I'm actually pleased that DC is being more or less openly defiant. That means more easy court victories to build up precedent to beat other states/localities over the head with while we're waiting for Incorporation.

Churchill2004: I'm actually pleased that DC is being more or less openly defiant. That means more easy court victories to build up precedent to beat other states/localities over the head with while we're waiting for Incorporation.

I like the cut of your jib

Churchill2004: I'm actually pleased that DC is being more or less openly defiant. That means more easy court victories to build up precedent to beat other states/localities over the head with while we're waiting for Incorporation.

Yes I am sure that the 4 Obama appointees are going to extend Scalia's silly and atextual argument.

"All bottom-loading guns," eh?

So... If I brought a revolver to DC, THEN I could register it? Absurd.

Idiots. I don't know what else to say about this level of stupidity.

Such is life. He'll get over it.

Someone posted the original WUSA9 article on TF (it was redlighted). I saw the article, sent the link as a tip to Reason, and they wrote this article referring to it. I posted a comment on that thread, now I'm commenting here.

Ain't the internet spooky?

Lorelle: Such is life. He'll get over it.

Somehow I doubt it. I have a feeling this is the type of guy who would go to such lengths as, say, suing the District of Columbia in order to get what he wants. He might even take it to the Supreme Court.

Churchill2004: I'm actually pleased that DC is being more or less openly defiant

That's fine, but it has the potential to cost the city a lot more money just to fight the good fight. It was a losing proposition to fight the earlier lower court ruling, and now they're just going to stomp their feet and make it worse. Really, I agree with Mayor Fenty on a surprising number of things, like what he's doing with the public school system, but this is just nonsense.

albo: Ain't the internet spooky?

I submitted that first link! Do I get partial credit?

lunchinlewis: I submitted that first link! Do I get partial credit

it's an internet miracle!

What might the penalties be for defying the USSC?

Either way... Go Heller!

albo: it's an internet miracle!

I'm gonna brag about this at happy hour tonight. Or, maybe not.

Juansmith: "All bottom-loading guns," eh?

So... If I brought a revolver to DC, THEN I could register it? Absurd.

Just as long as you don't point it straight up when you load it.

Turns out he's the only one in DC who even owns a gun. Link (new window)

Why doesn't he just shoot them?

You know, at some point people are going to start voting politicians out of office and drafting intelligent, rational people in their place. Any minute now... very soon...

Why is it that when, say, the Cali supreme court overturns gay marriage, it's judicial activism overriding the will of the people; but when it's SCOTUS overturning the handgun ban, it's a reassertion of fundamental rights?

Is the whole "judicial activism" thing just a right-wing term for all unfavorable rulings?

/I'm honestly not trying to troll
//really would appreciate a reasoned answer

He should install one of those hand cranked air raid sirens outside his house, and every time the DC police do something incredibly stupid (like this) he could crank it up.

The Washington Post had a much better article about this today (new window)

Basically Heller was first in line to get a Permit but didn't bring his gun with him as required in the permit instructions . His attorney, who went with him told him not to bring the gun until the DC police give him written permission to bring it into the district.

He actually owns 3 guns and yes he will not be able to register his Model 1911 because semi-autos of any kind come under the DC Machine gun ban (asinine as that may be)

In my limited legal opinion the District will lose on court challenges to this, as welll the requirement that all guns be kept unloaded AND trigger locked or disassembled. (which the court more or less directly addressed in Heller)

Mordien: Why is it that when, say, the Cali supreme court overturns gay marriage, it's judicial activism overriding the will of the people; but when it's SCOTUS overturning the handgun ban, it's a reassertion of fundamental rights?

which amendment in the bill of rights is the gay marriage one?

Magorn: The Washington Post had a much better article about this today (new window)

but the post pretty much buried the lede.

Did they check the law really close to see if it has a "signing statement" in it?
It has been working for Bush so why not everyone else?

/hotlinked William Devane frowns on these shenanigans

Mordien: Why is it that when, say, the Cali supreme court overturns gay marriage, it's judicial activism overriding the will of the people; but when it's SCOTUS overturning the handgun ban, it's a reassertion of fundamental rights?

Is the whole "judicial activism" thing just a right-wing term for all unfavorable rulings?

/I'm honestly not trying to troll
//really would appreciate a reasoned answer

yes basically. See also the Ramos and Campos cases where conservatives work themselves into a lather because judges correctly applied the law and the mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines to a pair of back shooting border patrol agents.


Apparently those rules were only supposed to be strict applied to people they don't like.

Mordien: Why is it that when, say, the Cali supreme court overturns gay marriage, it's judicial activism overriding the will of the people; but when it's SCOTUS overturning the handgun ban, it's a reassertion of fundamental rights?

It's possible to say both are perfectly acceptable.

albo: Mordien: Why is it that when, say, the Cali supreme court overturns gay marriage, it's judicial activism overriding the will of the people; but when it's SCOTUS overturning the handgun ban, it's a reassertion of fundamental rights?

which amendment in the bill of rights is the gay marriage one?

take your pick:

1st (free association)
4th (privacy)
5th (Due process and equal protection)
9th (unenumerated rights)
and/or 14th (5th on steroids)

and Unless you either have a JD or are in the process of getting one, I'd strongly advise you not to go there with me. This is one of my legal specialties

albo: which amendment in the bill of rights is the gay marriage one?

14th - Equal Protection under the Law.

Oh wait, you said BoR? Answer: It's not in the BoR, but it is in the Constitution.

Mordien: Why is it that when, say, the Cali supreme court overturns gay marriage, it's judicial activism overriding the will of the people; but when it's SCOTUS overturning the handgun ban, it's a reassertion of fundamental rights?

My knee-jerk reaction would be that the Ca. gay marriage ban was VOTED ON & PASSED (will of the people).

I don't believe the DC handgun ban was ever VOTED on.

Magorn: and Unless you either have a JD or are in the process of getting one, I'd strongly advise you not to go there with me. This is one of my legal specialties

my goodness.

7 shot semi automatic you say?

Churchill2004: Mordien: Why is it that when, say, the Cali supreme court overturns gay marriage, it's judicial activism overriding the will of the people; but when it's SCOTUS overturning the handgun ban, it's a reassertion of fundamental rights?

It's possible to say both are perfectly acceptable.

I would say that (I'm a gun-loving Democrat). So would Bob Barr (a Libertarian). But I'm pretty sure Mordien was talking about the Republican Party, whose positions he was reiterating in an attempt at critical juxtaposition.

I'd also like an answer from a Republican who agrees with the Party platform, if there's one around.

Magorn: take your pick:
1st (free association)
4th (privacy)
5th (Due process and equal protection)
9th (unenumerated rights)
and/or 14th (5th on steroids

The Homer Tax: 14th - Equal Protection under the Law....It's not in the BoR, but it is in the Constitution.

Also, their decision was based on the state constitution, which could only extend any of those rights.

stlbluez: My knee-jerk reaction would be that the Ca. gay marriage ban was VOTED ON & PASSED (will of the people).

I don't believe the DC handgun ban was ever VOTED on.

But the premise of the representative government is that the people elect representatives who legislate and execute the will of the people. If the founders (of our country and its respective states) intended for the will of the simple majority to rule, we would have just had a democracy.

danfrank: Turns out he's the only one in DC who even owns a gun. Link (new window)

After reading the new law, I wouldn't register my gun either. The part of it that worries me most is that you have to leave your gun with the police so it can be test fired and the bullet/shell are kept on file. Unfortunately, there isn't a time limit on how long they keep your gun. I can see a huge potential for abuse of this ambiguity.

This is bullshiat.

/dc resident

I advise going there with him. It will either be informative or hilarious. Perhaps even both.

Farking D.C. douchebags. Wow....I never knew my 15-shot Beretta was a machine gun. Nice to know.

The Homer Tax: albo: which amendment in the bill of rights is the gay marriage one?

14th - Equal Protection under the Law.

Oh wait, you said BoR? Answer: It's not in the BoR, but it is in the Constitution.

Look it is a weak argument but you can have gay marriage illegal and still have equal protection. devils advocate Gay and straight men can both marry women, and vice versa. devils advocate off the outlawing of hand guns is a much more clear infringiment on rights protected in the constitution.

Mordien: Why is it that when, say, the Cali supreme court overturns gay marriage, it's judicial activism overriding the will of the people; but when it's SCOTUS overturning the handgun ban, it's a reassertion of fundamental rights?

Is the whole "judicial activism" thing just a right-wing term for all unfavorable rulings?

/I'm honestly not trying to troll
//really would appreciate a reasoned answer

I celebrated both decisions. I think they're both a matter of equal rights and protection stemming from the bill of rights.

timujin: Lorelle: Such is life. He'll get over it.

Somehow I doubt it. I have a feeling this is the type of guy who would go to such lengths as, say, suing the District of Columbia in order to get what he wants. He might even take it to the Supreme Court.

I think this guy knows how to find the courthouse.

stlbluez: My knee-jerk reaction would be that the Ca. gay marriage ban was VOTED ON & PASSED (will of the people).

I don't believe the DC handgun ban was ever VOTED on.

I agree with this sentiment, but the "judicial activism" line is used when SCOTUS overturns acts of congress, as well. I picked the gay marriage decision because there were many more cries of JA.

The Homer Tax: But the premise of the representative government is that the people elect representatives who legislate and execute the will of the people.

Are you new to discussions about DC? Are you familiar with our license plate?

Take their sorry asses back to the SCOTUS, that's ridiculous and they're acting like children trying to find some loophole to screw the guy.

Oh, and...

Churchill2004: Mordien: Why is it that when, say, the Cali supreme court overturns gay marriage, it's judicial activism overriding the will of the people; but when it's SCOTUS overturning the handgun ban, it's a reassertion of fundamental rights?

It's possible to say both are perfectly acceptable.

THIS.

Nurglitch: I advise going there with him

But do you strongly advise it?

The Homer Tax: stlbluez: My knee-jerk reaction would be that the Ca. gay marriage ban was VOTED ON & PASSED (will of the people).

I don't believe the DC handgun ban was ever VOTED on.

But the premise of the representative government is that the people elect representatives who legislate and execute the will of the people. If the founders (of our country and its respective states) intended for the will of the simple majority to rule, we would have just had a democracy.


Fine.. I'm not a friggin lawyer.
The question had to do with will of the people. I gave my answer.
In one case the people voted their will.. hence their majority will was truly illustrated & then overturned.

In another a law was forced apon them absent of a vote.

Magorn: 1st (free association)
4th (privacy)
5th (Due process and equal protection)
9th (unenumerated rights)
and/or 14th (5th on steroids)

Since when does free association include pole smoking?

The_Sponge: Farking D.C. douchebags. Wow....I never knew my 15-shot Beretta was a machine gun. Nice to know.

Like Churchhill2004 mentioned, they're making it so prohibitively hard to get a gun that they're just asking for a follow-up judgement.

The next requirement that will be challenged is the trigger locks.

Magorn:
and Unless you either have a JD or are in the process of getting one, I'd strongly advise you not to go there with me. This is one of my legal specialties

Can I have your permission to be in awe of you?



jagoff

Mordien: Why is it that when, say, the Cali supreme court overturns gay marriage, it's judicial activism overriding the will of the people; but when it's SCOTUS overturning the handgun ban, it's a reassertion of fundamental rights?

Is the whole "judicial activism" thing just a right-wing term for all unfavorable rulings?

/I'm honestly not trying to troll
//really would appreciate a reasoned answer

Because marriage isn't in the constitution one way or another and isn't considered a fundamental right by any philosopher of note, unless Locke wrote something I'm not familiar with?

Judicial activism is using technicalities of the judiciary to quash legitimate laws, it is to the rule of law in general what Jim Crow was to the fourteenth amendment. It's fairly near impossible for the USSC to do it, because by charter, their interpretation determines whether a law is legitimate in the first place. And yes, most cries of 'judicial activism' aren't really referring to actual judicial activism, it's a convenient buzzword used by lobbyists in the same way environmentalists use 'sustainable' and 'clean'.