We just won Palmer at the DC District Court!

[62coltnavy]

Link to Gura reply:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/250210642/...ntempt-Defense

[Tom Servo]

Barring a win in Palmer, it looks like the emergency measure will be as good as it gets for the near future. Muriel Bowser, the new mayor, has been making the rounds, and she had this to say recently:

You have a mayor who hates guns. If it was up to me, we wouldn’t have any handguns in the District of Columbia. I swear to protect the Constitution and what the courts say, but I will do it in the most restrictive way as possible.

[Aguila Blanca]

You have a mayor who hates guns. If it was up to me, we wouldn’t have any handguns in the District of Columbia. I swear to protect the Constitution and what the courts say, but I will do it in the most restrictive way as possible.

Considering that the Constitution says there shall be NO restrictions, that should be easy.

[Disclaimer: I am one of those originalists who thinks "shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed."[/Disclaimer

[CowTowner]

[Disclaimer: I am one of those originalists who thinks "shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed."[/Disclaimer

I'll second that for whatever it may be worth.

[maestro pistolero]

For all the handwringing about levels of judicial scrutiny, the 2nd is the one Amendment written with its own level of scrutiny.

A point related to the interest balancing of rights vs public safety (which I see as the elephant in the living room) is that ALL firearms aren't just dangerous, they're lethal. The founders knew this very well and intended for lawful citizens to have free access to the most lethal weapons known to man.

An AR15 fires a projectile that, at best, is marginally as lethal . . . though certainly more accurate . . . than the .70 caliber balls fired by the muskets of the American Revolution.

As to the point of magazine capacity: There was, at the time of founding, an equanimity between adversaries created by the technological limitations of the period. In other words, everyone had to load their muskets one load at a time.

Since the entire POINT of the Second Amendment is to equalize the playing field between those who would use weapons for nefarious purposes and those who would oppose them, then an artificially imposed magazine capacity can ONLY benefit those who would ignore such a law, and can ONLY harm those who would obey it.

Such laws, FAR beyond the mere infringement that the amendment explicitly prohibits, are ANTITHETICAL to very intent and purpose of the amendment.