TexasCHLforum.com

Before I had to go run errands (cruise the pawn shops for guns) DC's mayor was on Fox. He was talking about what DC was going to do about complying to the court's decision.

I heard (paraphrasing):

The ruling does not eliminate the ability of DC to ban "automatic and semi-automatic" handguns.

I assume he means that only revolvers will be allowed.

Handguns must be registered with DC Police before they are allowed in residences.

and

This ruling only allows possession of handguns in the home. Handgun possession outside the home is will still be illegal.

Maybe it is just me, but if I know the antis like I suspect I do, the Heller decision is just a start. The whole DC ruling elite including the PD will do everything in their power to circumvent the SC decision.

The citizens of DC still have a long row to hoe. I expect several more lawsuits will be required before any acceptable degree of handgun/firearm ownership will happen.

Of course, let us not forget that today's decision did not and never will affect the thugs, bangers, hoods, and other scum that have firearms in spite of the law,

IMHO, the first event that we can jointly celebrate will be when a DC resident uses his lawfully purchased, and registered firearm to erase a BG in self defense.

Anygunanywhere

DParker wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:Dude, lighten up.

The quote I posted from the decision did not reference any case law. I was merely refuting Herb's post where he said I was wrong.

Take a chill pill.

Anygun

Did I give the impression that I was upset about something? I just asked a simple question. No need to get all wound up in order to tell someone else who isn't to calm down.

Hard to tell intent or attitude in just words.

DParker wrote:Are you reading the same decision as the rest of us?

Didn't sound like a simple question to me. I am not often asked something so obvious in a kidding manner.

To answer your question, then, yes I am reading the same decision as the rest of you.

Anygunanywhere

Kalrog wrote:

You mean sighting case law like this:

In Nunn v. State, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a prohibition on carrying pistols openly (even though it upheld a prohibition on carrying concealed weapons).

Hey, I never claimed to be the sharpest knife in the drawer. I do not make a living in law books. I just posted what I read.

Anygunanywhere

DParker wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:The court did not cite any case law. This is where I believe that OC is protected and CC is not.

It didn't cite any case law? Are you reading the same decision as the rest of us?

Dude, lighten up.

The quote I posted from the decision did not reference any case law. I was merely refuting Herb's post where he said I was wrong.

Take a chill pill.

Anygun

HerbM wrote:

DC v Heller, majority opinion wrote:...Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, con-
cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues.

I believe that this is what I said in a post yesterday, Herb.

HerbM wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote: ...
MOst states made concealed carry illegal. SCOTUS ruled a long time ago that concealed carry is not protected. I think the ruling would have to go that OC is protected.

...
Anygun

There is no such US Supreme Court case or decision.

Tomorrow's Heller is almost with any precedent -- although there is Miller and some other dicta mentions of the 2nd Amendment, there isn't anything that controls on the RKBA. Miller is defective -- this was always easy to see because it is used by both sides (no one can really say what Miller says with any certainty).

The court did not cite any case law. This is where I believe that OC is protected and CC is not.

Anygunanywhere

This emphasizes the importance of electing McCain in November. We must maintain the status of the court.

I thought I would gag when I wrote that though.

Anygun

[/reality]
[fantasy]

What really should have happened was the nine justices shaould have all hit everyone on the DC side with a big rubber hammer up-side their head and told them to read the second amendment because it says "shall not be infringed" and declared all infringements unconstitutional.

That is the way the supreme court in my world would work.

[reality]
[/fantasy]

**sigh**

Anygunanywhere