The DC mayor is a POS....

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

the city attorneys should be disbarred. that will change their minds real quick.

You said something even dumber.

And you think "heads are going to roll." Whose, pray tell me? DC citizens love the new law. Senate Dems for not acting? Again, all they have to say is that they agree with the Supreme Court decision and say they'll "let this play out in the courts."

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

you probably don't think gun owners are fired up about Obama's position on gun control (which is that he loves all of it, and that he's parsing and lying).

Look at his voting record. Obama has NEVER had ONE vote that was pro-gun.

How do you think Obama will respond when asked about this DC move? (this is where I determine how smart you are).

"I think the Supreme Court got it right that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own a gun. What that means, they'll have to tell us. It will be interesting to see how this play's out in court."

Next?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Levin

"I think the Supreme Court got it right that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own a gun. What that means, they'll have to tell us. It will be interesting to see how this play's out in court."

Next?

you fail. Obama is a conniving liar. If this is big enough for a reporter to ask him, he will say something that is pro-gun-ish, but not mean it. We call that lying for votes.

[Levin]

It's fun being Obama, so here's more:

"The DC government has obviously enacted a very restrictive gun law. In fact, it may be too restrictive, but that is a decision for the Supreme Court, and not me."

Waters: "I asked, Obamass, would you have voted for the law if you were on the DC council?"

Obama: "Well, I think the right to self defense is very important. In fact, that's what the SC said the 2nd Amendment was originally enacted for; to protect a citizen's right to self-defense. The DC law seems to toe the line there very closely, and under the SC's reasoning, I don't know if it can be upheld. But it will be interesting to see."

H2O: "You're not answering my question, dumbass. Would you have voted for the DC gun law?"

Obama: "Well, I think we have a duty to comply with the Constitution as the Supreme Court interprets it; I would have to say that the DC law restricts the right to self defense to a great degree, and maybe undermines the Supreme Court's rationale. We'll have to see what they say."

Waters self destructs.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

you fail. Obama is a conniving liar. If this is big enough for a reporter to ask him, he will say something that is pro-gun-ish, but not mean it. We call that lying for votes.

What do you mean? My Obama said something very pro-gunnish.

You can't read.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by Levin

"I think the Supreme Court got it right that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own a gun. What that means, they'll have to tell us. It will be interesting to see how this play's out in court."

Next?

Obviously, it means you can own one, provided it's disassembled, it's not loaded, and there's zero chance you'll be able to use it if someone breaks into your home. But hey, he belives in the 2nd ammendment!!

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Levin

Obama: "Well, I think the right to self defense is very important. In fact, that's what the SC said the 2nd Amendment was originally enacted for; to protect a citizen's right to self-defense. The DC law seems to toe the line there very closely, and under the SC's reasoning, I don't know if it can be upheld. But it will be interesting to see."

You must have missed this article, Levin:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/125180.html

Obama may claim that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, but he doesn't seem to think that owning a gun should be used for self defense.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Look, as one who has lived near here most of my life, it is no secret that DC is perhaps the most amateurish and poorly run municipality in the country. Fenty is an object lesson in why you don't just elect good looks and charisma. This is like a bunch of teenagers playing government.

At the end of the day, congress controls DC and only a few congressional democrats from San Francisco will be willing to risk not squashing this immediately. We all understand that like it or not SCOTUS gets the final words and I seriously doubt that this democratic congress wants to set the precedent of taking the position that SCOTUS can be ignored. Governor Wallace gave this very thing a try but blinked when Eisenhower sent federal troops to Little Rock.

Even failing action by congress, does anyone seriously think that this president is going to allow DC to succeed where Wallace failed? Fenty and his crew and about to see what happens when you defy the grown ups whose offices are in the white neo-classical buildings downtown.

I agree. Dems also understand that setting the precedent of ignoring SCOTUS on gun rights will lead to many cities ignoring SCOTUS on abortion rights.

This is a silly move by a silly man.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I agree. Dems also understand that setting the precedent of ignoring SCOTUS on gun rights will lead to many cities ignoring SCOTUS on abortion rights.

This is a silly move by a silly man.

So what is the punishment for govt. lawyers who advise the executive to ignore SCOTUS?

I guess none.

There goes rule of law.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

So what is the punishment for govt. lawyers who advise the executive to ignore SCOTUS?

I guess none.

There goes rule of law.

Massive over-reaction.

We fought this last night. But until you can show me how the DC law contravenes the Supreme Court's decision, then all you'll continue to be a blustery fool, and all the DC attorneys will be are really smart lawyers who push the envelope without being in direct defiance.

Parts of the DC law will surely get stricken (not being able to have it loaded in the home), but the Supreme Court has not said anything -- YET -- that would make that unconstitutional as of right now.

And yes -- more power to the communities who want to push the limits on abortion law. It's the only way constitutional law, which is all judge made law, develops. Elected officials have a duty to respond to their constituencies on these issues, and if they have smart lawyers, they'll go as far as the current state of the law will let them. That is what DC did.