good news from our gov finaly, Supreme Court strikes down gun ban

[hyoctane303]

finally the efers did something right:D:D:D:D



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,372041,00.html






insert crazy dancing banana here!!!!!!

[Dempkowski Motorsports]

finally the efers did something right:D:D:D:D



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,372041,00.html






insert crazy dancing banana here!!!!!!

yeeaahh boyyy ! :cool:

[DEZERTSUB]

I'm kind of looking forward to see what B. HUSSEIN has to say about it:cool:

[woundedyak]

I'm kind of looking forward to see what B. HUSSEIN has to say about it:cool:

What he has to say,is not what he's going to do if he wins it!

[scott-dsms]

This just in....Senator Feinstein viscerally affected by decision "I guess I didn’t really think that they would do this. I think it opens this nation to a dramatic lack of safety." "And with this decision, seventy years of precedent has gone out the window. And I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it.” other dems on the hill upset as well.

Funny, I didn't hear any of these little bastiches complaining when the Supreme Court also JUST ruled that executing child rapists was cruel and unusual punishment. Retards

[DEZERTSUB]

Funny, I didn't hear any of these little bastiches complaining when the Supreme Court also JUST ruled that executing child rapists was cruel and unusual punishment. Retards

Go figure huh? An inanimate object such as a firearm is more dangerous to society than an individual who has commited a heinous crime against a child, and scarred that child for life.
Wow, and these people are our LEADERS???:confused:

[Laurie]

And the sad thing is we will probable have more democratics in power after the next election.

Fortunately the supreme court got this one right.

(how many of you want to bet that our great Senator Feinstein has a gun at her house for her protection)

[scott-dsms]

And the sad thing is we will probable have more democratics in power after the next election.

Fortunately the supreme court got this one right.

(how many of you want to bet that our great Senator Feinstein has a gun at her house for her protection)

Senator Feinstein has her very own CCW

[Kartman]

This just in....Senator Feinstein viscerally affected by decision "I guess I didn’t really think that they would do this. I think it opens this nation to a dramatic lack of safety." "And with this decision, seventy years of precedent has gone out the window. And I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it.” other dems on the hill upset as well.

Funny, I didn't hear any of these little bastiches complaining when the Supreme Court also JUST ruled that executing child rapists was cruel and unusual punishment. Retards

She has always been a huge hypocrite. When she was mayor of SF she pretty much ordered the chief that he would issue her a CCW.

[Laurie]

I should have known, she's a more a superior citizen then us lowly voters who can't be trusted
to think or act for ourselves.

[Laurie]

Did I really say that out loud?

[dan200]

Did I really say that out loud?

Yep, And I am giving you some rep for it.:D

Statement of Senator Dianne Feinstein On the Supreme Court’s Ruling Overturning the DC Handgun Ban
06.26.08
“I must admit as much as I knew this decision was coming, I was viscerally affected by the decision."

HAHAHAHAHA Poor baby. How viscerally affected are people who were at the mercy of armed criminals?

[randy s]

i applaud the decision and who cares what she says after the fact. she's a self serving hypocrite out of touch with just damn near everything, just like the rest of them. i can't imagine living in washingon dc and not being armed. to the teeth.

[JRod]

Nothing shocking here.... Good god B. Hussein scares me...

Gun ruling reverberates in presidential campaign

Jun. 26, 2008 01:09 PM
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - John McCain welcomed a Supreme Court decision invalidating a District of Columbia handgun ban. Barack Obama sought to straddle the subject by saying he favors an individual's right to bear firearms as well as a government's right to regulate them.
The hotly contentious issue surfaced in the presidential campaign Thursday after the Supreme Court ruled that Americans have a constitutional right to own guns and struck down the 32-year-old D.C. ban.
McCain, the Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting, heralded the justices' action as "a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom." http://gcirm.azcentral.gcion.com/RealMedia/.ads/adstream_lx.ads/www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/06/26/20080626candidates-guns0626-ON.html/348042967/ArticleFlex_1/OasDefault/jiffy_lube_p6_ros_300A/flashcreative.html/34333837656233333437613064366130?_RM_EMPTY_
Voicing a stance that could help him woo conservatives and libertarians, McCain said, "This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms."
His Democratic rival, Obama, issued a more carefully worded statement apparently aimed at both moderate voters and his liberal base. The statement from Obama, who has long said local governments should be able to regulate guns, did not specifically say whether Obama agreed with overturning the specific D.C. ban. But he said Thursday's ruling "will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country."
"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through commonsense, effective safety measures," Obama said.
Obama said his view was supported by the court's ruling that the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns." That language "reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe," Obama said.
Both presidential candidates endorse an individual's right to bear arms. But they strongly differ beyond that. McCain has had a mostly conservative record on the issue; Obama, a mostly liberal record.
Other than a few departures, McCain is largely in line with the National Rifle Association's hardline support for gun rights. He voted against a ban on assault-style weapons and for shielding gun-makers and dealers from civil damage suits. But he broke with the NRA to favor requiring background checks at gun shows and has taken heat for pushing through campaign finance legislation that gun-rights advocates say muzzled their free speech.
Obama has voted to leave gun-makers and dealers open to lawsuits. He also took largely liberal positions on gun laws while in the Illinois legislature, including backing a ban on all forms of semiautomatic weapons and tighter state restrictions generally on firearms.
Campaigning in Cincinnati, McCain claimed Obama has reversed course on the issue. Obama told FOX Business News network that he's been consistent.
The Democrat's campaign said a spokesman made an "inartful" statement when he said in November that Obama believed the D.C. law was constitutional. But Obama himself did not correct a debate moderator who repeated the position in February.
"You said in Idaho recently, I'm quoting here, 'I have no intention of taking away folks' guns.' But you support the D.C. handgun ban and you've said that it's constitutional," said the moderator, Leon Harris of Washington television station WJLA. Obama nodded as Harris spoke, nodding and saying, "Right, right."
"How can you reconcile those two different positions?" Harris asked.
Obama answered that the United States has conflicting traditions of gun ownership and street violence that results from illegal handgun use. "So, there is nothing wrong, I think, with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets," Obama said.
The Obama campaign argued that Obama was simply acknowledging the question by saying "right."
In other instances, Obama refused to articulate a position when asked whether he thought the D.C. ban was constitutional.
The campaign would not answer directly Thursday when asked whether the candidate agreed with the court that the D.C. ban was unconstitutional, simply pointing back to his statement.

[scottm]

One huge step forward in a long campagn to reverse decades of destructive liberal meddeling in the rights and freedoms of law abiding citizens. Now instead of easy fixes, ie, restricting the rights of the law abiding, they will have to address the real causes of crime, the behavior of their own relatives and constituents.

[Ramsey_ElWardani]

Does this mean that the California "Hands Free" law no longer restricts my right to shoot out the window while talking on the phone? These laws are so confusing. It is a good thing that all those former Republican Presidents appointed sensible Justices. See it does matter who we elect for President.

[Mike @ pit b]

The people of DC have been getting screwed for years. Since it is not a state they had no representatives. And they were still getting taxed.

They actually had the little saying on their license plate changed to read "Taxation without representation"

And who would want to keep a child rapist alive???? I wonder what they would say if it was their kid? Do ya' think they would change their tune?


Mike

[Kartman]

Barack Obama sought to straddle the subject by saying he favors an individual's right to bear firearms as well as a government's right to regulate them.I have seen a lot of meaningless doubletalk from politcos before but this takes the cake. WAJ

[Kartman]

SAF FILES LAWSUIT CHALLENGING CHICAGO’S HANDGUN BAN
BELLEVUE, WA – Following Thursday’s 5-4 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual civil right to keep and bear arms, and that a municipal gun ban violates that right, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) filed a federal lawsuit challenging the City of Chicago’s long-standing handgun ban. The case is McDonald v. City of Chicago.

“Chicago’s handgun ban has failed to stop violent crime,” SAF founder Alan Gottlieb stated. “It’s time to give the Constitution a chance.”

In addition to SAF and ISRA, plaintiffs include Chicago residents Otis McDonald, a retiree who has been working with police to rid his neighborhood of drug dealers, and who wants to have a handgun at his home; Adam Orlov, a former Evanston police officer; software engineer David Lawson and his wife, Colleen, a hypnotherapist, whose home has been targeted by burglars. Attorney Alan Gura, who argued the District of Columbia challenge before the high court, and Chicago area attorney David G. Sigale, represent the plaintiffs.

“Our goal,” Gura said “is to require state and local officials to respect our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Chicago’s handgun ban, and some of its gun registration requirements, are clearly unconstitutional.”

“The right to defend our homes and families against those who would do them harm, whether a random criminal, violent ex-domestic partner, or other wrongdoer, is one of the principles upon which America was founded,” Sigale said. “It is time the City of Chicago trust its honest, law-abiding residents with this Constitutional right.”

“Chicago's registration scheme cries out for common-sense reform,” ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson added.

Under the gun law currently in place, firearms must be re-registered annually.

“Each time,” Gura said, “a tax is imposed, forms must be filled out, photographs submitted. A person who owns more than one gun will find herself or himself constantly in the process of registering each gun as it comes due for expiration. If registration is to be required, once is enough.”

He further noted that Chicago’s bizarre requirement that guns be registered before they are acquired often times makes registration impossible. The penalty for failure to comply with the registration scheme is that a gun not re-registered on time can never be registered again. Gura likened it to a requirement to dispose of a car if it is not re-registered on time with the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Find out more by visiting: www.ChicagoGunCase.com

[pjc]

John Gibson on Fox had Ted Nugent on talking about the decision and he throughly railed against Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer. It was an epic show. Ted is a hero!

We heard from Randy S on this and I am happy to see his support of the decision. What about Alex, Infy and Travis?

[pjc]

A little more on B Hussein's history of acitivities against lawful citizens that choose to own firearms.

Obama’s Efforts to Fund the Self-Described ‘Most Aggressive Group in the Gun Control Movement’ (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2037086/posts)

NRO ^ (http://www.freerepublic.com/%5Ehttp://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmM2NjY3ZWEyNjE4MTMwMDlmNTA5NzE2M2Y2NDQ4ZTM=) | June 26, 2008

Yesterday I wrote that despite Barack Obama’s claims that he believes in the Second Amendment, is a friend to gun owners, never supported a complete ban on handguns (despite a questionnaire from early in his career stating he did), etc., those claims are hard to balance with his approval of Chicago’s effective ban on handguns. In Obama's entire time in the city, there’s no record of him ever objecting to it.

Obama’s audacity on this issue goes even further.

Obama was named a director of the Joyce Foundation in late 1994, and remained in that position until late 2002.

During Obama’s tenure with the Joyce Foundation, donations to anti-gun groups increased dramatically. For example, in 1997 and 1998 the Violence Policy Center received $221,000 and $360,000 from the Foundation; those grants and donations increased to $1 million in 2000 and $800,000 in 2002. In all, during Obama’s tenure, the group received $15 million from the Joyce Foundation.

The Violence Policy Center, despite its name, never seems all that concerned with beatings, stabbings, immolations or explosions. No, they’re completely focused on gun violence, and they can effectively be called an anti-gun or pro-gun control organization.

Lest anyone think I’m mischaracterizing their objective analysis, note that their web site touts themselves as “the most aggressive group in the gun control movement.” Also note studies like their one from 2000 entitled, “Unsafe in Any Hands: Why America Needs to Ban Handguns,” which declared the idea that the Constitution would forbid a national handgun ban a “pure myth.” Also note the organization’s subtly-titled book, Every Handgun is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.)

It’s not just the VPC. The Joyce Foundation also provided several large grants to the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, which can also be safely described as an anti-gun or pro-gun control organization. Besides their role in “litigation designed to change the way guns are designed, marketed, distributed, and sold,” the center perpetually argued that guns in the home were more dangerous than protective.

In 1996, the foundation Obama directed approved $662,525 in grants to the Johns Hopkins Center, and by 2001, they gave another $600,000.

In the wake of today’s ruling, you’re going to hear Barack Obama claim passionately that he believes in the Second Amendment and that he is a friend to gun owners. It will be interesting to see how he can rectify that with his efforts to fund books like Every Handgun is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.

[Roddd]

Does this mean that the California "Hands Free" law no longer restricts my right to shoot out the window while talking on the phone? These laws are so confusing. It is a good thing that all those former Republican Presidents appointed sensible Justices. See it does matter who we elect for President.

Be careful, John McCain voted to confirm Ginsburg, the former head of the ACLU who wanted to lower the age of consent for sex to 12. He still stands by that decision.

[Dave_G]

Update:

Dick Heller is the man who brought the lawsuit against the District?s 32-year-old ban on handguns. He was among the first in line Thursday morning to apply for a handgun permit.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/17/dc-rejects-hellers-gun-permit-application/

But when he tried to register his semi-automatic weapon, he says he was rejected. He says his gun has a seven bullet clip. Heller says the City Council legislation allows weapons with fewer than eleven bullets in the clip. A spokesman for the DC Police says the gun was a bottom-loading weapon, and according to their interpretation, all bottom-loading guns are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns.

Typical liberal respect for the law...

[Ryno]

All bottom loaders eh? Wow......then shotguns are even banned, being that you load them (most) from the bottom. No dove opener for them this year.

[Offspring]

Their first interpretation was also f'ed up also. Feds need to step in, and he needs to sue.

[Dave_G]

Feds need to step in, and he needs to sue.

Better yet the government needs to send in the U.S. Marshalls to arrest the D.C. city council for violating the law of the land (similar to the school integration crisis of the sixties).

[Ziggy]

Still need the State of California to change the assault weapons ban.
My AR15 is still in Montana 'cause its illegal here.:mad::mad:

[scary fast hummer]

Good on the Supreme Court. Just goes to show that the system of checks and balances works. You cannot imagine how much drama I had to go through to get a shotgun license here in the UK. The only reason I went through the effort, even though I enjoy a good day out pheasant hunting, is to teach my boys about firearms, safety and the real effect guns have. Their lives changed the day I made them pick up a shattered bird, carry it back, scoop out its guts and clean it. They learned that meat doesn't grow in cling film wrapped trays there isn't a "redo" on life like on Halo 3.

Taking them to a clay pigeon shoot and pig roast in a few hours. Wish us "good shooting"!