all bottom-loading guns are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns."
I guess the Lewis is OK.
Posted on 07/17/2008 9:20:21 AM PDT by RKV
Heller attempted to register a semi-auto. Turned down. Source not able to be posted here (Gannett)
Popcorn futures are heading skyward . . .
I want the contract to print “Kick Me” signs for the DC government.
What fools.
I guess they STILL can’t spell LAWSUIT!
Violation of constitutional rights. The NRA needs to organize a March on Washington. Better yet, a boycott of Washington.
Man, I want DC sued back to the stone ages. Federal civil rights raps for the whole council. Striped suits and hard time.
Semi-auto! Why that’s defined as a “machinegun”. Did they confiscate the weapon and throw him under the jail?
Can the DC city officials who are doing this be arrested for disobeying a court order?
Yes, I am completely serious.
You can post a link to the story even if it is from the blacklist.
Don’t know the outcome. Google up WUSA9 and look at breaking news for what we do have.
writ of mandamus, ask for atty fees, kick `em to the curb.
The President and/or Attorney General should order US Marshals to arrest the DC criminals for violating Mr Heller's Civil Rights.
DC government likes living on the edge.
He, and other DC taxpayers, should sue the city and the city employees who are misusing taxpayer money trying to circumvent the Constitution leading to additional unnecessary litigation and legal fees.
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 and 242
And Heller is a HERO.
"Heller, Duggan reports, was at the doors at 6:30 this morning. He did not bring his weapon with him as D.C. regulations require, however. He did raise his frustrations with the District's continued ban on semiautomatic weapons. It's that issue that city officials and gun rights advocates both say is likely to land the city back in court at some point.
But we're burying the real news here. It seems that Heller may not have brought his gun with him to register, but he was armed with a load of candidate petitions, Duggan said.
Seems that Heller is planning to run for the House seat currently held by Eleanor Holmes Norton. Heller is seeking signatures to be on the ballot as a libertarian candidate."
New lawsuit by Heller!
Heller clearly has cause for a follow-up to his suit against the city — considering that this denial is pretty much a refusal to obey a direct order from the USSC, how expedited can this case be made?
Yep. That’s the DC “legal” definition.
according to their interpretation, all bottom-loading guns are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns.
Washington Post has a very different story about what happened -
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dc/2008/07/gun_registration_started_down.html
I’ll send money to the legal defense fund. All Freepers should consider it.
Hey Dave, check this out!
Yes there was -- in the Heller decision, DC was specifically ordered to issue the permit Heller originally requested, and they have deliberately failed to do so.
What do you give gluttons for punishment?
second helpings!
all bottom-loading guns are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns."
I guess the Lewis is OK.
I want the beatings to continue until the morale improves. ;>)
I am sure Heller and the NRA were expecting this. I am sure more law suits will follow.
IMO, this is a delaying tactic by DC. They are hoping that Obama will be elected and then nominate communist judges for the supreme court bench and the heller ruling will be overturned before they actually have to grant anyone their civil rights.
“all bottom-loading guns are outlawed”
So the Winchester Model 70 bolt action is a machine gun.
Look out white-tail!
Legal definitions aren’t necessarily the same as common sense definitions. The Heller decision said “pistol” IIRC, so revolver or semi shouldn’t matter.
Oooohhhhhh....
Clock cleanin time!!!
One would hope.
DC is about to lose and lose and lose again.
WOW, I thought they would at least give Heller one. I am sure someone in the DC legal dept just said “WE DID WHAT?”. They were directly ordered to give Heller a licence by the Supreme Court. Fentey is going to go down as the greatest defender of the 2nd amendment in history. Not since the civil rights battles of the 50’s and 60’s, has a government officials so directly defied the Supreme Court. Again WOW!
And my 50 year old Winchester Model 12.
This business by DC is just bizarre. I don’t understand why they’re insisting on drawing the line between revolvers and autos. It doesn’t make sense to make ~that~ the issue. They’re going to lose again and they have to know it. So why try this nonsense?
“Here’s Your Sign”
You got that right.
Fenty is the gift that keeps on giving. He’s too ornery and stupid to remember the first rule of holes.
No- they're going to claim that the new firearm law in DC meets the requirement of the Heller decision, and the whole thing is going to be re-litigated until the cows come home.
As a DC taxpayer, I'm outraged that my tax dollars are being used to continuously pay for these firearms lawsuits. The District should stop playing games and just pass a reasonable firearms law that clearly meets the requirements of Heller.
One option for the Supes is to appoint a special master over the City Council. Basically it removes the subject from their legislative and executive power.
And my Winchester Model 50. Why, according to them I’ll be
able to take down a covey of quail in, oh, about 1.3 seconds.
Cool!
ping!
United States Code
TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
CHAPTER 21 - CIVIL RIGHTS
SUBCHAPTER I - GENERALLY
U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04
Section 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the
District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any
citizen of the United States or other person within the
jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,
or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable
to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought
against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such
officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted
unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was
unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress
applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be
considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.