TexasCHLforum.com

The District of Columbia council will vote today on new gun laws in response to Heller.

Jim

Well, I guess they dropped the "revolver only" part. Saying a "max of 12 rounds".

Interesting. That was a very short article - anyone find anything more substantial yet?

A few more details, from the Washington Post.

12-round revolvers?

Have at it, guys & gals.

Jim

Sounds to me like they really haven't learned their lesson.

KBCraig wrote:Sounds to me like they really haven't learned their lesson.

I foresee another round (or 10) of lawsuits for DC.

Now do they mean holds 12, or can hold 12?

Council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) said in a statement that the emergency legislation is a start. "But, because we really haven' t changed the storage rule from the prior unconstitutional law and because of other features, I do agree that this is a lawsuit waiting to happen," she said. "But we'll be prepared."

In essence she is saying "I know we are breaking the law, but until the courts tell us to stop, we are going to keep doing it.".

Once the courts tell them they are in opposition to the Constitution, they should throw them all in jail!

O6nop wrote:

Council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) said in a statement that the emergency legislation is a start. "But, because we really haven' t changed the storage rule from the prior unconstitutional law and because of other features, I do agree that this is a lawsuit waiting to happen," she said. "But we'll be prepared."

In essence she is saying "I know we are breaking the law, but until the courts tell us to stop, we are going to keep doing it.".

Once the courts tell them they are in opposition to the Constitution, they should throw them all in jail!

Better yet, everyone sues them for violation of their Constitutional Rights.

I hope they keep dragging DC back to the courthouse each and every time the pinheads keep acting they way they do, sue those idiots into oblivion!

oh and a 12 shot revolver

O6nop wrote:In essence she is saying "I know we are breaking the law, but until the courts tell us to stop, we are going to keep doing it.".

Once the courts tell them they are in opposition to the Constitution, they should throw them all in jail!

Since the good citizens of D.C. paid the legal fees for the first lawsuit, subsequent cases on the same issue should be funded by the individual members of the D.C. government.

O6nop wrote:

Council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) said in a statement that the emergency legislation is a start. "But, because we really haven' t changed the storage rule from the prior unconstitutional law and because of other features, I do agree that this is a lawsuit waiting to happen," she said. "But we'll be prepared."

In essence she is saying "I know we are breaking the law, but until the courts tell us to stop, we are going to keep doing it.".
Once the courts tell them they are in opposition to the Constitution, they should throw them all in jail!

Yup, that is exactly their position! That kind of arrogance and disregard for the courts should be met with swift and sure punishment.

Another thing I noticed (not gleaned from the article posted) is that D.C. continues to require the disassembly and locked storage of Rifles and Shotguns. How do they reconcile that with this:

Firearms may be banned, the majority opinion in the Heller case maintained, only if the weapons are "unusual and dangerous."

O6nop wrote:

Once the courts tell them they are in opposition to the Constitution, they should throw them all in jail!

Interesting concept. I might go along if it applied across the board, for example, authorities requiring kids to pray each morning in school: policemen without adequate cause assaulting citizens, sometimes killing them; the unlimited detention and sometimes torture of U. S. citizens on the basis of simply labeling them "unlawful combatants," then denying them their rights to counsel, to hear the evidence against them and habeas corpus; and on and on we go.

Jim

Mr.Scott wrote:Better yet, everyone sues them for violation of their Constitutional Rights.

Interesting, and arguably, given the right case, a possibility, but I would quibble with the word "everyone."

Jim

"This is not perfect legislation," said D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson, who worked with the mayor's office on the bill.

Geee.... Yah think?

The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision June 26 that affirmed the right to have guns for self-defense "raised more questions than it's probably answered," Helmke said. "They haven't explained where you draw the line."

How about drawing it at "the right to have guns," exactly as he stated it?

What a bunch of maroons.