DCist: Heller's Got a Gun

mho

Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:16:54 -0500

Is that Gary Busey?

ianto94

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:24:26 -0500

Despite all the insults some of you antigunners have thrown at Dick Heller he is a trained special police officer who has been carrying a gun for years guarding various people and locations in the city and miraculously never shooting himself in the foot or going Postal. For you folks who might actually want to experience what it is like to shoot a handgun, the National Shooting Sports Association is sponsoring this Sunday, a First Shots class, at the Arlington-Fairfax Chapter, Izaak Walton League where you can learn basic gun safety and shoot their weapons. DC residents only. Go to http://www.firstshots.org. And if you want to join the citizens of DC in seeking reasonable not oppressive gun laws, join us at www.capitalgunowners.org.

monkeyrotica

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:53:52 -0500

I chose to exercise my 1st and 2nd Amendment rights by having the phrase "I AM A TRIFLING LOWLIFE" engraved on the barrel of my 9" S&W Model 29 backwards so it leaves a legible impression on foreheads after I pistol whip people for failing to flush/wash hands after using the restroom. And have I ever told you that my snakeskin jacket is a symbol of my individuality and belief in personal freedom?

Disco Stu

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:46:58 -0500

coolbeans, timmeroo. (never thought i'd ever write that.) But actually, HCE does have a bit of a point. Particularly about feelings. We do make choices more on how we feel about them then how we think about them. But, nevertheless. Just because that's a factor, doesn't invalidate the other stuff-- Crap, I got draw into it, too! 45,000 traffic deaths a year. Everytime you turn the key... But, i mean, car's are a symbol of freedom, and individual expression! Hmm, as are guns? I like exercising BOTH my 1st AND 2nd Am rights at the same time. Particularly with wry slogans engraved on my guns. Would we then pass the equivalent of gun permit vanity plates?

DCGuy2

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:29:31 -0500

timmaroo: Yeah already did that after the Council past their regs. I emailed Fenty, Mendelson, Wells and "chicken little" gray. I didn't focus on a "you are denying my rights" argument but instead, basically told them that their action guaranteed a court challenge (which happened a few days later) invited congressional intervention(which happened 2 weeks later) and that as a resident I really resent 1) my money being spent fighting this fools errand; 2) the patronizing view council has towards their constituency; and 3) the panic inducing, fear-mongering language that "this will mean more blood in the street "--which I think is just downright irresponsible. The thing is, they are playing the polls. Fenty has made that clear. However, instead of asking "should DC have a gun ban?" they should now ask "Should the district comply with the supreme court ruling if not doing so could mean additional court battles and congressional intervention?"

timmeroo

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:53:21 -0500

Disco Stu, point taken about discussion ad nauseum. I'm really hoping to have no more reason to talk about it when either DC or Congress changes the laws next month or Heller's new complaint forces a court-ordered change. Meanwhile, I'd still like to discuss and get as many DC residents on my side to put some pressure on Councilmembers to do the right thing next month and follow the Supreme Court decision. I'd also be happy to discuss robots. "Tell me Awesom-O...are you a...pleasure model?" Politburo, guns are dangerous, as are swimming pools, cars and knives. Even though we have no "right" to those items, we can buy them. However, even though gun ownership is a right, guns are so dangerous that only people 18 or 21 and up can buy them, and only if they can pass a background check. That's reasonable to me.

monkeyrotica

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:47:11 -0500

how would Hitler have caused significant harm without arms? Well, he did manage to kill a couple million people using only boxcars, pesticide, and a burning Reichstag.

salaam

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:25:52 -0500

Haha I know I can always count on HCE for some wack argument that we should give people roughly the same freedom with guns as we allow them with words. My favorite has to be when he claimed Hitler's words prove that freedom of speech is just as dangerous or possibly more dangerous than gun rights. Explain this one for me HCE: how would Hitler have caused significant harm without arms?

Politburo

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:20:43 -0500

"You don't need a permit to wave signs at the White House or stage a rally at your house." This depends on the jurisdiction. I don't specifically know about DC, but in many places, using a public space (not a street) still requires insurance, etc. "They are making the point that some people favor a whole host of restrictions on one fundamental right whereas with another fundamental right they want very few restrictions because they like it better and it gives them happy feelings." I know things work different in your libertarian fantasy land, but it's not because "they like it better and it gives them happy feelings". It's because guns are tools that can very easily hurt and kill people.

Disco Stu

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 08:52:20 -0500

thanks timmeroo, i've fired a gun once, twice, yeah even thrice. and I'm pro gun ownership. and most of what has been in this comment thread was addressed in the scrotus decision, which i read, and even laughed at the jokes. (scalia's such a trash talker) I just don't want to talk about it ad nauseum when it's been done. That's just my brand of crotchety. But maybe it's because I'm sad more people don't want to ramble about monkey-AI robots...

hillrat

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 01:25:23 -0500

@HCE I'm mostly down with libertarianism but I think we have to bend to the reality that there a lot of very stupid, very irresponsible people out there who have to be compelled to do the right thing. For example, you say that people shouldn't have to register their cats and dogs, but what about people who keep Rottweilers and the like? Yes, the majority of them train and restrain their dogs properly and present no problem. However, when Mr. Dummy's dog escapes his yard and mauls someone, without registration and collar laws there is no way to find out who owns the dog and who should be held responsible for the damage the dog caused. How do we deal with that in a libertarian world? Best, HR

DCGuy2

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 01:20:23 -0500

timmaroo; im going shooting this weekend at PG Trap & Skeet. Ive met several fellow dems there.

HCE

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:05:58 -0500

"HCE, what if there were a mouth-catdog vagina gun?" I'm sure monkey-erotica would be the first to buy one.

HCE

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:05:03 -0500

cminus, I don't think there should be pre-crime restrictions for either. However, there may be certain extreme cases for both. We probably shouldn't allow people to have nuclear weapons just as we don't allow them to share nuclear secrets with other countries. My analogies are not insane. They are making the point that some people favor a whole host of restrictions on one fundamental right whereas with another fundamental right they want very few restrictions because they like it better and it gives them happy feelings.

timmeroo

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:45:25 -0500

cminus, to be sure, my position is that the 2nd covers firearms and nothing else(tanks, ICBMs, etc). I think that's the common legal interpretation as well. The 2nd protects a class of items, whereas the 1st protects actions, so I think that new firearms (yes, even scary black semi-auto "assault weapons") would be just as covered as new forms of speech. Disco Stu, I'd probably require at least a doctor's note for a MCD Vajayjay blaster. Regarding the 2nd boner, you're right, it is DC. If they didn't make such an effort to restrict pretty basic rights, I probably wouldn't be as interested in making a fuss, but they have gotten my goat, gander and duff. I'm actually interested in having my semi-auto pistol and buying a rifle, and don't want to move to a "Constitution-enforced" zone like Virginia. Besides, guns are fun! If you haven't ever before, go shoot once and let us know what you think. Just don't mention you're voting for Obama at the gun range. I don't. DCGuy2: +1

DCGuy2

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:29:09 -0500

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.

Disco Stu

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:59:39 -0500

HCE, what if there were a mouth-catdog vagina gun?

cminus

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:33:31 -0500

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.

HCE

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:10:19 -0500

hillrat, I'm a libertarian so I don't think people should be required by law to register their mouth, cat, dog, gun, or vagina. I consider the first and second amendments to be the most important fundamental rights that people have. There should be very few restrictions on either of them.

Disco Stu

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:49:41 -0500

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.

timmeroo

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:25:14 -0500

RE: assembly restrictions, the reason you have to get a permit to march down Main Street is that you're blocking your fellow citizens ability to use the street for traveling. You don't need a permit to wave signs at the White House or stage a rally at your house. I do have an issue with gun laws that treat people as criminals to begin with. Please, go after the people who misuse speech (threats, etc), cars, alcohol and guns, but let the responsible people use their rights. Though, I do draw the line at owning a laser cat without a license.

hillrat

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:54:01 -0500

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.

Politburo

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:20:47 -0500

So restrictions are okay as long as they only affect groups?

HCE

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:08:33 -0500

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".

Politburo

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:47:30 -0500

"However, most of them.." But not all. Funny how you left those out, like parade/demonstration permits which frequently require getting bonds and insurance, etc.

cminus

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:05:08 -0500

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?

HCE

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 13:20:11 -0500

There are restrictions on the 1st Amendment. All sorts of them. Fire in a crowded theater, libel, etc. However, most of them address after-the-fact irresponsible behavior. Do you have to get a license for your mouth (or your website for that matter)? Do you have to go down the police station and register? Do you have to wear a muzzle when you go out in public? I'm really against pre-crime restrictions. Law-abiding, responsible adults tend to act like law-abiding responsible adults. Let them live their lives. I realize that tends to offend all the control freaks out there, but too bad.

cminus

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:28:00 -0500

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.

timmeroo

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:02:58 -0500

cminus: I'll agree with sherm that the courts would typically decide what are protected arms and what are not. However, if you look at it in context of the founding era when it was passed, arms were pistols and rifles that people normally kept at their house. Do you think the founders intended "arms" to be destructive devices not yet invented? Before you say that today's firearms are different from those of the 1700's, they are cosmetically, but the idea behind "an explosion drives a projectile down a barrel where it hits a target at great speed" is the same. This means that unfortunately, laser tag may not be constitutionally protected.

ishmael

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:35:48 -0500

Why do I suddenly hear Julie Brown in my head... Everybody run! The homecoming queen has got a gun!

jakers

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:08:20 -0500

Take another long look at the picture again, and consider... Dick Cheney's gay soulmate. I'm just throwing it out there, but you see it. I know you do.

monkeyrotica

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:06:18 -0500

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

Fluxgirl

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:00:30 -0500

We're starting a pool: How long before Heller blows his own foot off? Minimum entry fee is $20. Guesses must be within 24 hours of the event.

Disco Stu

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:43:42 -0500

gun. girl bike. all sexy.

sherm

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:41:30 -0500

After all, we don't say that quietly talking to the guy in the next cubicle is protected by the 1st Amendment, but that giving a speech on network TV isn't. 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. The line is drawn by the courts and pretty much every state already has pretty reasonable rules in place except DC. DC is trying to push the envelope as far as they can and making it so difficult to get a gun that no one will be able to until the courts decides on each case over and over. They're bogging down the courts system and wasting taxpayer cash, which is nothing new for the district so why should this be any different.

monkeyrotica

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:37:23 -0500

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.

cminus

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:22:32 -0500

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. If you're going to define "arms" to exclude certain classes of weapons, where do you draw the line? Could DC say that they allow citizens to keep and bear arms because pepper spray is legal? Kitchen knives? Rocks? Amy Winehouse CDs? Is there any clear constitutional reason why firearms are "arms" but nuclear, biological, or chemical arms aren't? After all, we don't say that quietly talking to the guy in the next cubicle is protected by the 1st Amendment, but that giving a speech on network TV isn't.

timmeroo

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 22:50:10 -0500

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.

cminus

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 22:18:11 -0500

I say any requirement that applies to the 2nd Amendment should apply to the 1st as well. Out of curiosity, is there any expression of the 2nd Amendment you don't uncritically support? Should convicted felons be allowed to own guns? Tanks and warplanes? Stockpiles of nerve gas? While they're still in prison? Should a nine-year-old who's been involuntarily committed to a home for the criminally insane be allowed to keep and bear nuclear arms? Because, all these people still have 1st Amendment rights, and there's absolutely no reason why there should be any restrictions on the 2nd Amendment if there's no analogous 1st Amendment restriction, right? Or do you want convicted felons to lose the right to speak, write, or join a religion instead?

monkeyrotica

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:30:29 -0500

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

HCE

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:04:18 -0500

SpeakSoftly, I'm much more worried about the "peace officers" that carry guns in this city. Many of them aren't exactly high-IQ, grade-A individuals. dank, you know that muzzle you have to wear when you go out in public and want to talk? Not really all that onerous...I mean you can still sort of mumble. I say any requirement that applies to the 2nd Amendment should apply to the 1st as well.

dank

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:31:15 -0500

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.

Mike Licht

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:28:05 -0500

Mr. Heller rides a bike in DC traffic without a helmet. His current case may be moot.

Stan Buzzman

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:17:43 -0500

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.

monkeyrotica

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 17:36:25 -0500

Well, this guy has "Grade A Lunatic" written all over him. I dont know what they were thinking giving this guy a gun. Clearly he's a bloodthirstymaniac of the First Water. And no helmet? Whatever, nutsy. I dont know about you, but if I had a gun, I wouldnt be riding a bike. SOMEONE ELSE would be riding it for me with MY gun in the back of his head.

kbug

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 17:20:45 -0500

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!!!!

Matvey

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 17:12:31 -0500

Dick Heller rides a womens bicycle? I'm just going to assume it's stolen.

HCE

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 17:04:27 -0500

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

MikeB

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:56:27 -0500

Is it easier to fire a gun while riding a bike or while driving a car? What would it look like in a Tarantino movie?

SpeakSoftlyCarryABigStick

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:55:41 -0500

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!

tom veil

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:55:13 -0500

If I had to ride a bike to get to work, I'd want to pack heat, too. You need to protect yourself from Corvette-driving pundits!

indiecognition

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:44:07 -0500

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

Boomhauer

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:38:11 -0500

Wants to exercise his second amendment rights....but rides a bike. I guess now DCist readers will be utterly confused as to whether or not they should hate or love Dick Heller.