examiner.com — Time and again, we've seen challenges to gun laws struck down because the plaintiffs were ruled to have lacked "standing," because they had not been charged with breaking the law in question--yet. To challenge a law, one must risk prosecution under it, if the challenge fails. Pretty slick way of bullying people out of challenging laws, eh?
Jun 13, 2010 View in Crawl 4
basalcellbosskJun 14, 2010
crazy gun nut spam from libertyalways - as always - buried.You know you're nuts if you obsess over *just one issue* the whole time.
libertyalwaysJun 14, 2010Submitter
Again, have you read the article, and do you have a criticism of the assertions made in it, or is it simply the source that so offends you?I'm genuinely curious.
eirekJun 14, 2010
Even if he is obsessed, that doesn't invalidate this issue.
trevorpaceJun 14, 2010
Wow. Clearly I didn't pay attention in English 11.
dimensioJun 14, 2010
Civilian disarmament advocates are typically dishonest and irrational. Consequently, they must rely upon fallacious reasoning, as actual fact does not validate their advocacy of fascism.
louiscipher777Jun 14, 2010
so you would rather spread out your efforts on multiple topics instead of focusing on one and doing it well? I guess you have never heard the phrase "jack of all trades, master of none"
mikelistJun 15, 2010
practical reality fail. if you buy it from a private owner, no such thing.
secrityJun 15, 2010
Then get somebody from VA who (legally) owns handguns to move to DC. No FFL transfer is necessary; the only problem would be the DC laws, not the federal laws. This is why I live in VA and not DC.