Thread: D.C. grabs guns from soldier

Originally Posted by Karl

While I understand your point and do not necessarily disagree, by carrying weapons into the District the good Lt. was not a law abiding person.

Malum in se vs Malum prohibitum

By going into hiding and not reporting to a "work camp", Otto Frank was not a law abiding person.

Just sayin'

Originally Posted by Centinel

Malum in se vs Malum prohibitum

By going into hiding and not reporting to a "work camp", Otto Frank was not a law abiding person.

Just sayin'

The left worships laws that hassle conservatives or impinge on rights mainly exercised by conservatives.

Originally Posted by TurtleDude

it was a stupid law. the blacks who disobeyed the jim crow laws in the 50's and 60's were "lawbreakers" too

so we should break laws in 2012 willy-nilly, because Jim Crow was wrong?

and btw, the blacks who violated Jim Crow laws were arrested, and wanted to be arrested. Its called civil disobedience.

part of civil disobedience includes being arrested.

Originally Posted by Thunder

so we should break laws in 2012 willy-nilly, because Jim Crow was wrong?

no, we should render powerless any idiot who supports such laws by voting them out of office or having intelligent judges slap their crap down

I think Karl could have expanded a little more here. I don't think its fair to say the guy in this instance with the breaking of jim crow laws or worse the holocaust but indeed being a lawbreaker is not always something to condemn people for.However for the sake of argument let me beg this question what if he instead was suffering from ptsd and he got the guns out of the trunk or where ever he stored them and basically had a Rambopage inside the hospital much like that soldier now on trial for those civilians in Afghanistan. Now did the cops perhaps overreact and should the district have done better at returning his property definitely. But you know this really isn't a second amendment issue you are seriously telling me that the second amendment allows the possession of firearms everywhere.

Originally Posted by Alan B.

I think Karl could have expanded a little more here. I don't think its fair to say the guy in this instance with the breaking of jim crow laws or worse the holocaust but indeed being a lawbreaker is not always something to condemn people for.However for the sake of argument let me beg this question what if he instead was suffering from ptsd and he got the guns out of the trunk or where ever he stored them and basically had a Rambopage inside the hospital much like that soldier now on trial for those civilians in Afghanistan. Now did the cops perhaps overreact and should the district have done better at returning his property definitely. But you know this really isn't a second amendment issue you are seriously telling me that the second amendment allows the possession of firearms everywhere.

where did DC get the proper power to pass such a law?

DC has the same police power authority as would a state if you know where I could find the text of the law I could be more specific, but I must confess about my post earlier I think I may have misstated the issue here somewhat the issue wasn't so much that he had the gun at the hospital but that he had the gun in his car at the hospital and he transported it. If I had to guess I'd say this is the one § 22-4504.02. Lawful transportation of firearms.

"(a) Any person who is not otherwise prohibited by the law from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be permitted to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry the firearm..." Can you point out to me how this violates the second amendment? As far as I cant tell the second amendment does not bar the regulation of the transportation of firearms. Whether we are talking about state police power or article 1 authority.

Originally Posted by Alan B.

I think Karl could have expanded a little more here. [....]

As you might imagine, Karl does not want to overtly agitate the inmates

Originally Posted by TurtleDude

no, we should render powerless any idiot who supports such laws by voting them out of office or having intelligent judges slap their crap down

and what happens when/if more than 50% of the representative's constituents supports this law, and the judge finds the law Constitutional?

what then?

This should get appealed all the way to the SCOTUS. The 2nd amendment is quite clear, even more so than the 1st, since the 1st states "congress shall pass no law to ...", while the 2nd states "the right of the people to ... shall not be infringed". That seems, to me, to say that the 1st amendment may apply only to the federal gov't, while the 2nd amendment clearly applies to ALL levels of gov't. How can the right of the people not be considered infringed upon by the state, county or city, being able to sidestep the constitution, in exchange for charging fees, confiscating private property or levying fines for the exercise of your basic constitutional rights as a citizen?