I expected miffed D.C. bureaucrats to punish Heller for standing up for his Rights. If they had just issued his permit, he would have gone away, but by harrassing him, they are bringing down more SCOTUS decisions. Pardon the pun, but they just shot themselves in the foot!

I believe the Miller decision, specifically, states that the weapons protected under the 2nd Amendment must be similar to those in common use for Militia-type activities. Magazine-loaded pistols and machine guns have been serving in that capacity for decades so they are, clearly, protected arms.

The Miller and Heller decisions laid the groundwork for the SCOTUS to, finally, settle this issue. Incompetent D.C. clowns are, ironically, helping to bring about their own worst fears. I love it!

Can you say, “Retaliation?”

countertop@gmail.com

email me.

The arrogance of the DC government is breathtaking. The SCOTUS specifically held that the requirement in the previous law to keep guns in and unloaded, and disassembled and/or locked condition was unconstitutional because it rendered them incapable of being used in self defense, yet they insist on adding it back in.

I also think that their definition of “machine gun” may fall afoul of the National Firearms Act. I certainly hope that Congress wil take some action to intercede in a sensible way. If not, then I am ready to chip in for the legal fund to have you be the next plaintiff to kick their arrogant behinds in court.

Countertop,

After reading your reply to FL Mom, I just had to check out your blog. As to your recommendation on the Star PD, I also have one that has been sitting in my gunsafe NIB & unfired for 30 years. It is every bit as pristine as the one you depicted, and I’d let it go substantially cheaper, so let me know

I agree that the 2nd Amend is about “to keep and bear”.

Please re-read my post. It appears the sarcasm was lost on you – “(maybe more keep than bear)”.

As “bear” to me means to “carry” as in bear the burden. However, my understanding of the SCOTUS rendering of Heller does not extend to carrying outside of or off my property (which I believe the 2nd Amend gives me the right to).

Sometimes the difficulty of written comm is the nuances lost.

wtc

On the vision thing – your example is a complete red herring. In any state – it largely illegal to use deadly force in the protection of mere property. You can only use it to protect your or others, person from imminent and substantial bodily harm. Where a court will draw the line in defining when one had a reasonable belief that they would be subjected to harm differs in each state, but largely your example has no bearing here.

Further, in response to reader Don’s lame defense of this illegal vision requirement on my page, here’s largely what I said.

First, this is a requirement for the purchase of a gun. Not to carry it. There is no such requirement to purchase a car. Anyone can buy a car. And even there, anyone can drive the car they purchased on their property without having a license. There is only a limit, and need to have a license, for you to drive it on a PUBLIC road.

Second, driving a car on a public road is a privilege, not a fundamental right.

Third, there isn’t a complete prohibition on driving for people with vision problems. Rather, REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS need to be made which take into the fact the varying levels of vision. Some can only drive with glasses on, or with contacts. Others can only drive during the day.

Further , there is a dramatic difference from driving a car on the road where at any one time there are dozens of other moving objects demanding your attention and distracting you from the task of driving. With a gun, the case is very very much different. When you go to the range and go shooting, you are able to focus on the object at hand, take your time to get it in your sites, and shoot it. True, this isn’t going to be the situation within your house, but an old widow who lives alone is only going to have to hit the approach black mass in the middle of the night and not need to possess the extent of the vision required to drive (in which you need to be able to see and read signs and have a strong peripheral function as well as the ability to quickly focus and adjust). All she needs to do is be able to call out Stop who is that . . . and when its not someone she knows to fire at them.

Of course, most people who use a gun defensively never even fire it. As we see time and time again, the mere fact of pulling a gun out so a goblin sees it (or even just racking the slide on your pump shotgun) is enough to send most hoodlums and gang bangers running.

“In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibiton against rendering any legal firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.” District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290 (October Term, 2007), slip op. at 64 (Opinion of the Court, Scalia, J.).

In other words, the District’s attempt to require that any legal firearm in the home be kept disassembled, or secured with a trigger lock, or locked in a gun safe, etc., that will interfere with the firearm being used for immediate self-defense, runs, as the Supreme Court held in Heller, afoul of the Second Amendment.

America needs your voice.

To “bear” something means to carry it around.

If, however, someone wants to carry (I know, bear with me….), in TX, you have to show proficiency, meaning put rounds on target.

Be careful what you ask for folks. This case was NOT about “carry” but about “keep and bear” (maybe more keep than bear, though).

Anyway, rather than suing the city, why not sue individuals, i.e. police chief, mayor for obstruction of justice, violation of civil rights (already upheld by SCOTUS:), malfeasance of office, stupidity (wishful thinking:). Suing the city just results in higher taxes and loss of services. Sue the INDIVIDUAL for their repeated violation of constitutional rights.

Any chance for criminal charges, again against the individuals involved???

PLAY HARDBALL!!
Batter up! (or have bats been outlawed also)

The nature of the task at hand (hitting your target but avoiding friendlies), necessitates decent vision so in this case, no, I don’t think it a vision requirement violates a law. Like a commenter over there said, prohibiting blind people from driving isn’t discrimination in a bad sense. For their own and others’ safety, it’s good that vision-impaired people don’t drive. Shooting sensibly is dependent on vision, too, so having that requirement doesn’t seem like an infringement. (I know, that’s how all the “nanny state” laws start: It seems like a good idea, beneficial to all.) I welcome evidence to the contrary so I can moderate my POV.

I realize that anecdotes aren’t real evidence, but here’s one anyway. A shooting case from several years ago involved a legally blind man (could see but not well) who shot & killed a boy that had accidentally trespassed on the man’s property. The man thought the boy was a malicious intruder; the boy thought he’d wandered onto a junkyard and wanted to ask the man if he could buy something. A good vision requirement could have prevented needless tragedy or at least garnered a fitting punishment after the fact.