[QUOTE=Jungle Shift Jet;4496488]The alarm is real and well-founded. That's because B. Hussein said the DC Gun Law was Constitutional [B][I](District of Columbia v. Heller)[/I][/B]
(James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins, "[B]Court To Hear Gun Case[/B]," Chicago Tribune, [U]11/20/07[/U][B]) [/B]before flip-floppingand was well known for his anti-gun positions - director of the anti-gun Joyce Foundation, his voting record (however scant) and other ancillary evidence.
As for recent Congressional (D) gun-related extortion: May 9;
[B]Democrats backed off of their effort Tuesday to offer a “Trayvon amendment” to pressure states to drop their stand-your-ground laws after learning it was likely to be ruled out of order under the evening’s rules for debate on the House floor.[/B]
[B]Rep. Keith Ellison, Minnesota Democrat, said he will still try to force a debate at a more “appropriate” time in the future, saying action is demanded by the case of Trayvon Martin, the Florida teenager who police said was shot dead in a street encounter with a neighborhood watch volunteer.[/B]
[B]The Ellison amendment would have docked federal criminal justice [/B][B]grants[/B][B] to states that have stand-your-ground laws, which allow residents to use deadly force to respond to an attack without first having to retreat[/B].[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure I understand the above....why would there be a need to have a Trayvon Amendment when George Zimmerman has been indicted, and will likely be tried for homicide, for the killing of Martin? I could understand a movement for a "Trayvon Amendment" if the stand-you-ground law was implicated, but it seems pretty clear that its not. I'm not commenting on whether those laws are good/bad/neutral, but its seems fairly irrelevant to the specific circumstances. In fact, perhaps the distinguishing of this event (if the facts warrant) from what the law was intended may actually bolster the validity of the law.