I suggest to trot down to DC and announce you have an unregistered, unlicensed handgun in your possession. Be prepared for a summons.
Irrelevant. The defendant was not challenging any other portion of the firearm-related restrictions of the district of columbia. Also irrelevant. The text of the Heller ruling is clear. The second amendment applies to all firearms, not merely handguns. None of which confirms that all of the above are constitutional by default. It is nothing more than the court stating that it is not going to undertake an exhaustive analysis of every firearm-related restriction in existence in this single ruling.
All demonstrating a complete absence of comprehension of the matter that is being discussed, as well as ignoring what was said.
MUST, Register handguns by licensed owners. Ha ha. Keep whining how much you won in Heller. He must be licensed and has to register his hand gun, just to carry it in his own home. Ha ha...
Did the plaintiff challenge the registration and licensing requirement in the Heller case, thus giving the united state supreme court a reason to address the constitutionality of such? If not, if Dick Heller did not directly and deliberately challenge the registration and licensing requirements of the district of columbia, the united state supreme court was legally prohibited from addressing the unasked question. As a citizen of the united states, there is no legitimate excuse for yourself to not know this.
Meaningless drivel. The second amendment applies to all firearms currently available on the private market, and as of recently even non firearm-type weapons. The district of columbia and various cities around the united states have won nothing but a temporary reprieve. Their firearm-related restrictions are currently existing on borrowed time, devoid of confirmed constitutionality, and can be brought down any day now with the right court case. Even the city of New York is feeling the weight of the Heller ruling, as it was forced to repeal certain firearm-related restrictions in a desperate bid to try and avoid scrutiny by the united state supreme court.
He didn’t ask for oatmeal cookies either. Ha ha. He has to REGISTER his handgun and renew his license every year with a background check. . Not only that, assault weapons are banned. Ha ha. Let’s revisit Heller again.
Congratulations, you didn’t miss use one reflexive pronoun. Great improvement. Now work on your constitutional law. You’ll be a liberal in no time supporting the registration of all handguns.
Exactly what has the district of coumbia actually "won" in this particular matter? Every argument it presented before the court in a desperate effort to preserve its total handgun prohibition was dismissed and overruled, putting a permanent end to what it was doing. The city has no choice but to allow for the ownership of handguns by every single individual in the city who can possess one in accordance with federal law on the subject. Meaning every non-prohibited individual who is twenty one year of age or older can legally possess a handgun, and there is absolutely nothing the city can do to prevent them from doing such. The district of columbia suffered a further setback when their so-called "good reason" standard was struck down by the courts as being unconstitutional, meaning any individual who applies for a firearms permit and has no disqualifying criminal record must be issued a permit. It does not matter what the moral character of the applicant is, it does not matter if the officer issuing the permits believes the individual is likely to commit a crime after receiving a firearm, none of that is legal grounds for denying an applicant their permit. Again, exactly what has the district of columbia actually "won" in this particular matter, that was in dispute to begin with?
You can’t be small minded. It’s what the rest of the country now understands. Firearms are subject to very strict regulations. Case closed.
And yet the united state supreme court has not held such to be constitutional. Therefore such is not actually the case, and all of the currently existing firearm-related restrictions are existing on nothing more than borrowed time. Once again, and this time actually try and answer the question that is presented to yourself. Exactly what has the district of coumbia actually "won" in this particular matter?
I have never said the opinion holds that firearms cannot be regulated. I don’t recall advertising to hire a press spokesman, but if I did, then I have to tell you that the interview is not going so well for you. If you don’t like what I am saying, then please don’t pretend I am arguing something else merely because you believe that it is easier to refute. If you would look at the OP in this thread I believe you will find that I have said the opposite of what you pretend my position is. And although I am a fan of Obi-Wan, I must tell you that your telling me “these aren’t the droids you’re looking for” will not distract me. I believe you do yourself a disservice when you attempt to change the subject because you are unwilling to admit your previous error. The issue is not whether any regulations at all are allowed. The issue, my friend, is you made a claim that D.C. rewrote their specific licensing and permitting regulations with the “advice” and “consent” of SCOTUS. And that is absolutely a factually incorrect statement. Maybe TOG is right and you are merely a troll. All I know is you don’t like the food I am lowering in my basket to you from the bridge. And that is fine. You don’t have to like or agree with what I say (just please don’t pretend I say something different from what I actually write). Whether you like what I say or not, please understand I gave you the benefit of the doubt and attributed this error to your failure to read the opinion. And so I just wanted you to understand that SCOTUS refused to address the issue of permits and licensing, that the Court did not say one thing either for or against the constitutionality of these restrictions, and that the Court specifically told all who would take the time to read the opinion that it was not expressing any opinion on their constitutionality one way or the other. What I wanted was to have a discussion about whether these permitting requirements would/should be upheld as constitutional in the future if they ever come before SCOTUS. Now instead, if you would rather continue to pretend this issue is already decided—that the words “We therefore assume that petitioners' issuance of a license will satisfy respondent's prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement” (which is as clear a statement as can be that the issue of licensing and permitting will not be ruled upon because it is not properly before the Court) are somehow to be interpreted as a wink and a nudge to D.C., much less “advice and consent” for these restrictions, then I cannot change your mind. I merely state that you are absolutely wrong, and as always I leave it to the candid reader to decide which of us is right.
True or false....Heller must still be licensed, renew it every year and can only carry a registered handgun in his home.
True or false. Absolutely every single resident of the district of columbia who is twenty one years of age or older, and who has no disqualifying criminal record, must be issued a firearm permit upon application for such.
There will be no ceasing of the question being asked until it is answered directly. Stop wasting time and actually address the question itself. Once again, and this time actually try and answer the question that is presented to yourself. Exactly what has the district of coumbia actually "won" in this particular matter?
So now you finally understand gun control. Only qualified licensed persons can carry a hand gun which must be registered.
How exactly does such amount to a "win" for the district of columbia? For over thirty years, the district maintained a total prohibition on all handguns within the city. The few individuals who did legally own them were forced to keep them disassembled and locked up in a manner that rendered them useless. Once these individuals died, their legally owned handguns would be confiscated, and eventually there would not be a single legal handgun left in the district of columbia. After the Heller ruling, such is no longer the case, and never will be the case. In the current environment, the district of columbia is legally compelled to issue a firearm permit to every single individual who applies and meets the federal minimum requirements for legal firearms ownership. The number of handguns within the district of columbia is increasing by the day, and they can do absolutely nothing to stop it. The district of columbia is legally compelled to issue permits to everyone without a criminal record who applies for one, meaning the permitting process serves no purpose since law enforcement cannot refuse any applicant. Those that legally own firearms are able to keep their firearms unlocked, loaded, and stored in a manner that makes them immediately accessible for purposes of self defense. The carrying of concealed firearms in public is also legal in the district of columbia, and once again law enforcement is legally prohibited from refusing to issue a license to anyone who can legally own a handgun who applies for one. All in stark contrast to what used to be in place prior to the Heller ruling. There are now more firearms in the district of columbia than at any other point in its history, they are in public, they are loaded, and they are legal. Whatever the district of columbia may have theoretically "won" in the Heller ruling is greatly eclipsed and exceeded by what it has ultimately lost. It is a hollow, meaningless victory, and holds no more importance than the equivalent of a participation trophy awarded to those on the basis of simply showing up to an event.
I really don’t give a s.h.i,t about D of C which you guys seem to want to bloviate about. There is nothing in Heller that keeps any state or the Feds from requiring handgun registration and yearly renewal of licensing for all handgun carry, even in the home, which imo, is hilarious.
There are, however, other rulings by the united state supreme court which hold constitutional rights cannot be made subject to licensing and registration requirements, as such requirements discriminate against and infringe upon the free exercising of said constitutional rights. Therefore Heller does not need to spell such out in explicit terms, as the precedent already exists, has indeed existed for decades prior, and has never been overruled by subsequent rulings by the united state supreme court. As a citizen of the united states, you are devoid of a legitimate reason for not being aware of this fact.
Nothing changes for your illegitimate contention. . You need to be a licensed gun owner of a registered weapon to even posses a hand gun for SD
Once again, and do make an effort to actually address the question this time around. How exactly does such amount to a "win" for the district of columbia?
