With brains like Phil Mendelson on the city council, it's no wonder D.C. acts like a third-world country. His March 22 Washington Post column slams congressmen who want to make D.C. a voting member if it will honor the Second Amendment.
Mendelson thinks D.C. residents deserve a vote in Congress, but not a firearm in their homes.
Why?
You're not going to believe this: because giving citizens the right to protect themselves would "disadvantage the right of individuals to be protected by the police ..." [emphasis added]
I'll repeat that, so you can fully appreciate the lunacy that passes for policy in Washington. Councilman Phil Mendelson says the Second Amendment shouldn't apply to D.C. residents because it would "disadvantage the right of individuals to be protected by the police ..."
Mendelson says obeying the Supreme Court would hamper public safety. "It would be harder to arrest chronic criminals, because police would no longer be able to charge them with possessing unregistered weapons," Mendelson wrote.
That's nuts. Police can arrest any felon in possession of a gun- that's good for five to ten years in prison. And if they're "chronic criminals"- and believe me, D.C. is teeming with them- why not arrest them for the crimes they've chronically committed?
Why am I not surprised that this intellectual giant is now chair of the Council's "public safety" committee? ...
Read it here. D.C. government: a violent criminal's best friend. Not to mention that there is no general right to police protection, as courts have repeatedly ruled that the police have no general legal duty to protect private individuals, except those who are in police custody.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment