The statement by itself is bad enough, but coming from the Police Chief of a major city is inexcusable.


" L O S A N G E L E S, Sept. 8, 2004— Nothing gets Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton more impassioned than talking about the impending expiration of the 10-year-old assault weapons ban.

"Nobody has an inalienable right to run around with a machine gun," he said. "I'm sorry, that's insanity!" Unless Congress or the Bush administration agrees to extend the ban, it will expire on Monday. Soon, all sorts of semi-automatic weapons could once again be legal.

Assault weapons used to be a hot-button political issue. But the ban is expiring without a serious debate in Congress, even though a survey released this week by the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey found that 68 percent of Americans want Congress to extend the ban.

Republican leaders in Congress want the ban to expire, and President Bush is doing nothing to renew it....

A couple of more gems from the article...

"Chuck Payne, manager of Ray's Sporting Goods in Dallas, is upbeat about the situation.

"If you got a high-capacity magazine you spend less time reloading," he said. "You shoot more, which is good for us because we sell more ammunition."

" In fact, in 1997 two bank robbers in North Hollywood armed with assault weapons held off 350 cops for more than two hours. They fired more than 1,100 rounds from their 75 round-drum magazines.".


rest of article

I believe this is a DUPE

dupe or not, that cop is an asshat.

time to have public executions for constitution violations.

Do I have an inalieable right to run with scissors?  

The Cheif of Police for the second largest city in the nation is not familiar with the US Constitution or the Federal Law governing "Assault Weapons".

Why am I not surprised?

Quoted: Quoted: Do I have an inalieable right to run with scissors?   Ban the scissor-wielding Dutch!

Running in wooden shoes is hard enough !

I loved how he kept calling magazines "Clips"  If he was in the service they probally woulda beat his head in till he got it right.

There's a lot of stupid people running around the Caliban...

"Nobody has a right to own and shoot .50 caliber rifles" is probably being said in California right now... but if I'm not mistaken, weren't many of the Minutemen who fought for our "inalienable rights" securing them with .50 and even {gasp} .54 caliber rifles?

why is it that all people that arent educated when it comes to guns...sees a mag fed rifle and calls it a "machine gun"???  i dont know how many idiots ive heard refer to my AR as a "machine gun" i quickly correct them.

Thats one Police Chief I don't mind calling - PIG!!!!!!!!!

he is a piece of shit dont worry about it

Nice how an LA Police Chief, where the CA ban will not sunset (and keeps growing in scope), is commenting on a Federal ban that will not affect his constituents.  This dumbass keeps amazing me with how stupid he can be.  Is he up in his office sniffing glue or something?

Quoted: "Nobody has a right to own and shoot .50 caliber rifles" is probably being said in California right now... but if I'm not mistaken, weren't many of the Minutemen who fought for our "inalienable rights" securing them with .50 and even {gasp} .54 caliber rifles?

.69 and .75 cal. smoothbore muskets. There were no rifles used by the minutemen.

Quoted: "Nobody has an inalienable right to run around with a machine gun,"

Umm... no - that's EXACTLY the kind of guns the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that we DO have a right to have!


Military-style firearms (like "assault weapons" and machine guns) are specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment according to the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in U.S. v. Miller (1939) and Lewis v. U.S. (1980).

* In the Miller decision the Supreme Court stated, "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that [a particular gun] has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument".

* In the Lewis decision, the Supreme Court stated, "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'".


Thus, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, military-style firearms (which "assault weapons" and machine guns obviously are) are EXACTLY the type of firearms that are protected by the 2nd Amendment because they DO have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".

"Nobody has an inalienable right to run around with a machine gun,"

Actually, I do.  It's shooting people that I don't have a right to do.  

I wish the asshats could tell the difference, but, alas, stupidity would sum up the measure of the combined intelligence of all the democrats in Kali.  

You know, it's amazing who's email address you can find simply by Googling it.

Reckon Chiefy will read it himself? Me either .

Chief Bratton:

As a law abiding American Citizen and gun owner, I was appalled at the outright ignorance of the law displayed by the chief of police of a major American city on the TV show "Nightline" on September 8, 2004.  You  uttered not one word of truth during your time on the show "Nightline", instead relying on outright untruths, distortions, misrepresentations and  histrionics in your opposition to the sunset of the Federal "Assault Weapons" ban. You consistently referred to the banned items as "Machine Guns", which have been HEAVILY regulated at the Federal level since 1934 and are in no way affected by the current useless piece of legislation.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1934 United States vs. Miller in 1934 that military arms are exactly what are referred to in the individual right enumerated in Second Amendment to the Constitution. I wonder, truthfully, if you realize that such a document exists?

Such an utter lack of comprehension and total ignorance of the law by the Chief LEO of a major city,  either by accident which is inexcuseable, or worse, by choice, is frightening.

I would also point out to you that the Draconian laws of the State of California and of your own city will still prevent anyone under your jurisdiction from legally obtaining any type of banned weapon, even after the useless Federal legislation expires. I'm sure that the drug dealers and other criminal types in LA have been very concerned with making sure that their weapons conform to current California law.

The rest of the country respectfully request that you tend to the cesspool you are charged with policing and not worry so much about the rest of us.

Sincerely,

SG

Quoted: Quoted: "Nobody has an inalienable right to run around with a machine gun," Umm... no - that's EXACTLY the kind of guns the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that we DO have a right to have! Military-style firearms (like "assault weapons" and machine guns) are specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment according to the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in U.S. v. Miller (1939) and Lewis v. U.S. (1980). * In the Miller decision the Supreme Court stated, "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that [a particular gun] has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument". * In the Lewis decision, the Supreme Court stated, "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'". Thus, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, military-style firearms (which "assault weapons" and machine guns obviously are) are EXACTLY the type of firearms that are protected by the 2nd Amendment because they DO have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".

Tagged.... thank you!

Quoted: Quoted: "Nobody has an inalienable right to run around with a machine gun," Umm... no - that's EXACTLY the kind of guns the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that we DO have a right to have! Military-style firearms (like "assault weapons" and machine guns) are specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment according to the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in U.S. v. Miller (1939) and Lewis v. U.S. (1980). * In the Miller decision the Supreme Court stated, "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that [a particular gun] has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument". * In the Lewis decision, the Supreme Court stated, "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'". Thus, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, military-style firearms (which "assault weapons" and machine guns obviously are) are EXACTLY the type of firearms that are protected by the 2nd Amendment because they DO have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".

I love using US v. Miller on antigunners! (THey are too lazy to read the page and a half decision!)
They are too stupid to READ the decision, and just ASSume that because it allows the regulation on firearms without 'intrisic militia value' that it means AR's, AKs, or other militia type weapons, but not o/u's (ever seen MP's with a $5,000 o/u? I haven't either) or various other bolt action rifles in nonmilitary cal.

Quoted: Quoted: "Nobody has an inalienable right to run around with a machine gun," Umm... no - that's EXACTLY the kind of guns the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that we DO have a right to have! Military-style firearms (like "assault weapons" and machine guns) are specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment according to the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in U.S. v. Miller (1939) and Lewis v. U.S. (1980). * In the Miller decision the Supreme Court stated, "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that [a particular gun] has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument". * In the Lewis decision, the Supreme Court stated, "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'". Thus, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, military-style firearms (which "assault weapons" and machine guns obviously are) are EXACTLY the type of firearms that are protected by the 2nd Amendment because they DO have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".

+1, Why, why, why did they not at least show up. It seems like the perfect example of someone who thought they won and didn't even show up to play the game. But the game was played in their absence. Kinda like how politicians play today. Not showing up just makes their jobs easier, they can just do what they want. Even redo if that doesn't come out right.

Quoted: Limelight grabbing political asshole.  The AWB expiration has no impact on his city anyway due to local laws.  Just another example of a CA politician telling the rest of the country how they should live. Tj

That's a DAMN good point that I wish someone had made when he was prattling on Nightline last night.

Quoted: +1, Why, why, why did they not at least show up. It seems like the perfect example of someone who thought they won and didn't even show up to play the game. But the game was played in their absence. Kinda like how politicians play today. Not showing up just makes their jobs easier, they can just do what they want. Even redo if that doesn't come out right.

Because Miller was DEAD. He was mysteriously gunned down before his case could be argued before the Supreme Court.

The SCOTUS should have just dropped the case - but, being the activist-leftists they were, decided to go ahead and listen to JUST ONE SIDE (the plaintiff) and base their decision after hearing only ONE SIDE of the arguments.

I sent him a nice email...

Quoted: Do I have an inalieable right to run with scissors?

Yes, I think so.

I like this quote:

"The irony is we'll probably have more of these weapons in the United States than there are in Iraq in the hands of insurgents," said Bratton. "Isn't that amazing?"

Good. I trust my fellow Americans more than the fuck wad Iraqi insurgents.