NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032602102.html

Apparently, Senator Webb (D) left his pistol and two loaded magazines in a bag.

The bag was then carried into the Senate building by his aide (who probably didn't know it was in there).

Interestingly, Senators and Congressmen have voted themselves the right to bear arms (to carry weapons personally) onto any Federal property. Additionally, like many Virginians, Webb has a concealed carry permit for Virginia.

But, they didn't vote the same for their baggage-carrying aides, so the aide is in trouble.

Do your parliamentarians carry weapons into chambers?

I'm glad to see that US Senators and Representatives can finally be recognized as being an armed threat to the government of the people they are supposed to serve.

Well, in the House of Commons we've a red line running in front of each set of benches that you're not allowed to cross during debate.

The two lines are two sword's lengths apart, apparently. Must be something somewhere that says swords are allowed in.

Actually, that sounds sporting.

Well, in the House of Commons we've a red line running in front of each set of benches that you're not allowed to cross during debate.

The two lines are two sword's lengths apart, apparently. Must be something somewhere that says swords are allowed in.

Yeah, swords are much cooler than boring guns!

But in Germany, the representitives normaly don't carry any guns - And I think, it's forbidden to carry a gun in the Reichstags-building, unless you are a police officer or from the security.

Yes, but we in the United States are still the Wild West and the Frontier woodsmen and other such romantic claptrap.

It must have been a slow news day.

Yes, but we in the United States are still the Wild West and the Frontier woodsmen and other such romantic claptrap.

It must have been a slow news day.

you're just jealous you cant ride a horse.


I'd say its news-makes you wonder why it wasnt left in the car?

Also-does he have permission to carry in DC ?

you're just jealous you cant ride a horse.


I'd say its news-makes you wonder why it wasnt left in the car?

Also-does he have permission to carry in DC ?

He may carry in DC - he may also carry in VA (In DC, he's covered by being a Senator - in VA by a carry permit).

He may also carry inside any Federal building.

His aide, however, is busted.

you're just jealous you cant ride a horse.


I'd say its news-makes you wonder why it wasnt left in the car?

Also-does he have permission to carry in DC ?

I have been riding horses Western style since I was 9. I am 43 now. No jealousy, Carny.

I have been riding horses Western style since I was 9. I am 43 now. No jealousy, Carny.

I'm kidding, but I'll offer my appologies anyway.

And I'm glad you didnt say you rode English style.

He may carry in DC - he may also carry in VA (In DC, he's covered by being a Senator - in VA by a carry permit).

He may also carry inside any Federal building.

His aide, however, is busted.

So- just being a senator allows him to carry in DC ? I had no idea.

I wonder if he asked the aide to take the briefcase,then elbowed his buddy and said "Watch this!!"

Technically he can carry wherever he wants in America as per the 2nd Amendment which states that 'the right to own and bear arms, shall not be infringed'. Any law forbidding you to carry or saying you need government permission ignores the words 'right' and 'infringed' making the law Unconstitutional and therefore void.

I must say that I'm suprised that one of my Liberal Senators from Virginia carries a gun. I'm impressed, but not by much.

I'm kidding, but I'll offer my appologies anyway.

And I'm glad you didnt say you rode English style.

I do, but it requires exercising a different set of muscles and I have been riding English a much shorter period of time. I am primarily a Western style rider and I prefer it.

Technically he can carry wherever he wants in America as per the 2nd Amendment which states that 'the right to own and bear arms, shall not be infringed'. Any law forbidding you to carry or saying you need government permission ignores the words 'right' and 'infringed' making the law Unconstitutional and therefore void.

I must say that I'm suprised that one of my Liberal Senators from Virginia carries a gun. I'm impressed, but not by much.

Look, I'm poking the gun-nut troll. *poke, poke*

Look, I'm poking the gun-nut troll. *poke, poke*

I see - being pro-gun ownership makes someone a "gun-nut troll".

I see - being pro-gun ownership makes someone a "gun-nut troll".

No, but he just said any law restricting any kind of gun ownership was overridden by the 2nd amendment.

Meaning, he can own any gun he wants, without a waiting list, without a background check, without a permit, because that would put restrictions on his 2nd amendment rights.

Gun-nut. Poke him, it's fun.

Look, I'm poking the gun-nut troll. *poke, poke*

I guess this appeals court is also full of gun-nut trolls.
http://www.saf.org/dc.lawsuit/parker.decision.pdf

They say that gun bans are unconstitutional, because they violate the individual right expressed in the Second Amendment.

I see - being pro-gun ownership makes someone a "gun-nut troll".

Didn't you hear? Guns are bad, and deaths due to bullet wounds are the fault of guns much like deaths due to knife wounds are the fault of knives. Please, think of those who use weapons irresponsibly, and make sure only they can have them.

Didn't you hear? Guns are bad, and deaths due to bullet wounds are the fault of guns much like deaths due to knife wounds are the fault of knives. Please, think of those who use weapons irresponsibly, and make sure only they can have them.

Way to not read my reply.

Way to not read my reply.

Way to ignore the post about the recent court ruling, showing that the poster you made fun of is correct.

Way to ignore the post about the recent court ruling, showing that the poster you made fun of is correct.

Recent court ruling in DC saying people can own handguns in their homes? I know of no other. Link me.

Way to not read my reply.

I read it after posting, if that's alright with you.

Recent court ruling in DC saying people can own handguns in their homes? I know of no other. Link me.

I gave you the link to the actual court decision.

Search on Google News for "parker decision gun"

The mainstream press seems to have buried this.

I do, but it requires exercising a different set of muscles and I have been riding English a much shorter period of time. I am primarily a Western style rider and I prefer it.

seconded. I started my 8 & 13 yr old sons 3 years ago. Now my 3 yr old daughter wants to,but she has a few years to wait.

From another article:

A three judge panel (Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman and Judges Thomas Griffith and Karen LeCraft Henderson) of the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, DC, contradicted the prior view of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that the 2nd Amendment does not provide an individual the right to own firearms, but that it is a collective right of State militias (i.e., the National Guard, which is now an arm of the US military), ruled that "...the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right," the court ruled, "existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense—the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate the anti-Federalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for military duty. Despite the importance of the 2nd Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia." Henderson dissented, arguing that the 2nd Amendment did not apply to the District of Columbia. In her dissent she said: "To sum up, there is no dispute that the Constitution, case law and applicable statutes all establish that the District is not a State within the meaning of the 2nd Amendment."

In a rare criticism of another appellate court's decision, the 4th Circuit also noted that the 9th Circuit's 2003 decision in Silveira v Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 in which the 9th Circuit decided the 2nd Amendment does not provide citizens with an individual right to own firearms because the DC Circuit Court decided to cite it as the authority on gun rights even though the 9th Circuit only has jurisdiction over 9 States—all along the Pacific rim.. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the argument of the DC Circuit Court that the 2nd Amendment does not apply inside the District because its not a State. The 4th Circuit Court said that "...a prohibition on gun ownership in the home amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self defense. As such," the judges ruled, "we hold [the DC gun ban] is unconstitutional.

I read it after posting, if that's alright with you.

Well it's not, but I don't think you care. I'm of the archaic notion that you should read a thread in its entirety before you reply to someone's post, especially so if it's less than 5 pages long, or in this case, just barely over 1 page.

From another article:

IN THE HOME.

The DC gun ban, as in, it's nearly impossible to own a gun in your home for self-defense, much less take it with you wherever you merrily decide to wander - that's a screaming distance from the "NO RESTRICTIONS ON GUNS OR AMMO. EVER, BECAUSE OF 2ND AMENDMENT." the gun-nut I replied to seemed to support, and what you seemed to interpret from this ruling.

Well it's not, but I don't think you care. I'm of the archaic notion that you should read a thread in its entirety before you reply to someone's post, especially so if it's less than 5 pages long, or in this case, just barely over 1 page.

I really don't care, considering that I posted in the thread well before you did (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12477182&postcount=2) and have been reading it steadily from that point until now.

IN THE HOME.

The DC gun ban, as in, it's nearly impossible to own a gun in your home for self-defense, much less take it with you wherever you merrily decide to wander - that's a screaming distance from the "NO RESTRICTIONS ON GUNS OR AMMO. EVER, BECAUSE OF 2ND AMENDMENT." the gun-nut I replied to seemed to support, and what you seemed to interpret from this ruling.

Maybe you need to read the basis for the ruling.

Didn't you hear? Guns are bad, and deaths due to bullet wounds are the fault of guns much like deaths due to knife wounds are the fault of knives. Please, think of those who use weapons irresponsibly, and make sure only they can have them.
We could avoid all this shit if gun nuts wern't anti-any-restrictions-at-all-on-guns.

We could avoid all this shit if gun nuts wern't anti-any-restrictions-at-all-on-guns.

Oh, I'm for instant background checks, age limits (18 and older), and permits for concealed carry.

That isn't "anti-any-restrictions-at-all".

We could avoid all this shit if gun nuts wern't anti-any-restrictions-at-all-on-guns.

We would also have to get rid of the "get rid of all guns except for those used by government officials" types.

There are usually two silly extremist positions on an issue, and to be fair we should fight against both.

I really don't care, considering that I posted in the thread well before you did (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12477182&postcount=2) and have been reading it steadily from that point until now.

But stopped to reply to a post that was replying to something I'd said, which later needed elaboration. If you'd have kept reading before you posted, this wouldn't have been a problem. :p

Oh, I'm for instant background checks, age limits (18 and older), and permits for concealed carry.

That isn't "anti-any-restrictions-at-all".

Well that's what your gun-nut friend was arguing for.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032602102.html

Apparently, Senator Webb (D) left his pistol and two loaded magazines in a bag.

The bag was then carried into the Senate building by his aide (who probably didn't know it was in there).

Interestingly, Senators and Congressmen have voted themselves the right to bear arms (to carry weapons personally) onto any Federal property. Additionally, like many Virginians, Webb has a concealed carry permit for Virginia.

But, they didn't vote the same for their baggage-carrying aides, so the aide is in trouble.

Do your parliamentarians carry weapons into chambers?
I'd carry my bo staff with me if I was a Senator.

I think the aide should not be sacked, arrested, or what have you over this. The aide had no idea the gun was even in the bag, and obviously wasn't intending to shoot anyone with it, so they should let him off.

Well, hopefully the legal system has the sense to let the aide go.

I think the honorable senator should have his concealed carry rights revoked however, as his carelessness is a threat to national security.

It seems the senator comitted a number of faux pas in this escapade.

*Bulleted list ROFL*
:sniper:} Gave his firearm to an unlicensed individual.
-----.:mp5:} Failed to follow procedure by not keeping his gun wrapped and unloaded in the senate bldg.
.:gundge:} Failed to register the weapon?!?!

He was charged with carrying a pistol without a license and possessing an unregistered firearm and unregistered ammunition.

I won't ask why any civilian should be allowed to conceal a gun, if no one asks why I refuse to step within sniping distance of the border.
(Too bad too, 'cause they got some nice high-test booze at the Amex) My loss I guess.:rolleyes:

The extremist arguments are why I left the NRA years ago.

I am a gun-owner, I was in the service and learned about firearms, I have taken steps to make sure I know as much about my weapons as I can. I have taken weapons safety courses and I am one of the few actors in Hollywood that is ALSO a gun wrangler (I teach weapon safety to other actors, property masters and assistant property masters). R. Lee Ermey is one as well, oddly enough.

I believe that reasonable restrictions on the owning of firearms is important. Eve and I vary only in one area (and believe me this is odd, he is a conservative and I am a liberal), I believe in correct weapon classification, and that certain classes of firearms (like those in the military assault weapon family) are not appropriate for ownership beyond licensed collectors.

Concealed carry (with permit) is fine, instant background checks are important, and age restrictions are appropriate. But the problem we keep running into is the background check system is poorly administered.

Senator Webb made a mistake and the aide should not have to pay a price for his mistake. I am certain Senator Webb will make it right if the law allows him to.

The extremist arguments are why I left the NRA years ago.



Which arguments specifically?

Suffice to say I think the NRA has become very fringy, certainly not in that "Ted Nugent ultra extreme, GOA member" kind of way, but in a more..."I don't want you to speak up for me, you embarass me" kind of way.

Gun owners have two lobbies that speak up for them. The NRA and the GOA. Neither of them represent my point of view, so I choose not to contribute money to either.

GOA is an embarassment to responsible gun owners.

NRA is one short step away from that classification.

NRA used to be very responsible and very unpartisan, it's Gun Safety Courses are second to none in the civilian sector. Lobbies now feel that they have to tie a party affiliation (even subtly) to their message.

It's like the fact I am gay and I don't think either GLAAD or HRC represent my best interests. I pick and choose who gets my money, you now know four lobbies that do not get mine.