the definition of a criminal, someone who breaks the law? The term “Outlaw” comes from the old English meaning someone who chooses to live outside of the law. BTW that also meant that since they weren’t willing to abide by the law, they weren’t protected by it either.
As for the Police conducting “Gestapo” like raids, wasn’t it the CLINTON justice department that shot a 14 yr old, and his mother (Vicki Weaver and her son) over a trumped up sawed off shotgun charge? Conducted an idiotic raid on the Branch Davidians that ended up in a standoff that killed over 80 people? AND sent in a SWAT team to insure that a 6 yr old was shipped back to his father in CUBA with no evidence of an intent to resist the pending court order?
July 20, 2007 - 11:11 PM on July 20th, 2007
[...] Right Voices, Ace, and Sweetness & Light. « Fort Rich soldiers rescue Iraqis from torture house, [...]
July 20, 2007 - 11:43 PM on July 20th, 2007
[...] Right Voices, Ace, and Sweetness & [...]