I’m so excited about the possibility of owning a gun! In D.C., only the criminals and cops have guns. We law-abiding residents just have to take our chances. The following was posted on my blog on March 9, the day……

Fantastic news for several reasons:

* Residents of crime ridden Washington D.C. can now more easily own the means to defend themselves

* If D.C. residents use guns to defend themselves, we should see the usual drop in violent crime and ho…

Oh wait; I’m saving that rant for another topic.

I hope so, the people’s republic of Kalifornia has a ridiculous ban on the black rifle. And while I don’t favor AR’s for airsofting; this would allow me to finally get a HK91 that I’ve always wanted (no “pistol grips” in the PRCal)!

Molon Labe!!!!!

liquidflorian on March 9, 2007 at 9:31 PM

Take a look at the new Barrett Model M468 based in the new 6.8 Remington SPC that is going to replace the M-16. I saw it demonstrated on the Discovery Channel the other night and was very impressed. Of course the California Legislature will probably try to ban it too.

I want my tank!

Ok, but where will you park it?

Now New Yorkers should sue to get rid of their un-Constitutional Sullivan laws.

The only proper concept of gun control results in HLOT.

That would be an amusing story, to be sure.

I am frequently boggled by the inane arguments that come out of the controller’s mouths, and rarely does the debate last more than a few minutes (or posts). The history of individual disarmament is crystal clear.

The most boggling thing is the refusal to realize that, whether or not you WANT to be responsible for your own safety in the face of a world full of risks, you still have to face those risks.

We in Western civilization tend to forget the history of brutality that is human history. We are the same kind of people who sacked Rome, the same kind of people who tore out the heart of their victims by the thousand in South America, the same kind of people who tortured and killed by the millions in our bloodiest wars.

We have proven that we can control those forces of human nature – but we must come to grips with the fact that not everyone chooses to do so. Attempting the inculcate the desire for self-control is the process we call “Civilization.”

Yes, I said process. Civilization isn’t a thing you possess, it’s a process you undertake. The reward for self-control is a society where freedom is possible. Without the reward, what motive is there to undertake the process?

No freedom, no peace. It’s not a threat, it’s an observation.

Wait a minute?

If the Second Amendment grants an individual the right to own a weapon, does the fourteenth amendment (incorporation doctrine) render all state and local gun control laws (ie. background checks, assault weapons bans, ect..) unconstitutional?

I hope so, the people’s republic of Kalifornia has a ridiculous ban on the black rifle. And while I don’t favor AR’s for airsofting; this would allow me to finally get a HK91 that I’ve always wanted (no “pistol grips” in the PRCal)!

Molon Labe!!!!!

Better hurry, Rack Grade M1s are all that’s left….
I’d rather have a new one anyway.

TexasDan on March 9, 2007 at 2:46 PM

Heaven forfend!!!!

georgej on March 9, 2007 at 5:21 PM

Good post georgej, it sounds like you are very well informed on this issue, I wish more Americans were. Our Founding Fathers gave us a wonderful with the The Bill of Rights, but without the Second Amendment, it’s just words on a piece of paper. Jefferson said it best….

When the government fears the people, you have liberty. When the people fear the government, you have tyranny.

Thomas Jefferson, Third U.S. President, Declaration of Independence — principal author

Not just a constitutional right, but a pre-constitutional NATURAL RIGHT, baby. Thomas writes the majority.

see-dubya on March 9, 2007 at 11:50 AM

“…the right of the people…” to celebrate! Yeah buddy.

This is bad news for the Dem hopefuls. They will be all asked about this and, for them, the answer is a no win.
TheBigOldDog on March 9, 2007 at 2:04 PM

Sadly, I think you’re incorrect. It’s a win with their base: “The other day I was talking with Jim Brady from his wheelchair…” “This will make it so much harder to enforce sensible gun restrictions…” “You must elect us so that a Republican President cannot put another justice on the Court who will make it impossible for you to walk down any street in America safely…” This ignorant crap almost writes itself.

Uh, the court said it is an INDIVIDUAL right, not a collective right.

If the Second Amendment grants an individual the right to own a weapon, does the fourteenth ammendment (incorporation doctrine) render all state and local gun control laws (ie. background checks, assault weapons bans, ect..) unconstitutional?

It does in the 1st and 5th US Districts (see Emerson), both of whom have upheld the “standard model” interpretation. But it opens the door to overthrow all gun bans, particularly “assault weapon” bans nation wide if it ss not overturned by the USSC.

Does it invalidate all gun control laws in those 2 districts? Nope. However, laws requiring gun lock or secure storage at all times, “registration” laws that effectively ban handguns like in Chicago, gun and bullet “taxes,” or others laws that prevent lawful ownership of guns are likely to now be struck down in the 5th and 1st districts.

It would not necessarily overturn registration laws, background checks, laws prohibiting felon ownership, Firearms Owners ID cards, waiting periods, and so on. In fact, I think it unlikely that registration laws will be affected unless they are shown to be “back-door” prohibition, as the DC ban was.

The 9th District’s rulings that the 2nd is a “collective right” are now threatened as well, especially if the Supreme Court upholds the 1st district.

No doubt this case will be used in the other districts as precedent, including the 9th, though appellate rulings are not BINDING on other districts. Appellate judges are influenced by decisions in other distructs, thought not bound by them until the USSC hears them and rules on them.

But the biggest damage this ruling has to the liberals (particulary Schumer, Durbin, McCarthy, and Pelosi) is to the revived “AW” ban being considered in Congress, as it upholds the idea that the Militia’s need to have weapons suitable for fighting war cannot be infringed.

It means that laws that block semi-auto ownership (such as the proposed bill) or that prohibit guns firing “military calibers” (i.e., 9mm or 5.56mm, 7.62mm, .50BMG caliber, etc.) are going to be under direct challenge because the ruling directly refers the the Militia and their arms.

Does it mean you can go out and buy artillery, machine guns, or other crew-served weapons systems? No, though the flat out 1986 prohibition for NEWLY manufactured machine gun owernship enacted back-door in the Firearms Owners Protection Bill might be vulnerable to being overturned. The National Firearms Act of 1934 requiring a tax for “class 3″ firearms and destructive devices is not involved because NFA does not prohibit possesson, only taxes it. However, state laws that outright prohibit possession of NFA weapons are now vulnerable to being overturned.

This is a GOOD day for gun owners, the NRA, GOA, and other RKBA supporting organizations.

It’s a very bad day for the gun grabbers (“boo-freaking-hoo”) and politicians like Rudy and McCain who support “gun control.” BOO-FREAKIN’-HOO and HA-HA-HA-HA-HA to them.