When Lou Matteo got his handgun collection back, town police averted a legal battle based on a new U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding an individual's right to own a gun."Gee," mused Bob Barr bewilderedly, "why is everybody mad at me...?"
Matteo, 75, turned over his firearms in March after a verbal spat with his wife led to an order of protection against him. Guilderland police refused to give the guns back, citing a federal law barring anyone under an order of protection from possessing firearms.
[Via Jeffersonian]
4 comments:
my guess is they were stalling until they could get all the new "additions" to different officers' collections brought back to the station.
The city attorney probably thought Heller rescinded his license to steal and when suit was filed in federal court he feared repercussions for his now non-sancitioned theft.
Bob Barr helped make "he said, she said" a legal basis for taking civil liberties away.
Obama cheerfully says there doesn't NEED to be a reason. McCain too. They are no different from that fake Bubba from Arkansas: "When people abuse a right, you have to move to limit it."
Or make a preemptive strike to prevent them from abusing it by taking it away first.
Why is Bob Barr even mentioned in this story?
DeMatteo had his guns taken away under an order of protection. The order of protection ban has nothing to do with the Lautenberg amendment; it was added to the GCA by Clinton's 1994 Crime Bill, passed when Barr wasn't even in Congress.
Are you going to hold Barr personally responsible for the entire GCA?
No, George, just for supporting the principle that domestic disputes should lead to gun bans.
Are you going to tell your readers he refuses to even address the issue, let alone repudiate his past--and we must assume current--stance?
Post a Comment