Posted by
Mick O. on Friday, July 18, 2008 11:09:40 AM
July 18, 2008: From the Patriot Post
DC ignores Heller ruling
On 26 June, the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia vs. Heller that Washington, DC’s handgun ban violated the Second Amendment, forcing the city to draft new gun legislation. The DC city council is now considering that new legislation, but if it passes, it’s almost certain that the District will end up in court again. That’s because DC’s new law doesn’t look much different from the old one.
While handguns would be allowed in DC homes under the new legislation, semiautomatic pistols would still be illegal. “The semiautomatic ban is clearly unconstitutional,” said Alan Gura, the attorney who successfully challenged DC’s handgun ban. “The overwhelming majority of handguns people use in the United States are semiautomatic.” This is significant because the Supreme Court majority opinion noted that weapons in “common use” could not be banned, but only “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
Also basically unchanged is DC’s requirement that guns be locked or disassembled unless there is an “immediate threat.” In other words, the District of Columbia expects residents to assemble and load a revolver while being attacked by an intruder in the middle of the night. We doubt the Supreme Court would be amused, especially since Chief Justice John Roberts mocked the very idea during the oral-arguments phase of Heller.
No matter—Washington, DC, is intent on defying the Heller ruling anyway. “[B]ecause 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,” said council member Mary Cheh, “but we’ll be prepared.” The problem is, the law-abiding citizen who is threatened in his own home won’t be prepared.
In San Francisco, up until recently, has chosen to ignore the law of the United States and declared itself a sanctuary city. Fortunately, the City government has realized that many of the crimes committed there were by illegals, so they are now cooperating with ICE.
Bottom line... why is it that liberals choose which laws they think are right while the rest of us have to follow ALL of the rules? I other words, if they agree with the law, it's okay, but if they don't, they choose to ignore it. I don't agree with the laws regarding the IRS and taking our money. Why doesn't the City of San Francisco choose to ignore that one? It's more against what the founding fathers fought for than any of the other laws they don't like. In fact, DC is choosing to ignore the second amendment!