DC chief of police, reiterated plan to block off neighborhoods

[virginia mountainman]

And DC issues a challenge to those that disagree..

"If people want to sue, the courthouse is open."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/04/AR2008060402205.html

Lets ALL cash in!!! Since DC has money to spend on lawsuits, first Heller, and now this?!?! During the Heller case, before the Supreme court, they argued about how outright gun bans where working wonders, to make DC Safer, now they are in the middle of a unprecedented "murder spree"? Either their "gun ban" works, or it doesn't, they are trying to have it both ways.



It does appear to me, that the curtailing of the 2nd Amendment, does, lead to further curtailing of the Bill of Rights.....DC is doing that right now...

And they are PROUD of it..

[Clovis Sangrail]

1. I think if you're driving they have a right to pull you over

and ask to see your drivers license.. provided they can muster 'just cause'... which is a walk in the park for a traffic stop.

As for having a 'legitimate reason' for being there... if I was there I'd drive through just to tell them my legitimate purpose was because 'I felt like driving on this street'.

[iverglas]

2. and you needed to start a second thread about exactly the same thing because ...

?

I posted the Washington Post article in your existing thread. Something new here? Don't think so.

[virginia mountainman]

3. I'm sorry Iverglas...

I did not see the link. I have a tendency to skip over, overly verbose posts that usually only have a tiny bit of pertinent information in them, if that.

[iverglas]

4. oh well, you tried

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=174436&mesg_id=174527

Not a single solitary word from me. Five paragraphs from the article, and then I was criticized for not posting more ...

Still doesn't explain why the opening post here wasn't posted in that thread instead.

Just didn't want readers to see other people's opinions, I guess.

[Indy Lurker]

5. So if you enter on foot, you don't have to show ID

Or if your a passenger, as they are only checking the ID of the driver.

[iverglas]

7. if you read the existing thread on the subject

You'll find the answers to all questions. That issue in particular is thoroughly canvassed in a couple of my posts -- i.e. the news reports confirm what you have said here.

You'll also find that the measure being taken is directly connected with a very specific problem: drive-by shootings in the neighbourhoods in question.

[jwirr]

6. The first time I visited DC was during Clinton years. I was allowed

to walk about freely and visit any site I wanted. Then I went after *ss got in and there were blockades all over and I had to be inspected getting on the plane and at the door of every museum or site I went to visit. It felt like a prison. I will never visit this place again until there are signs of freedom in the streets.

[iverglas]

8. when I visited in 2003 (from Canada)

we drove into central Washington with the friend we were staying with, who lived on the outskirts. In search of parking, we turned in to the Reagan Building to go to the underground lot, which is open to the public.

The guard at the entrance (military, as I recall) asked all three of us for identification.

Because we were going to be walking around, I had left my purse at the apartment. My partner had left his wallet there too.

I said: Uh, we're from Canada, we didn't know we needed ID to park here.

Then our host showed him her CIA employee ID card. He let us in. I think he would have accepted the dumb Canadian line anyhow though.

Yup, it was pretty odd. But frankly, kind of understandable. Canadians used to be able to drive up onto Parliament Hill any time of the day or night, right up to the steps of Centre Block. No more.


But more seriously, the present story is about local problems in DC, and really is unrelated to security issues based on national concerns.

[Indy Lurker]

9. semiautomatic rifles

from page 3

Why are the rifles being issued to police described as "semiautomatic rifles" and not "Assault Weapons"?

[iverglas]

10. I give up

Need a clue.

The best one might be an answer to: are they assault weapons?

[bossy22]

11. the beauty of the situation is

they can be whatever you want them to be, just start up the spin and there ya go

it depends on what your definition of assault weapon is

[maxidivine]

12. Yes. Yes they are.

Going by the AW ban language we have seen they would clearly be considered "assault weapons".
Flash supressor, to avoid temporarily blinding the user- Check.
Detachable magazine- Check.
Bayo lug- If they are not using neutered Kalifornia Karbines then Check.
Semi-auto- Check.

The question is why do the officials when talking about new police rifles call them what they are, semi-automatic rifles, but when the same set of officials is talking about civilians with the exact same thing, they become "assault weapons"?

Why the double standard?

[SteveM]

13. They don't want you to think the police are using weapons they want banned? (nt)