Controversy Over Rhee Now to Include Sex, Congress
Report: CCDC Split From UDC Is "Critical To Success"
D.C. United Icon Ben Olsen To Retire
The Manhattan Project
Increased Urban Walkability For The Win
Dick Heller's quick to the draw with his legal filings.
While his original complaint against the city -- the handgun ban -- took years to work its way through the courts and resulted in the recent historic Supreme Court ruling against the restrictions, Heller is moving much more quickly these days to make sure that he can exercise his Second Amendment rights. According to City Desk, Heller has filed a lawsuit against the city challenging a number of provisions of the new regulations imposed by Mayor Adrian Fenty in the wake of the court's ruling. The suit takes issue with the effective ban of semiautomatic pistols by classifying them all as “machine guns." It also argues that the District’s registration process is unduly “onerous,” and takes issue with the whole “reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm” stuff for when a gun can be legally loaded that seemed right off the bat to be asking for this kind of lawsuit.
This move was largely expected, but props to Heller and his legal team for being this fast with getting the suit filed. The sooner this whole mess gets resolved, the sooner we'll know what's allowed and what's not. And if the courts can do this at the request of a District resident, maybe Congress will call off its annual D.C. gun law-changing party.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
amen, martin. pass a law, challenge a law, fix the law. maybe we can get this done with, what do you say, 5 or 6 more court challenges? anyone want to take the under on that?
Awesome. More of my tax dollars wasted on Fenty's fool's folly.
Ah, the Czech CZ75. A classic derivative of the Browning Hi-Power. You can throw it in a camel dungheap, bury it in sand, and it'll still fire. It'll smell a bit, but you don't have to worry about any zombie bedouins.
So who's got the deeper lawyer pockets, the District or the Cato Institute and the NRA?
Martin's got the right angle here. Whether you want a gun/hate guns/think it might be okay to have guns, DC should pass something reasonable before Congress steps in. That will not help anyone
Does anyone really believe that even a reasonable law will stop some Coburn-type in Congress that wants his/her Uzi? Reasonable laws in DC haven't stopped them before...
Amusing to hear all the hand-wringing about process when it's the 2nd amendment in question.
Could you imagine the uproar if DC put similar restrictions on the 1st amendment rights of bloggers?
'Sure you can have a blog. Come down and fill out your forms in triplicate, get finger-printed, etc.'
HCE: Hello strawman! Blogs aren't designed to kill people.
According to the current rules, you would need to make at least five trips to MPD to do this thing right.
SystemError, Hitler did a hell of a lot of damage with his words.
I will take his words and stack them up against every gun in this country any day.
Strawman? I happen to think many ideas are dangerous...fascism and communism being two big ones.
Your lack of respect for the Constitution being another one.
congratulations to HCE, this week's winner of the godwin's law award!
Blogs aren't designed to kill people.
You clearly are unfamiliar with Kim Kardashian's blog.
There's a rumor that someone somewhere once read it and didn't shoot themselves, but it's only a rumor.
With his recent diagnosis, I hesitate to make further comment on Robert Novak. But 'Dick' Heller has a teeny weeny; facts are facts.
Very intellectual boondoggle. Room temp even.
Fenty and DC have no intention of complying with the SCOTUS ruling on Heller.
They are merely attempting to figure out ways to get around the ruling.
They may try to claim ignorance. It's not ignorance, it's arrogance!
Today's politicians in DC are denying their citizens' 2nd Amendment rights by using similar deplorable tactics politicians used to deny blacks their 14th Amendment rights starting in 1868. "Want to vote, sure here fill out this form. Can't read? Too bad. Have some water from that fountain way over there".
It took us around 100 years to enforce the 14th Amendment for blacks, how long will it take for those in DC to get their 2nd Amendment rights enforced?
So now gun registration is worse than segregation AND Hitler? Congrats, guys.
Let's not forget, Politburo, that Hitler required gun registration before he confiscated them (the final solution followed), and that the laws enacted after the civil war forbade the freed blacks from owning guns --giving rise to quite a few lynchings. Every major genocide of the 20th century was perpetrated on people who were not allowed to own firearms.
The only thing worse than segregation AND Hitler is hyperbole. People who use it should be rounded up and put into camps. Like that delightful one they put Hogan and Colonel Klink. That'll learn 'em.
ianto94: can we tone it down a bit here. jesus christ, sure, hitler was a dick and blah, blah, blah.
we're not about to see people put into concentration camps in the district. there is no "final solution" going on here. hell, this isn't even part of "the plan" (trust me i know).
go smoke some pot and look at some magic eye posters or something.
Maybe you can tone it down IMGoph. In fact, maybe we need a law so you have to register your tone and get fingerprinted to leave comments on a blog.
I'll put this bluntly so those who cannot read four words ("shall not be infringed") can understand it: I care more about my 2nd amendment rights than your 1st amendment rights.
IMGoph. Sorry can't smoke any pot. That's illegal too in DC. As to, "we're not going to see people put in camps around here," may I remind you about the Japanese American rounded up in WWII and put in camps. Did that happen somewhere else? Or was that in my country? And all that lynching did happen in this country to unarmed people. My point is not that we need to fear official tyranny at the moment, it is that unarmed people are defenseless against predators, specifically the two legged kind.
HCE if you can't understand the basic fact that guns are dangerous and have the potential to easily kill people, there really cannot be any discussion.
The 1st Amendment has also has four simple words ("shall make no law"), and that situation is quite complicated, as we all know. So don't be stupid.
This whole gun-registration/pot-legalization thing will totally be fixed during a second Monkeyrotica administration.
and i'll put this bluntly, hce—i care more about my first, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, fourteenth, twenty-third, and twenty-fourth amendment rights more than my second amendment rights.
we're never going to come to a meeting of the minds on this. you put up more strawmen than an off-broadway revival of the wiz.
I care more about my 2nd amendment rights than your 1st amendment rights.
So, basically, you're Jim Adkisson? Good to know. Please don't come to any DCist meetups, 'k?
cminus - HCE may be misguided, but I think comparing them to that murderer is totally inappropriate.
You know what I care more about than the second ammendment?
My right to life.
In this city, there is no fascist state to fear. The people in control of this city are thugs with guns and the only way to stop them is for the government to step in and regulate.
If you want to throw out any more moronic arguments about guns being used to defend yourself against criminals, why don't you throw out some proof? Guns have been around for hundreds of years, not to mention other weapons, and every experience has shown that increased guns = increased violence against innocent people.
I just love all the hypocrites on here. Words are dangerous. I would argue more dangerous than guns. Anyone with half a brain and who has read a history book understands that.
So I say we register and fingerprint people that want to use words. If those procedures are good enough for my 2nd amendment rights, they are good enough for your 1st.
DC has more police per capita (MPD, FBI, SS, Park Police, etc.) than any other city in the United States. If cops were adequate enough to protect people from criminals, then this city wouldn't have the problems with crime that it does. Obviously, cops are not adequate.
I'm sorry it hurts you in your special place that people in this country actually have rights and might choose to exercise them. If you don't like it, I suggest you move to a country that doesn't have the 2nd amendment, say France.
ooh, ooh, you told us to move to france. can you call us all commies next??!? or maybe say that we "hate freedom". god, i miss 2002, it would be great to bring those salad days back!
Actually, if you'll recall, the availability and number of private guns in America (about 280 million) has naturally been steadily rising since WWII, including to the current time where national crime figures are at or near historic lows (except in gigantic outliers like DC).
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/gvc.htm#guns
"The only way to stop them is for the government to step in to regulate." Sounds good, but the problem is the Supreme Court found that the Police actually has no duty to protect you as an individual. If you feel unsafe in your neighborhood, you can't have a cop in your house at all times to protect you.
All rights are important and deserve protection. You never know when you may find yourself in the minority and need each and every right.
I was going to sit this one out, but IMGophs statement that "he cares about 1st 2nd, etc. rights more than the 2nd" deserved comment.
Dangerous, dangerous thought. Elitist, and, dare I say it put the "latte" in liberal? Sorry IMGoph, the BoR is an all or nothing proposal. In fact, it is not even all inclusive.
As far as us not being in danger of a tyranical gov't., I used to take that line of thinking until I saw the gun confiscations following Katrina.
I am a convert on this issue. The bottom line is that people support gun control in situations where they feel they have no control over a situation. it is an easy 'feel good' move.
You would think that after 30 years proponents could point to ONE study that shows a drop in violent crimes.
The best one I read was one comparing DC to baltimore. They are mirror cities. Net impact, nothing.
I am not saying that letting dc residents exercise their rights will lower crime, but I am not about to go down the dangerous path of saying "this right is good, this right is bad."
Do you think 1 and 4 are bad because we now face threats from terrorists?
If you feel unsafe in your neighborhood, you can't have a cop in your house at all times to protect you.
Which is precisely why we need to immediately repeal the Third Amendment. For your own safety, you understand. This is completely in line with the intentions of the Founding Fathers as well as the doctrine of Patriopsychotic Anarcho Materialism ("Every yard a kingdom! Every child and pet a serf!")
You can look forward to this as a major plank in the Monkeyrotica platform. And in order to ensure our security and continuing stability, the District will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire, for a safe and secure society which I assure you will last for ten thousand years.
HCE you keep insisting that words are more dangerous than guns, and basing your whole argument on that. But the fact is that words alone can do no harm. Your continued ignorance of this basic fact is troubling.
Pantani. If more guns meant more crime, Virginia would be overrun with crime. It is not. DC is. And the stats show, contrary to your statements, that more guns equal less crime. Trying to "regulate" criminals by limiting the rights of the rest of the citizens does not work. If you want stats they are available.
First Amendment rights aren't upheld absolutely: The right of the people peaceably to assemble isn't protected in the blocks surrounding G8 meetings.
But words are more dangerous than guns. If I put on some sunglasses, grab a cane, leash up my doberman, and go on a crowded Metro car and scream, "Help! Someone sucked off my seeing eye dog!" you can bet there will be a mini riot.
I kill people with my words before most people have had their breakfast croissanwich. In the time it takes your Hot Pocket to cool off, I've already fomented worker unrest in most of Wards 1 through 5. Now, listen carefully. On the night of the fight, you may fell a slight sting, that's pride f***in' wit you. F*** pride! Pride only hurts, it never helps. Fight through that s**t. 'Cause a year from now, when you kickin' it in the Caribbean you're gonna say, "Monkeyrotica was right."
mho, using your G8 meeting, wouldn't you say that the right to assemble (peaceably) is fully allowed up the the point of private property/government buildings? People still are allowed to fully protest, but when you have eight heads of state in one building and thousands of people out front who may or may not have peaceful intentions, I don't have a big issue with providing a security perimeter.
That's a far cry only being allowed one type of protest (sit-in?) and only being allowed to organize the protest when the meeting has begun to take place.
timmaroo,
i like the peacable assembly analogy. Can you get a group of people together to riot? no. At its very core, it allows you to have anyone you want over to your house.
What is more basic to 2A than having a gun in your house? For that matter, what is more basic to free speech than sitting in your home screaming at O'Reilly? It is the 'baseline' for a right.
dcguy2: i never said i am opposed to the second amendment. i just said that i valued all those others that i listed more than the second.
the bill of rights wasn't an all-or-nothing proposition, either. there were 12 amendments in the initial batch, and only 10 were adopted. one of those regarding congressional pay was (in an altered form) finally adopted approx. two centuries later, and is our latest amendment.
"i never said i am opposed to the second amendment."
Actually you did, at least in their minds. To the absolutists, anything short of free nuclear weapons for all citizens is construed as being opposed to the 2nd amendment.
All that said, Heller is a bit of a turd personally (ever hear him speak?) but is dead on with this legal challenge.
Hopefully the DC Council will change the law in the permanent legislation come September before further lawsuits show up.
Huzzah!
Politburo, guns alone do no harm. Or do you live in an alternate universe where guns magically fly around and kill people? Your ignorance of the basic laws of physics is troubling.
I just wish the anti-gun nuts like you would admit they hate the Constitution and my rights. I have a funny feeling you don't feel the same way about your rights of course. Hypocrite is as hypocrite does.
Keep assuming, HCE.. it's really helping your argument.
good lord. a move to france comment? really? Thats supposed to support your argument by making me feel sorry for you?
How far are we from "love it or leave it"? Can I get a "I know you are but what am I"?
hce: you're making consistently crazier statements every time here. flying guns? c'mon, you gotta try better than that if you're going to win a debate. how about some logic here, eh?
imgoph, I was referencing politburo's comment above:
"But the fact is that words alone can do no harm." Thus, all those flying guns politburo must see in his alternate universe where they alone are killing people.
As for "winning a debate", I'm not likely to convince you anti-gun nuts of anything since you can barely read four words ("shall not be infringed"). I'm just trying to show that a large portion of you are hypocrites.
politburo, I'm not assuming about you. You come across as a hypocrite who thinks my 2nd amendment rights should be regulated to the point of uselessness while you clearly don't feel the same way about the 1st amendment.
biggerhunt, it's not about feeling sorry for me. This isn't victimology 100 here. If you really don't like the 2nd amendment, I advise leaving this country. There are plenty of other places around the world that anti-gun folks can move to. People who care about liberty and gun rights do not have as many options.
hce: how about instead of leaving the country, biggerhunt can petition for an amendment that will repeal the second amendment?
you speak like the constitution was carved into the equivalent of stone tablets, handed down to the founding fathers in some kind of moses/charlton heston moment.
sure, the likelihood of that succeeding is next to nil, but it wouldn't kill him to try (unless some gun owner decided to shoot him/her, which i wouldn't put far outside of the realm of possibility).
we've had an amendment repealed before. who's to say it couldn't happen again? maybe not with this one, maybe not at this time, but don't act like you have a monopoly on reality here, sir.
telling citizens that the only way they'll see change is to move out of the country is a pretty cowardly way to defend your position. i recommend you take some classes on debating, and learn the finer points of how to win an argument or debate, because whether you want to admit it or not, that's what you're participating in here.
*single tear rolls down cheek*
It's a shame we can't discuss this without the personal attacks. HCE, I agree with you in spirit but you'll turn people off from trying to understand your position with the "anti-gun nuts" comments.
IMGoph, clearly you can see what HCE meant by the fact that guns don't commit crimes, people abusing guns commit crimes. Just as knives aren't at fault for Britain's knife crime wave, it's a bad idea to blame the instrument rather than the person wielding it. Sure guns are more effective as weapons, but they also allow little old ladies and women with stalkers to fight off/dissuade much larger attackers.
No one should have to move anywhere, but in the U.S., the 2nd Amendment is a serious political reality that is very unlikely to change currently. If you really feel that it does more harm than good, the amendment repeal process is open to you. I kind of feel it should be repealed and replaced with some much more precise definitions and rights so we can stop arguing/litigating ad nauseum.
I don't know what you people are talking about. Zhang Ziyi was TOTALLY HOT in "House of Flying Guns." Particularly the parts when her goodies were hanging out.
Monkeyerotica, I don't know what your condition is called, but I appreciate random gobbledygook sprinkled throughout the day.
No need to thank me, ma'am. It's all in a day's work for....Poverty Pimp and Touchy Feely Liberal!
Quick, TF! To the Pimpmobile! Evil's afoot, and it's name is "Tad Hominem."
timmeroo, the personal attacks were started by others. And if someone wants to act like an anti-gun nut who can't read 4 simple words then I am going to call them that. Tough cookies.
imgoph, of course he/she can try to do that. Just as I can petition for an amendment to strip your 1st amendment rights. Though for what it's worth, I have God-given rights that I don't care how many billions vote to take away. My larger point is that there are plenty of places in the world that don't have the 2nd amendment if its existence pains you so much. There are plenty of European countries out there, while there is only one USA. Instead of trying to turn the USA into a European country, why not just move there?
As a libertarian there are many things I prefer about other countries, but none have the bedrocks of the 2nd and 1st amendments. Those are extra bulwarks to protect my rights (and yes, my rights, those that belong to me and which no government can take away).
hce: you've been accused, by me and others, of throwing up strawmen. you've denied doing so, but this:
is clearly a strawman. i never, never, never said anything about europe until right now, in response to you. you're not going to acknowledge that, i'm sure, and you'll probably respond to me tangentially. but realize that you're spinning your wheels, coming up with bizarre new responses to everything i say.seriously, why you do that???
Wow, you are dense. I brought up France.
Would the USA be more or less like Europe without the 2nd amendment?
Honestly, if you hate my 2nd amendment rights so much go somewhere else where they don't recognize them. Until then, expect me to be critical of efforts to deprive me of my rights in this country.
hce: no, sir, you're the dense one. you lack simple reading comprehension skills.
follow this, ok, let's see if you get it (and other posters, back me up on this, please):
you accused me of wanting to turn the US into a european country.
i told you i never said that. got it? i never said i wanted to turn the US into a european country.
then, you (hce) said you brought up france. which you did, in comment number 28 here.
so great, you brought up france. and you accused me of wanted to turn the US into a european country in comment number 52. so this is all you. you're practically arguing with yourself.
this whole thing is beyond pedantic at this point.
you will accept nothing unless i say that i believe in an inalienable and unlimited right to arm myself. i don't believe that right exists. never will. no matter what you say. you can quote law, yourself, your god, and whatever else until you're blue in the face. i don't care.
but please, please, quit throwing words and thoughts in my mouth. it makes it look like you have a smaller brain than the red panda in your avatar.
IMGoph: Apologies. i reread your "rights are more important post." Actually, I agree with you. I support 2A, but it won't stop me from voting for Obama. There are other issues that are more important to me.
My real "outrage" here is directed at the DC Gov. I see their reaction to this as unrealistic grandstanding that will do nothing but cost DC more money and political capital on the Hill. I am also frustrated with fellow liberals who somehow feel that they can cherry pick the BoR.
What surprises me is the dearth of what I consider the two most defensible arguments on the topic. 1) Shotgun allowance fulfills the 2A rights; and 2) let's start a movement to amend 2A.
Now before I get flamed by everyone, I don't agree with with either of these, but I think they are positions that can be reasonably debated.
I used to be a raving anti-gunner--until I actually fired a gun for the first time, and hung out with with other gun owners. Slowly, but surely, I began to dig into the "facts" tossed out by the Brady folks, and actually look at what was meant by emotionally loaded phrases like "assault weapons," and "cop-killer bullets" and came to the conclusion that there was just no logical reason for the anti-gun hysteria. (I still challenge any gun ban proponent to present ONE, just ONE stat that shows that gun control works).
BTW-My fave. "fake stat" is that "3,500 children died as a result of gunshots in 20XX." "Children" includes everyone from age 0-19. An Iraq war vet car jacked on his way to work could be included in this stat.
Of that 3,500, those 14 and under killed by guns-about 400. Those 10 and under-about 120. Still too many, but more kids probably drown in their swimming pools each year.
dcguy2: no worries. i think rational debate is the way to go on this too. i just don't think that's likely in the united states we live in today. shame...
"who thinks my 2nd amendment rights should be regulated to the point of uselessness"
Again, you assume.
DCguy2, I agree with your approach. I do think that the reasons that no one has taken up the two arguments you mentioned are as follows:
1. Shotguns/rifles = 2nd Amendment fulfillment
The Heller case expressly stated that:
"It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential
self-defense weapon."
2. Repealing the 2nd
I think that when 40% of US households own guns, it's incredibly unlikely that such a popular Amendment could be repealed due to the political suicide that would result. I would be interested to hear how someone got Congress & State Govs to go along with Prohibition, as that sounds like a totally impossible thing to pass too. Those teetotalers must be crafty!
You want the US without the 2nd amendment. Thus more like a European country than it is now. If you can't understand that point, then it is no wonder you can't read 4 words ("shall not be infringed").
I don't care if you want to arm yourself or not. I care about my rights, rights that you want to take away because they hurt your feelings.
Well, I'm going to return the favor. I don't care about your rights. Any of them. The sooner someone deprives you of all your rights, the better.
I'm done here. Enjoy trying to take away my rights and congratulating yourselves on being such know-it-alls that you know better how to live my life than I do.
hce: that's cute, you want me to die. a death threat from a gun nut. you don't stray far from the script, do you?
honest to christ, you can't read. you are the dumbest commenter here, bar-none. i like dcguy2's idea of amending or tweaking gun laws, but since you need me to be an other so you can have your enemy to rant against, how does this sound?:
i want to take your guns away. i want to kill babies. i want everyone to have "san francisco values". i'm a librul! bwhahahahahahahahahahaa....
happy now?
Marion Barry finally got to you too, Goph?
At least you didn't rape the baby before you eated it.
Well, I'm going to return the favor. I'm done here. I don't care if you want to arm yourself or not. Enjoy trying to take away my rights and congratulating yourselves on being such know-it-alls that you know better how to live my life than I do. I care about my rights, rights that you want to take away because they hurt your feelings. Would the USA be more or less like Europe without the 2nd amendment? Could you imagine the uproar if DC put similar restrictions on the 1st amendment rights of bloggers?
hce: i'll enjoy taking your sweet, sweet rights away, dipping them in caramel, and eating them. slowly.
i don't want the USA to be more like europe. i want it to be more like south america. you got the wrong continent, buddy. what if i said atlantis....that's an even better continent to aspire to!
there is a place that puts restrictions on bloggers, it's called china. you want the USA to be like china?!?
did you hear that? hce wants DC to be like china. he said it! he said it! nyah nyah!
You taking my rights away is fine, but when I suggest fair treatment for you it's a death threat?
Screw you. You are case in point that while I hate conservatives, I really, really hate liberals.
shut up, hce. just shut up. you told me you wanted someone to deprive me of all my rights. three of those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. so you want to deprive me of my life. that's a death threat.
QED, m'fer.
i said i'd like to see the 2nd amendment clarified. for the other 299,999,999 people in the US. but for you, i want it repealed. just you. so you squirm.
I'd like to make a bid for cable TV rights to your upcoming steel-cage death match.
You shut up.
NEWSFLASH: wanting to see someone dead is not a death threat. And guess what? You will actually die some day (unless somehow the universe does not come to an end and somehow you live forever).
And I never even said that. I just said I want to see you deprived of your rights. Grow up, little boy.
that's my point, el douche. you never said that, and i never said 2/3 of the shit you've been ascribing to me.
but wanting to see someone dead is certainly douche-y, if not a threat. i guess it would only be a death threat if you wanted to see me die by actions of your own hand. i don't know if that's what you want or not, you never specified. do you want to shoot me??? do you want to walk up to me with your big, angry gun and shoot me, do ya?
and, i'm peter pan, so i'll never grow up. nyah nyah!
So you now are a fan of the 2nd amendment? Flip-flopper. Your "ooh, ooh, you told us to move to france" line pretty much spelled out that you admitted I was talking about you.
I just want to see you deprived of your rights like you think I should be deprived of mine. I understand that is something you have a problem comprehending.
I'm really done this time. You can have the last word and your latte for all I care.
hahaha, el douche. i'm a flip-flopper? that's rich! you've called me french, a flip-flopper, and a latte drinker! i think you forgot volvo driver, wind-surfer, and john f. kerry!
and guess what? i don't drink coffee! so you can have your latte, or snapple, or whatever it is that red pandas use to "get up" for an argument on a blog. i'll keep hounding you for as long as you want. i've got all my long life until you come and shoot me.
"A right delayed is a right denied." MLK,Jr.
"A right delayed is a right denied." MLK,Jr.
How ironic that you're quoting MLK (a noted pacifist) to advocate gun rights.
@HCE & IMGoph - What a hilarious little internet slap fight.
glad to be able to entertain, hillrat!
hillrat writes: How ironic that you're quoting MLK (a noted pacifist) to advocate gun rights.
Read the decision and you're evidently in for a real shock; the majority cite a number of cases in which federal courts overturned southern laws that forbade ownership of guns by recently freed slaves - because it was a way to assure the safety of white supremacists intent on terrorizing defenseless blacks. Numerous federal courts upheld the right of blacks to own guns for their own defense, as well as for hunting. I suspect you probably hate Condi Rice, but in any case she has publicly stated that her father used his gun to protect the family from racists intent on harming them when she was growing up.
A right delayed is a right denied!