It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Outlawing Semiautomatics

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Outlawing Semiautomatics


Houston Chronicle 07

City outlawing semiautomatic firearms. Required to register firearms. "It's an extremely momentous day," Schwartz said.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Von Breichenruchardt, president of the Bill of Rights Foundation, said that as long as the city outlaws most semiautomatic firearms, Heller likely will be prohibited from registering his weapon of choice - a .45 caliber Colt pistol. Heller said he'd return today to register a different weapon.
Residents who kept handguns in their home illegally while the ban was in place are being given six months of amnesty to register their weapons to police headquarters so officers can make sure the firearms meet city regulations, officials said.
Gun owners can only register one weapon in the first 90 days.
"We're" trying to accommodate people," Assistant Police Chief Peter Newsham said. "This isn't a gotcha program."
Besides Heller, about 60 residents showed up at police headquarters Thursday -- mostly to pick up applications for firearms.
Jordan Schwartz, a 23-year old law student, said he felt safe but wanted to register a gun to exercise his Second Amendment rights.
"It's an extremely momentous day," Schwartz siad.


This article was in today's paper, but I do not know to what city it references. Nonetheless, this is an outrage and a clear violation of Civil Rights and the Second Amendment.

Houston Chronicle 08
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 18-7-2008 by chaoticsoul]

[edit on 18-7-2008 by chaoticsoul]



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Didn't the supreme court just blast a big hole in "city regulations" with the DC ruling? I think it was the surpreme court. Regardless state laws mean a whole lot more than city laws.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 10:22 AM
link   
The DC administration seem intent on violating the spirit of the SCOTUS ruling, if not the letter.

It might take a while, but the NRA has already filed lawsuits against DC and other cities that prefer a police state to liberty.

Here's a Google link to this and other article on the same subject.

/6kat3e



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 10:27 AM
link   

The Supreme Court ruled June 26 that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to have guns for self-defense. Since then, city officials have moved quickly to abide by the decision. Under emergency legislation passed this week by the D.C. Council, residents may keep handguns only for self defense — at home unloaded and disassembled, or equipped with trigger locks.

A weapon can be readied for use only if there's the "reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm." The law also bans weapons broadly defined as machine guns that can fire 12 rounds or more, which rules out most semiautomatic handguns.

May be this is the Chronicle link


Unloaded and disassembled. Great. Hey bad guy, can you hold up on the attack until I put my gun together...

Guess the trigger lock business will boom there.




[edit on 7/18/2008 by roadgravel]



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I'm not what most would consider a "gun nut". I own no guns, and I live in a city where they are heavily restricted (Chicago). In fact my understanding is it's nearly impossible for a Chicago resident to legally purchase and/or own a firearm. Even rifles and shotguns are restricted.

The Supreme Court decision may have affirmed the right of the Individual to own weapons, at least in theory. As a matter of real-life practicality I'll be far more impressed when I can legally buy guns in my home city, or better yet open my own shop. Unless and until that happens the SCOTUS decision means Jack.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 10:33 AM
link   
SCOTUS ruled that anything that renders a firearm unusable in an emergency situation, including trigger locks, were unconstitutional.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

blogs.usatoday.com...




[edit on 2008/7/18 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


Its going to end up right back in a federal court. I'd say that I can't believe DC would be so stupid as to all but disregard the USSC's ruling, but the truth is, I expected this.

I don't know if they can be cited for contempt of court, but I'd love to see the USSC give all of these DC officials about 60 days in the local lockup if they can.

Just to add, its also a violation of federal law for a government official to knowingly deny citizens of their constitutional rights. The USSC ruled quite clearly that it is unconstitutional to force gun owners to either keep their weapons disassembled or with trigger locks in place, as DC is still doing.

[edit on 18-7-2008 by vor78]



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravelUnder emergency legislation passed this week by the D.C. Council, residents may keep handguns only for self defense — at home unloaded and disassembled, or equipped with trigger locks.


LOL. DC. These are the people that elected a known crack head for mayor. "He May Not Be Perfect, But He's Perfect for D.C."

Anyone that would bother to follow their silly rules deserves to be a victim of Darwinism.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 10:46 AM
link   
I don't know... seems like in DC no one in authority is required to abide by the law. Rove ignored a subpoena. Bush and Cheney have a laundry list of federal violations and have already been cited in teh courts as having violated laws. Why not just disregard the Supreme Court. Clearly, this is de rigeur these days for government.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Great. I bet criminals are waiting for this ban. It will guarantee most homes will be unarmed.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


It looks like the city officials are using the 'bumbling idiot' method to prolong their control. Hope it is resolved quickly for the residents sake.




top topics



 
0

log in

join