It would be harder to arrest chronic criminals, because police would no longer be able to charge them with possessing unregistered weapons.[More]All this, plus we find out in DC there's a "right of individuals to be protected by the police..."
Hey, a councilman said it so it must be true, right?
Good grief, with this creature in charge of the Committee on Public Safety, no wonder they're so incompetent at achieving that end.
Interesting choice for a name, though, isn't it?
WaPo editorial standards. Is there any depth they won't sink to?
4 comments:
If these folks they are worried about are Chronic Criminals, chances are that they are Felons and not allowed to have weapons anyway. So what's the big deal.
What did Madame LaFarge say - "Stick to your knitting"?
The thing that makes this especially disgusting is all the disingenuous claims they take career criminals off the street using unregistered-gun charges.
SCOTUS has held that prohibited persons cannot be punished for failing to register because this would violate their 5th amendment protections against self-incrimination.
Thus, this crap-bag is lying even more than you think...
DD
Ironic, considering the landmark case stating the exact opposite also came out of DC:
(Warren vs DC) http://gunowners.org/sk0503.htm
Or perhaps not ironic at all.
Post a Comment