DC targeting real criminals?

Illegitimate sons of pigs and monkeys.....(the DC bureaucracy. Time for some of the folks at Marine Barracks to apply some fundamental education to the SOB's.

Time for some "dungaree liberty".

There is no nice way to say this . . .

WHAT THE *#!% IS WRONG WITH THOSE MOTHER*#!%ING PEOPLE?!?!?!?

DO THEY A IMAGINE THAT A DOUBLE AMPUTEE WHO, IN ALL LIKELIHOOD GAVE BOTH LEGS IN DEFENDING HIS COUNTRY, SHOULD BE DEPRIVED OF HIS HUMAN RIGHT TO LAWFUL SELF-DEFENSE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION?!?!?!?

We have argued over the meaning of "the militia."
We have argued over the meaning of "the people."
We have argued over the meaning of "the right."
We have argued over the meaning of "to keep."
NOW WE NEED TO ARGUE OVER THE MEANING OF "TO BEAR!"

"BEAR" MEANS "CARRY"--THERE IS NOTHING IN THE AMENDMENT THAT MENTIONS PERMITS OR REASONABLE REGULATION.

"BEAR" MEANS "CARRY!"

It would not displease me at all if every single law-abiding gun owner in the U.S.A. loaded and carried, in a march to City Hall, as many of his firearms as he had the strength to "bear"--EVERY DAMNED DAY UNTIL THE POLITICIANS GET THIS $H!T RIGHT!!!

Perhaps WE need to get as enthusiastic about the Second Amendment in our streets as the evil Muslims get about their vile, hate-filled supremacist ideology in our streets--their message is surely a violation of "Section 2385 of the federal criminal code," which states that "whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District, or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by assassination of any officer of any government ...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for five years next following his conviction..." (Courtesy of blogger Atlas Shrugs.)

This story really burns me up!

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS IS PUNISHMENT: Cummings v. Missouri (1867).

AS SUCH, THAT IS A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS, IS IT NOT?

YOU CANNOT "PUNISH" WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.

(Someone correct my citation if I am wrong.)

AND EVEN IF there is some kind of "due process" given, I still stand with those who will fight to their dying breath to see to it that every law-abiding citizen be armed.

And under the 1986 gun law, he was legally carrying anyway - his stay at Walter Reed didn't constitute a change of address, he was just traveling by.

Screw DC, the crap-for-brains civil servants that work for the city and the crap-for-brains that run the country.

I'm sick at my stomach. I don't even know were to start. Thank God for this marine who fought for our constitutional rights, no matter how many politicians try and deny them. God forbid that we have to fight in our own streets to defend our own constitution from our own goverment. I'm to old. It seems to me that by the time you understand what is at stack, you are to old to fight for it. How do we make the young and strong understand?

Time for every GI in the District to throw Fenty and his pack of fools a blanket party!

Get this incident to President ASAP for a pardon. I'm glad he fought for his rights. He fought for everyone's rights.

Isn't it Federal Law that when traveling you carry the weapons in the legal way from your home and if it is legal at your destination then you are legal in between?

Something that the Marine may not have been aware of but the judge should have been.

Appeal the case get everything removed.

Besides, REAL criminals shoot back. It's so much easier to pick on otherwise law abiding citizens.

"misdemeanor possession of ammunition." WTF???

I agree with the general outrage, but just to clarify - he was not legally carrying - he had a loaded gun on him. You can't do that in D.C. The federal transportation law doesn't allow you to carry a loaded gun on you as you travel through a jurisdiction. The gun must be unloaded and secured - not on your person (e.g., in a case in the trunk).

Ask HIM what he was doing when he said "support and defend the constitution"

We don't have incorporation (with proper court cases to back up those allegations) but DC, being a federal zone IS under the fed constitution.

The guy removes a gun from his car to prevent it being stolen, or falling into the wrong hands and secures it on himself and gets arrested.

This just shows that ammunition IS the next battle ground, as they've been pushing for years now. Insanity will continue to run rampant until we take this country back from lunatics. I wish he'd appeal the case and bitch smack the idiots in DC. If possession of ammunition is a crime then Heller means NOTHING!

"'misdemeanor possession of ammunition.' WTF???"

In DC it is illegal to possess ammo unless you a have a legally registered firearm of the same caliber, and are carrying the registration paperwork with you.

The really slick thing about this is, that if [post Heller] you registered a .357 Magnum, the police can arrest you for having .38 Special ammo, if you didn't have the foresight to list ALL calibers the gun can handle on the registration application. Nice, huh?

It's just one more 'reasonable' restriction from the Democrats who have been running DC for 50 years...

Ethics require that a prosecutor have a good faith belief that justice would be served before initiating a prosecution. It would be interesting to hear how this would be justified to the Bar Association.

Trust DC to abuse the people. The DC bar has omitted the obligation that the prosecutor believe justice to be served. And we wonder why people hate lawyers.

OK, how does one think probable cause exists in light of Heller?"

Here is the sad truth:

Rule 3.8—Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor

The prosecutor in a criminal case shall not:
(a) ...
(b) File in court or maintain a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;
(c) Prosecute to trial a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie showing of guilt;