Heller v DC (Heller II) DC District Court decision

maestro_pistolero said:
I'm wondering how a person with more than 12 firearms is more dangerous than a person with one or two. You can only fire one at a time. On the other hand, I hope everybody takes advantage of the law to the fullest extent . . . everybody should buy one gun a month, LOL!
Click to expand...
You carry them all at once, like Blackbeard. Burning cannon fuse in your hair optional.
 
I am with Tom. I expected the judgment to go the way it did, but the choice of how he explained it in the opinion shocks me.

We have all heard the arguments that the 2A means "people serving in an organized militia," or "you do not need a semi-automatic firearm to hunt," but to hear a judge try and limit the actual number of firearms one may own is insane. It would be like them saying that the freedom of speech means that one can only write a book/article that us under 2,000 words or that one can only pray once a day.
 
I have to rank this one right up there with the sc ruling that obamacare is a tax and people can be forced to buy it. I miss the days when I felt that our govt. and judges were honorable.
 
Off on a bit of a tangent but back in the 50s there use to be a poll tax. You had to pay $2.00 in order to vote. As I remember it was struck down because you could not charge a fee for a constitutional right. I can't find it now but I read somewhere in that decision that the District could charge a fee for the registration. Now we pay lots of fees, like for a drivers license, but that is not something that is specifically guaranteed to us in the constitution. I'm guessing someone can point out the error in my thinking but it is something to ponder. I'm also guessing that if it was a valid argument that DC would gladly absorb the cost to keep the registration alive.
 
I thought there wasn't even guarantee of the right to vote, just a guarantee of equality regarding the criteria of registration. If it were just the "right to keep arms" carry licenses would be justified, and if it were the "right to bear arms" the registration of the same would be justified. But it ain't.

TCB
 
So, we have a judge who feels that the Constitution protects our right to "one or two guns", but no more than that....

kind of reminds me of the joke were a guy offers a girl a million dollars to sleep with him. She agrees. Then he offers her a hundred dollars to sleep with him. She gets outraged, and demands "what do you think I am?"

He responds, "madame, we have already established what you are, now we are just haggling over the price..."

:D
 
ShooterDownUnder,

This case is basically a follow-up of the landmark 2008 case, wherein the lead plaintiff, Dick Heller, sues to overturn the DC Council's raft of legislative roadblocks put in place following their loss.

Here is a brief summary article from the Washington Times.
 
From 44AMP: "So, we have a judge who feels that the Constitution protects our right to "one or two guns", but no more than that...."

It's been awhile, but I remember some language in the GCA 1968 that specifically states there's no limit to the number of guns one may own. Maybe he'll find that law unconstitutional. ;):D
 
This sort of foot dragging is not without precedent. In 1954 the Supreme Court outlawed school desegregation with Brown vs Board of Education. Yet a full nine years later, Governor George Wallace vowed "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" and stood in the doorway of the University of Alabama to block entrance to black students.

In the end despite their defiance of the law the gun bigots will fail, just as the race bigots did.
 
It's been awhile, but I remember some language in the GCA 1968 that specifically states there's no limit to the number of guns one may own. Maybe he'll find that law unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Haha, that would be awesome. Unfortunately 18 USC 928 is a severability clause.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top