Mayors: Gun ruling won't stop prevention efforts...

[Marine1]

*Apparently they do not understand the SC ruling or just ignoring it, per say?

Mayors: Gun ruling won't stop prevention efforts...

WASHINGTON (AP) - Washington's blanket ban on handguns will fall and tight gun laws in places like Chicago and San Francisco are sure to come under attack. But most of the nation's firearms regulations will probably stay on the books, and some politicians said Thursday's Supreme Court decision won't hinder their efforts to prevent bloodshed.

My Way News - Mayors: Gun ruling won't stop prevention efforts

[ArkansasHunter]

This morning I watched the La paxxxx? guy with the NRA Interviewed and he said the NRA will start fileing lawsuites against the States and Citys you mentioned Marine 1

[TXplt]

At least as far as gun banning.

Marine1, I think they're just attempting to ignore it to save what face they shouldn't have. Thanks for the good info.

Anyway, when people in gun ban zones get firearms and crime drops, people will realize the gun banners for whom they are.

[GlockMeister]

The sad thing is, it won't stop them entirely. The Supreme COurt left the door open for cities and states to regulate within limits. They can force registrion if they want to. That's what will be happening in D.C. now. They can have them but from what I understand, they'll be having to register them.

So the NRA, on behalf on gun owners in certain cities, example, Chicago, where it's illegal to own a handgun within city limits, will be one of them they go after. But what the city of Chicago will do, is just say OK, you can own handguns. Maybe they'll say, none that hold 10 rounds or something? And or, you'll have to register what guns you own and who owns them. I thing they (the Supreme Court) left the door open. As Mooseman put it in one of the other posts, WE ARE NOT OUT OF THE WOODS!!!

And the concerning thing to me, the vote was only 5-4 in favor of it. Almost and could of just as easily gone the other way. 2 Supreme Court Judges get replaced somewhere down the road, and they're anti, and something else like this comes up, guess which way it just might go? NOT OUT OF THE WOODS JUST YET INDEED!!!

[GlockMeister]

Originally Posted by TXplt

Anyway, when people in gun ban zones get firearms and crime drops, people will realize the gun banners for whom they are.

We can only hope. You know how stubborn people can be and are? Let's hope people come to see the light.

[Marine1]

Right, ArkansasHunter! I am sure Pelosi and her liberal gang in Washington, will become active partisipants during the lawsuit in San Francisco. This is their "breeding grounds".

I look for them to ignore much of this recent SC decision, as they do with the U.S. Constitution.

It appears when-ever the SC rules in favor of the Pelosi gang..."it's written in stone", and any rulings, in favor of.... the other side of the isle...."is promptly sneered upon, and played down".

Should be interesting...Pass the popcorn, please!

[Marine1]

[quote=TXplt;546932]At least as far as gun banning.
Marine1, I think they're just attempting to ignore it to save what face they shouldn't have. Thanks for the good info.
TXplt...You took the wind out of my sails..please see my above post. I must have been writing it when you posted yours. I quite agree with you....

[ArkansasHunter]

The way I look at it too Marine 1 is I can now file law suites if my rights are infringed upon.
Am I wrong ?
It seems now if a State or City were to go to far with there agenda and it infringes on my right to keep and bare arms can I sue them ???

[Marine1]

Originally Posted by ArkansasHunter

The way I look at it too Marine 1 is I can now file law suites if my rights are infringed upon.
Am I wrong ?
It seems now if a State or City were to go to far with there agenda and it infringes on my right to keep and bare arms can I sue them ???

I am certainly NOT an attorney, and this is certainly NOT legal advice. My private "opinion" is... I would wait until the dust settles and see the outcome of many of these such cases, I suspect... that will be filed by the NRA, as well as private citizens. Wonder how many will be filed by those who have had their guns and collections consficated, and never returned? Especially concernable would be... where a state applet court decision (case law) has been handed down. The SC ruling will certainly prevail in "case law" decisions, by the lower courts. Otherwise... one may be peeing against the wind, with legal retainer, and other fees.

[toolman]

The sad part is, the anti's have always found ways to skew the figures to support their claims, ie: labelling legitimate self-defense shootings as gun-related fatalities, etc...

[Cyrille]

Don't quote me but--- In my opinion the New Orleans mayor and his minions who conficated legally owned firearms from lawabiding citizens in the aftermath of Katrina/Rita as well as the monkey see monkey do politcians in that parish [county] on the north shore of Lake Ponchartrain who did the same, must be a wee bit worried. I don't know how long it will take to have that case settled but I sure do wish they'd at least get it on the docket.

[SKS NOOB]

What I would like to see is Californians acutally filling law suits about this. Then if laws could change here (currently in CA for about 3 months), then they could POSSIBLY change in other places as well. Have at it Troy!

[SuckLead]

Someday, in a perfect world, we'll see them attempt to do something about actual crime.

[Cyrille]

Don't hold your breath waiting! That perfect world is probably "in a galaxy far, far away!"

[Mike Franklin]

The Mayors I saw throwing fits all serve in Cities with extremely high crime rates. They just don't get it. Of course you'll notice at the Press Releases that these same Mayors have plenty of Armed Bodyguards standing close.

[SuckLead]

Mike, as the saying goes, it less about gun control and more about control. They want the citizens to look to them for protection instead of protecting themselves. It obviously doesn't work for the greater good, but it makes them feel like they have something in their pants.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Mike Franklin

The Mayors I saw throwing fits all serve in Cities with extremely high crime rates. They just don't get it. Of course you'll notice at the Press Releases that these same Mayors have plenty of Armed Bodyguards standing close.

As you properly pointed out, the main opponents of guns are those in high-density urban areas. It's understandable; all they usually see is the negative side of guns: drive-by's, drug wars, etc.

But when I say it's understandable, I don't mean it's sensible. They need to realize that stacking restriction upon restriction on the heads of law-abiding citizens won't do a damn thing to deter criminals. They need to go after the criminals using guns, not the decent folk who own them.

[.22guy]

Originally Posted by SKS NOOB

What I would like to see is Californians acutally filling law suits about this. Then if laws could change here (currently in CA for about 3 months), then they could POSSIBLY change in other places as well. Have at it Troy!

We're working on it.

It's not going to be a quick or easy battle, but what things worth doing in life are?

[Coeloptera]

Originally Posted by troy2000

But when I say it's understandable, I don't mean it's sensible. They need to realize that stacking restriction upon restriction on the heads of law-abiding citizens won't do a damn thing to deter criminals. They need to go after the criminals using guns, not the decent folk who own them.

Well, of course. Laws do not prevent serious crimes by and large, they punish it. We already have laws about owning firearms illegally, that should be sufficient. The sorts of bans they had in DC deter only those inclined to be law-abiding anyway.

In a way, it's sort of like some of the drug laws we have in the US. I could go out, if I were so inclined, and get well...almost anything I wanted in relatively short order. The laws don't prevent it, they punish someone for it.

Not a bad start though. But what saddens me in the judges who were for this are the same ones against restoring Habeus, except for Kennedy.

- Coeloptera

[TACAV]

Do any of you all think this could get rid of the Maryland handgun roster?

For those who arnt familiar, basically all handguns sold in MD have to be "approved"
by the state police. Once approved they get listed on the official state roster of what handguns you are allowed to buy.

Problem is that the law contradicts with another MD law stating that all handguns manufactured after 2003 have to be made with an an INTERNAL key lock that is BUILT into the gun.

Example I spoke of earlier. I can buy a high capacity 9mm auto with a key lock but I cant buy a 5 shot Ruger revolver b/c Ruger dont design their guns with the internal locks like smith and wesson for example.

FFLs can get around the law sometimes by selling a handgun which is not designed with the internal lock by supplying an external Omega lock with the gun. However some companies like Ruger just wont ship any of their guns into MD at all b.c of their interpretation of the law.

meh....