Heller vs DC, round 2

[Mtbkski]

Was wondering how long this was going to take. I hope he sues for a ton of money and wins.

[US Militiaman]

If any of us continually defied the government we would be thrown in prison as domestic terrorists or something carrying a long sentence...there should be no reason that these people can succeed by continuously passing unconstitutional laws only to have them struck down in court...

Once again our tax dollars are hard at work fighting for something that is guaranteed, inalienable, god-given, etc.

[Konsukah_19]

Originally Posted by US Militiaman

Once again our tax dollars are hard at work fighting for something that is guaranteed, inalienable, god-given, etc.

If a majority of Americans felt this way instead of sitting on their fat lazy asses collecting a fucking welfare check, we would not have this problem. A dipshit government is the result of an overwhelming amount of dipshits voting them into office.

This is a fight we must never stop fighting, because our enemy will not WILL NOOT STOP!

[ThoughtCriminal]

Originally Posted by US Militiaman

If any of us continually defied the government we would be thrown in prison as domestic terrorists or something carrying a long sentence...there should be no reason that these people can succeed by continuously passing unconstitutional laws only to have them struck down in court...

Once again our tax dollars are hard at work fighting for something that is guaranteed, inalienable, god-given, etc.

Then don't pay taxes! It's simple.

[Agent Smith]

This guy is my hero (second only to Ron Paul, and the founding fathers of course).

Give 'em hell, Heller!

[andrewjs18]

fucking D.C. man...they don't give up, do they?

[lildobe]

You can read the whole complaint here:
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/b...0728heller.pdf

It looks like it's addressing most of the issues... like classifying all semi-automatic firearms as "machine guns"

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by lildobe

It looks like it's addressing most of the issues... like classifying all semi-automatic firearms as "machine guns"

Yup, this is just ridiculous. Given that:

- There's no state laws to consider in DC
- The US v. Miller SCotUS case already defines a "machine gun" or "automatic weapon
- As per the above definition, a semiautomatic handgun isn't part of the "machine gun" definition
- Heller v. DC forbids blanket bans of gun ownership, especially on classes of weapons

they have no grounds to prevent semiauto handguns IMHO. That they're even trying smacks in the face of the rule of law.

[Delco Sig]

Originally Posted by ThoughtCriminal

Then don't pay taxes! It's simple.

Unfortunately, we more or less have to pay taxes. If you "spend" Federal Reserve Notes, aka dollars, you have to pay taxes. It is an excise tax, established by the Sixteenth Amendment. It was passed in 1913, the same year *gasp* the Federal Reserve was created. You don't own your dollars. The Federal Reserve does. Therefore, the arm of the Federal Reserve known as the Internal Revenue Service collects an excise tax because you are using their property (dollars).

Something like 1 in 5 people don't pay taxes. It comes down to the government would lose more money fighting to get paid than they would get if you just paid them. If you can do it, good for you.

[Jagger]

In D. C. v. Heller, Scalia says the text of the Second Amendment should be understood as the voters understood it, then he rewrites the Amendment, not according to the understanding of the voters, but according to the understanding of Joel Tiffany.

In interpreting this text, we are guided by the
principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood
by the voters; its words and phrases were used in
their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical
meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731
(1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824).
Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic
meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that
would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the
founding generation.....

.....The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two
parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The
former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather
announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased,
“Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See §585,
p. 394 (1867) J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law

Joel Tiffany wasn't even a voter of the founding generation. However, he did subscribe to my view that the meaning of the constitution must be ascertained by the application of such rules of interpretation as existent at the time the constitution was framed and adopted. (See section 125 of Tiffany's A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law at the link provided below) Scalia's own authority on the meaning of the Second Amendment rejects Scalia's principle in favor of mine.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&...esult#PPA65,M1