DC Rejects Heller Handgun Applicatoin

real life wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I am personally a gun owner myself, and I reliably will vote against you gun nuts each and every time.

What makes your gun safer than someone else's?

It's (actually, they are) a long rifle with a trigger lock on it; it's safer then a lot of gun nut's guns are.

But, let me ask you, at what point did I claim my gun was safer then someone else's?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Amnesty for illegal gun owners?

((this is quite funny))

Very sharp observation. Note that I offered support for McCain/Kennedy, and probably for the same reasons.

0 Replies

Thank God for the NRA.

You jerks would be the end of the USA without us.

I do apologize for the typo in the thread title. I caught it right after the first response was posted.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

cjhsa wrote:
There are 80M gun owners in the US and most of them vote.

Well, that's not very accurate; you see, I am personally a gun owner myself, and I reliably will vote against you gun nuts each and every time.

I ask again: what evidence are you going to produce to settle the bet?

Cycloptichorn

You don't own a gun and you know it, man. ;p

Anyway, don't be an asshole. We're not talking about Joe Blow here; the Supreme Court literally ordered DC to issue this specific guy a damn permit. He's clearly (by the same logic in the decision) in the right; DC doesn't have the right to ban semi-auto pistols any more than it had the right to ban all pistols in the first place.

Theoretically, if the courts ordered DC to issue the permit, overturning the semi-auto pistol ban, could they then say "okay, we're issuing you the gun permit, but ammunition possession is illegal in this jurisdiction"?

DC is clearly acting contrary to the decision, in a way that I can only interpret as bad faith. Is the government going to be obliged to call in federal troops to force DC to comply with the Supreme Court decision?

0 Replies

It certainly calls for a National Guard deployment more than the so imagined crime wave in Chicago.

0 Replies

Avatar ADV wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
There are 80M gun owners in the US and most of them vote.

Well, that's not very accurate; you see, I am personally a gun owner myself, and I reliably will vote against you gun nuts each and every time.

I ask again: what evidence are you going to produce to settle the bet?

Cycloptichorn

You don't own a gun and you know it, man. ;p

Anyway, don't be an ****. We're not talking about Joe Blow here; the Supreme Court literally ordered DC to issue this specific guy a damn permit. He's clearly (by the same logic in the decision) in the right; DC doesn't have the right to ban semi-auto pistols any more than it had the right to ban all pistols in the first place.

Theoretically, if the courts ordered DC to issue the permit, overturning the semi-auto pistol ban, could they then say "okay, we're issuing you the gun permit, but ammunition possession is illegal in this jurisdiction"?

DC is clearly acting contrary to the decision, in a way that I can only interpret as bad faith. Is the government going to be obliged to call in federal troops to force DC to comply with the Supreme Court decision?

Oh, that would be fun to watch!

The Heller decision clearly said that the permitting process was a legal one; while it is fair to argue about the rules and regulations that permit can require, it's not fair to argue that the city had a responsibility to issue the guy a permit upon demand regardless of the specifics of his case.

I suggest that he take it to court, and then one side or the other can appeal, and then that answer can be appealed, and then the Supreme court can weigh in on it again. Maybe in a decade or so Heller can have his pistol that he wants so damn bad Laughing

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

And you'd be happy if someone robbed him and shot his lawfully unarmed ass, wouldn't you redeye?

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

And you'd be happy if someone robbed him and shot his lawfully unarmed ass, wouldn't you redeye?

No, I wouldn't be happy about that. But I would wonder why he didn't purchase a long rifle for his protection in the meantime.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I have a suggestion for a high school class. Have a "bomber" take the classroom hostage without any warning. Line the kids up along the wall and then have him pull out a gun and "shoot" them one at time.

Without a doubt, 90% of those kids, when they become adults, will buy a gun to protect themselves and their loved ones with. And they will vote pro-NRA, unless of course they are spineless wimps who become become afraid of an inanimate object and/or keep a trigger lock on their weapon....

0 Replies

Why should he have to buy a long gun when he owns a pistol? Clearly, he already owns the pistol. 90% of the semiauto pistols out there use the same configuration - load through the bottom.

Does 1911 mean anything to you?

My home invasion defense weapon is a short stocked youth shotgun I bought for my son to hunt with. It came with a trigger lock. I never would even consider using that lock thing.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Why should he have to buy a long gun when he owns a pistol? Clearly, he already owns the pistol. 90% of the semiauto pistols out there use the same configuration - load through the bottom.

Does 1911 mean anything to you?

My home invasion defense weapon is a short stocked youth shotgun I bought for my son to hunt with. It came with a trigger lock. I never would even consider using that lock thing.

Guess you aren't too concerned with the threat that poses to your family and children, but that's no surprise really.

Heller doesn't currently have a license to own that pistol. While he is free to challenge this in court, he doesn't have the legal right to own it until he is granted that license. Even the SC agreed that it was legal to require a license for ownership and operation...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Excuse me?? He had to have a permit to even BUY the handgun in the first place - unless he inherited it.

You obviously don't know your stuff.

Go back to panhandling on Shattuck.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Guess you aren't too concerned with the threat that poses to your family and children, but that's no surprise really.

Heller doesn't currently have a license to own that pistol. While he is free to challenge this in court, he doesn't have the legal right to own it until he is granted that license. Even the SC agreed that it was legal to require a license for ownership and operation...

Cycloptichorn

You still haven't read the case, huh.

He doesn't have that license, no. The Court -ordered- that he be provided a license in this specific case. It didn't order him to maybe not get a license, or to undergo a licensing procedure where his right to a license would be judged. To the extent that DC doesn't issue that license, it is in contempt of court.

0 Replies

Avatar ADV wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Guess you aren't too concerned with the threat that poses to your family and children, but that's no surprise really.

Heller doesn't currently have a license to own that pistol. While he is free to challenge this in court, he doesn't have the legal right to own it until he is granted that license. Even the SC agreed that it was legal to require a license for ownership and operation...

Cycloptichorn

You still haven't read the case, huh.

He doesn't have that license, no. The Court -ordered- that he be provided a license in this specific case. It didn't order him to maybe not get a license, or to undergo a licensing procedure where his right to a license would be judged. To the extent that DC doesn't issue that license, it is in contempt of court.

There appears to be a disagreement as to whether or not his specific weapon qualifies for licensing in the State.

Look, I agree - DC should just give him his gun license and be done with it. But it's pretty funny that they haven't! Laughing

Why? The Conservative view towards acts of illegality by governments for the last 7 years has been 'think it's illegal? Take 'em to court!' Well, if Heller thinks that DC is acting in violation of the law, he should take 'em to court! And he can wait that entire time to legally own it. After all, that's how the legal system should work - when a branch of government is breaking the law, taking them to court is the way to go.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

The court ordered that his permit be granted -in these specific circumstances-... i.e. for a semi-auto pistol. It doesn't matter if DC would like to distinguish the cases; at this point, it doesn't have that option.

0 Replies

Avatar ADV wrote:

The court ordered that his permit be granted -in these specific circumstances-... i.e. for a semi-auto pistol. It doesn't matter if DC would like to distinguish the cases; at this point, it doesn't have that option.

Apparently they disagree. I suggest that Heller takes them to court to solve this disagreement Laughing

Would you agree with me, that in some instances, it is not necessary for a court to find wrongdoing, to determine that there is wrongdoing going on? I only ask, because it seems that there is one standard being used here by Conservatives to defend gun rights, and a completely different one applied when other branches of the government are in violation of, say, FISA.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

And how often have you used your home defense gun to defend your home, cj?

Matter of fact, considering that burglaries of homes of gun owners are something like the third most common source of guns used in crimes, and considering that burglars are not totally stupid and generally case homes they're thinking of robbing to make sure no one is at home before they rob them, you're far more likely to end up enabling a criminal to use your gun to commit a crime than you actually are to use it yourself.

0 Replies

username wrote:

And how often have you used your home defense gun to defend your home, cj?

Matter of fact, considering that burglaries of homes of gun owners are something like the third most common source of guns used in crimes, and considering that burglars are not totally stupid and generally case homes they're thinking of robbing to make sure no one is at home before they rob them, you're far more likely to end up enabling a criminal to use your gun to commit a crime than you actually are to use it yourself.

So, I guess you're the neighbor who would just stand by and do nothing? Spinless wimp you are.

Joe Horn is my hero.

0 Replies

This is what the USSC said. What part of this does DC not understand?

"In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun
possession in the home violates the Second Amendment,
as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm
in the home operable for the purpose of immediate
self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified
from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District
must permit him to register his handgun and must
issue him a license to carry it in the home."

Anyone who doesn't understand this and denies him his (redundant) permit is in contempt and should be thrown in jail. End of discussion.

0 Replies

On the upside, I never realized I owned machine guns. Cool!

Laughing

0 Replies

DC Rejects Heller Handgun Applicatoin

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know