This is outrageous.
Replies sorted oldest to newest
This is the local DC government run amok. Its crazier than the federal government -- scary idea, yes!
They'll be sending him to a concentration camp before all is said and done.
Yep, and they wonder why we are so against 'lists' of gun owners. Imagine, after they pass one of these asinine 'bullet registration' laws, they decide to raid your home because you are on a list for owning a gun but haven't registered any bullets.
Sounds far fetched - until it really happens.....
aren't you the same people who said "start enforcing the laws we have"?
i'm confused... i would say this is "enforcing the laws already on the books".
what's the problem , now?
Yeah - Crash - tell my why the same police force that 'enforced' the law in this case allowed David Gregory off the hook not too long ago for having a high capacity magazine after being denied permission to bring it into the city and being informed it was illegal to possess?
How does that logic work?
Yeah - Crash - tell my why the same police force that 'enforced' the law in this case allowed David Gregory off the hook not too long ago for having a high capacity magazine after being denied permission to bring it into the city and being informed it was illegal to possess?
How does that logic work?
I think..."Crash...has left the building"...
no clue... you tell me why nobody enforced the law... i'm all for it!
Gregory is a left wing shill, they get a pass in DC for everything short of murder in front of a crowd.
no clue... you tell me why nobody enforced the law... i'm all for it!
Because the law has nothing to do with decreasing crime and everything to do with removing the publics ability to possess guns. David Gregory was supporting their story so, even though he ignored their rules, he got a pass.
This law is a prime example of what gun owners are trying to prevent from being enacted all over the US. Its obvious end game is to prevent citizens from owning weapons by making it as difficult to own a weapon as possible. This is the law that, until recently, required homeowners to have their guns completely broken down and disabled even inside the home (making it worthless for home protection).
Another part of this law is currently under review but the courts are 'sitting' on a decision in an effort to keep it out of the SCOTUS for as long as possible. Recently, an attorney in DC "petitioned for a writ of mandamus to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.... to force the district court judge to issue an opinion" related to a case originally filed in 2009.(http://www.washingtontimes.com...page=1#ixzz2iq0k3DHF )
But its good to know that you are 'all for it' - it shows that, no matter how much you talk about wanting to have common sense gun laws that keep guns out of the hands of insane people but allow law abiding citizens to own guns, your true end game is full ban. The DC gun laws you are 'all for' are designed around the idea of a complete ban, which is being picked apart piece by piece as parts of the law make it to the SCOTUS
nice leap! wasn't it you that said "enforce the laws we have"?
now, you don't want to do that? because you think the law has ulterior motives?
can we apply that to "voter id laws" as well?
i want to ban all guns because i'm for enforcing the current laws?
you "constitution hawks" have a different idea of "following the constitution" than i do.
Exactly, we prefer it as written and explained in the Federalist Papers written by the original authors. Not, instance opinions based upon the circumstances of the moment.
nice leap! wasn't it you that said "enforce the laws we have"?
"Enforce the laws we have" before enacting new laws to address issues that are covered by the laws that are already in place but not enforced. IE - before enacting new gun registration laws, enforce the registration laws that are already in place.
You seem to be the person taking the leap - you assume because we want to enforce the laws we currently have before enacting more unenforced laws, we actually agree with all those laws in the first place.
You seem to be the person taking the leap - you assume because we want to enforce the laws we currently have before enacting more unenforced laws, we actually agree with all those laws in the first place.
____________
so, here were go... you want to enforce the laws we have, before enacting more laws, but you really don't like the laws we have and you don't mind some of them not being enforced.
does that really makes sense, to you?
You seem to be the person taking the leap - you assume because we want to enforce the laws we currently have before enacting more unenforced laws, we actually agree with all those laws in the first place.
____________
so, here were go... you want to enforce the laws we have, before enacting more laws, but you really don't like the laws we have and you don't mind some of them not being enforced.
does that really makes sense, to you?
Another leap -
"you really don't like the laws we have and you don't mind some of them not being enforced"
When, in fact, its not that we don't mind some of them not being enforced - we want them struck from the books completely. An unenforced, unconstitutional law is just as bad as an enforced unconstitutional law......
wow! we have "unconstitutional laws?".. i would figure someone would take that to the supreme court.
wow! we have "unconstitutional laws?".. i would figure someone would take that to the supreme court.
you did see my post above, didn't you
You cant just 'pick and choose' what parts of my posts to read and respond to, you miss stuff like this:
Another part of this law is currently under review but the courts are 'sitting' on a decision in an effort to keep it out of the SCOTUS for as long as possible. Recently, an attorney in DC "petitioned for a writ of mandamus to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.... to force the district court judge to issue an opinion" related to a case originally filed in 2009.(http://www.washingtontimes.com...page=1#ixzz2iq0k3DHF )
why can't i pick and chose.. you've been doing it the whole time.
So what's the rest of the story? Why this guy? There has to be some reason why they are going after this guy so hard. I'm not saying they are right in targeting him, but I don't think they just randomly picked him either.
Just curious...
So what's the rest of the story? Why this guy? There has to be some reason why they are going after this guy so hard. I'm not saying they are right in targeting him, but I don't think they just randomly picked him either.
Just curious...
What i read was that his ex wife told the police he had a bunch of illegal weapons and ammo. Nothing worse than a woman scorn.....
Here you go -
Police based their search on a charge made by Mr. Witaschek’s estranged wife, who had earlier convinced a court clerk to issue a temporary restraining order against her husband for threatening her with a gun, although a judge later found the charge to be without merit.
http://www.washingtontimes.com...regis/#ixzz2iqyj7rkN
I just hope shes proud of terrorizing her children and having their teenage son drug out of the shower naked by armed police. I also hope her kids know the truth about what brought this on their family......
In a RECENT poll, 68% of Americans believed that '....the U.S. government THINKS that the people (WE THE PEOPLE) work for IT....'.