Or maybe we can get that NYPD officer down here to push Dick into a manhole -- or storm drain. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YnM8-gwy28

I now don't know if I should be worried about this man having a gun. On the one hand, a guy dressed like that, on a 50s era bike, is a text book case of "suspicious activity" and screams "protect my children from crazy neighbor with a gun." On the other hand, how can I be scared of a man who looks like this?!?! Get this man a gun, just so I can take him seriously!

So wait a minute, this is not the same Dick Heller who is a columnist for the Washington Times?

Thank you Mr. Heller for all you have done for us who wish to legally own a weapon. However, please go slow -- the Supreme Court does not like complicated cases; I suggest you amend your current court case to reflect only one (1) issue. If you win that, then go to court again for the next issue, then the next, etc. Thanks again!!!!

How much you wanna bet he snaps next summer following another lengthy appeal and shoots someone after hearing one too many snotty "you forgot to untuck your pants from your socks" jibes.
I know my grandpa sure hates that, but luckily he's missing his trigger finger.

Well, if he managed to get a license, the registration process can't be all that onerous, so let's throw that suit out right now.

I think he has that bike in case he suddenly has to take a trip to 1974.

Speaking of out-of-date and archaic Amendments, when is Fenty going to start quartering troops in Trinidad homes without the owner's consent?

I wouldn't so far as to say ANY restriction should apply to both, as they are different rights, but I agree with the fundamental concept.

cminus: RE: felons, that's a tough one. If they paid their debt to society and are allowed freedom of speech, voting rights, etc, can you still take away a constitutional right? If you can with others rights AFTER they've served time, then yeah, gun rights should go first. I'd probably be most comfortable saying ok for non-violent offenders, but some dude who drove a car full of pot down from Canada 20 yrs ago shouldn't be barred from a constitutional right for the rest of his life. What if guy/family live in the woods and there is dangerous wildlife around? Not everyone is in a city and may have different uses for guns.

As for the tanks/warplanes/sarin gas, I'm pretty sure that "arms" = firearms, not functional military vehicles armed with "ordinance". I don't think anyone is saying US citizens have an enumerated "right" to own those things.

@Dank, Heller had it easy as he already had a gun out of state. If he wanted to buy one, (which is impossible now as no one is able to transfer in DC currently) it would cost $215 in fees and FIVE trips to the Metro Police department for EACH gun.

No way in hell I'm wasting FIVE trips to the police department and $215 just to register my basement nuke, my sarin dispenser aerosols, and my flaming sewage "diarrhea thrower." I managed to buy the last kosher model made from a tiny factory outside Tel Aviv and steampunked it with a Tesla coil and brass pressure valves. Since it's classified as an antique, it's exempt from registration anyway.

gun. girl bike. all sexy.

I'll lay even odds between a murder/suicide love pact and a crosscountry killing spree.

Why do I suddenly hear Julie Brown in my head...

Everybody run!
The homecoming queen has got a gun!

Sherm:
And that's what the courts are for, determining what is protected and what is excluded. Seems reasonable enough even though everything you've written here seems to be overly dramatic and out of touch with reality.

Oh, I agree 100% that my examples were out of touch with reality, and even that DC's previous policy went too far. I raised those examples to point out the illogic of HCE's long-standing jihad against any limitations on the 2nd Amendment that we wouldn't accept on the 1st. There are perfectly legitimate restrictions on the 2nd Amendment that would be unacceptable if applied to other amendments. (And not just the 1st Amendment -- can you imagine if prison inmates lost their 8th Amendment rights?)

That said...

Timmeroo:

Do you think the founders intended "arms" to be destructive devices not yet invented?

Do you think they intended "the press" to include communications devices not yet invented?

As it happens, I do think that's what they meant, and I don't think they'd have wanted "arms" to include weapons of mass destruction, or even tanks and heavy artillery, which is why I disagree with HCE's blanket objection to any restriction on the 2nd Amendment that we wouldn't accept on the 1st Amendment. I'm just curious as to how HCE feels about this issue.

This means that unfortunately, laser tag may not be constitutionally protected.

Actually, it is, just not in the Bill of Rights. Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2:

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State; nor shall anything in this Constitution be construed as to limit or abolish the right of the People to run around pretending to shoot each other with any useful devices that may be invented in the future that project beams of light in a manner not suitable for use as a weapon, because, dude, that'd be freakin' awesome.

I'm really against pre-crime restrictions. Law-abiding, responsible adults tend to act like law-abiding responsible adults. Let them live their lives.

So convicted felons shouldn't be allowed to own military ordinance and weapons of mass destruction, but law-abiding private citizens should?

Politburo, parades and demonstrations involve more than one person. The restriciton there is on the group. I don't know of any cases where a single individual has to apply for a permit.

cminus, see timmeroo's points above about "arms".

I think HCE may be a Ted Nugent sock puppet, but he does raise a good point about pre-crime restrictions. But it makes me curious as to what his views may be on things like dog & cat licenses.

Ted Nugent Sock Puppet... Hillrat, that's going to be the name of my new band! And you can stuff your pants with it down one's legal breifs.

timmeroo, take away my laser cat?! Pry it from my cold dead hands.

We've had these conversations before. I know it's DC but serously, what's with the constitutional law boner everytime 2nd amendment comes up?

Any, there won't be any firing from the bicycle, funny as that'd look as the law was just in-home related.

cminus, see timmeroo's points above about "arms".

So, you do believe there should be restrictions on the 2nd Amendment that we shouldn't apply to the 1st? Because that seems to be Timmeroo's position -- the Framers didn't foresee certain types of weapons, which shouldn't be covered by the 2nd Amendment, but they didn't foresee certain forms of speech and the press, which should be covered by the 1st Amendment.

I don't mean to express that in a mocking fashion, since that is, in fact, my position as well. I'm just surprised to hear you say it, because it kind of contradicts all your insane analogies between gun registration and forcibly gagging people.

This is a lame discussion. The court has ruled that a reasonable "line" to be drawn is weapons that are "unusual' or not in common use with no military value. Even though grenade launchers are used by the military, they do not serve a purpose, or are not in common use by the public. Remember, the idea was that people grabbed the smooth bore or rifle they used for self defense, hunting, etc. an joined the militia when called. This is why the DC ban on semis will go down. It is a weapon with military value and in common use by the population.