Quoted: "(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms. (3) The law-abiding citizens of the District of Columbia are deprived by local laws of handguns, rifles, and shotguns that are commonly kept by law-abiding persons throughout the rest of the United States for sporting use and for lawful defense of persons, homes, and families." But, but the supreme court said that the 2nd Amendmant of the Bill of Rights of the people doesn't apply to the people! If this passes, we are going to be seeing some interesting things with regards to the Supreme Court.  In effect, Section 2 tells the Supreme Court "The CONGRESS legislates, NOT the Judiciary!!!" You know what this legislation would allow?  It would allow EVERY peice of gun legislation ever enabled that infringes on gun ownership to be legally challenged. NFA, Gun Control Act, Brady Act, all the state bans... etc... ALL of them would have legal basis for challenge. Unfortunately, I have no doubt that the Supreme Court would publicly turn a blind eye to the legislation and refuse to hear any case put before them on the matter. Bastards.

This is HUGE!!!

Awesome... im in shock... someone finally picked up their skirt and grabbed their balls.

- BG

Quoted: This would make sense as alot of congress/senators would like to carry while in DC. Your thoughts please  FREE

My thought is this;

If I were shoving it up the ass of the prolitariate like 99% of these fuckers are,  I'd want to carry too.  

Chief Bratton of LA.  Attaboy Chief, knows that it doesn't matter in LA or NYC his former fiefdom.

Hell LA hasn't had a Chief with balls since Darryl Gates.

Quoted: Ok but can the AWB renewal be attached to the DC gun ban repeal admendment?  FREE

Not in the House. The House does not allow amendments to be proposed from the floor, they have to be proposed in committee and that is where the bill is marked up. Pro-RKBA Congressmen solidly control both the sub-committee (Crime) and committee (Judiciary) that handle gun control.

Now once the bill gets to the Senate, it will be DOA. We don't have the votes to stop them from attaching a ban renewal in the Senate and unless Frist fills the tree on the bill again, they will certainly do so.

However, I doubt it will even get scheduled on the Senate calendar with all the appropriations bills and 9/11 committee recommedations on the schedule. Most likely this is just a "Would you like a side order of STFU with that, Mrs. Brady?" by the House.

Notice how Sarah keeps claiming they have the votes to pass it in the House; but House leaders won't let it come to a vote? Total BS - if she had the votes to pass it in the House she could force it out of committee using a discharge petition. She doesn't have the votes - and if she doesn't have them now, she isn't going to get them until November at the earliest and even then it will be pretty damn unlikely.

Quoted: Quoted: Yet, as with most holy wars, some of the warriors are not without the taint of hypocrisy. Senator John Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, was a fervent supporter of the crime bill and the assault-weapons ban. A few days after the bill had passed the Senate, the Charleston (West Virginia) Daily Mail reported from Washington: "If burglars are casing big houses around here, they may want to give wide berth to the Rockefeller mansion. The occupant is packing heat and knows how to use it. Senator Jay Rockefeller disclosed that for the past 25 years, he has been the proud owner of a Colt AR-15, a so-called assault weapon used in Vietnam. Rockefeller keeps the rifle in his Washington home." This was news to the Washington police, which ban the ownership of AR-15s in the District of Columbia. After Rockefeller was told that having such a gun in the District was a crime, he "remembered" that he actually kept the gun stored in northern Virginia. Rockefeller also claimed that he was unaware that the District of Columbia banned such guns. Rockefeller has private security guards around his lavish Washington home, and the Senate office buildings where he works are heavily guarded by well-fed Capitol policemen. Yet he still feels entitled to own a gun that he wanted to severely restrict other Americans from being able to purchase.

I remember that...

Quoted: Quoted: "(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms. (3) The law-abiding citizens of the District of Columbia are deprived by local laws of handguns, rifles, and shotguns that are commonly kept by law-abiding persons throughout the rest of the United States for sporting use and for lawful defense of persons, homes, and families." But, but the supreme court said that the 2nd Amendmant of the Bill of Rights of the people doesn't apply to the people! If this passes, we are going to be seeing some interesting things with regards to the Supreme Court.  In effect, Section 2 tells the Supreme Court "The CONGRESS legislates, NOT the Judiciary!!!" You know what this legislation would allow?  It would allow EVERY peice of gun legislation ever enabled that infringes on gun ownership to be legally challenged. NFA, Gun Control Act, Brady Act, all the state bans... etc... ALL of them would have legal basis for challenge. Unfortunately, I have no doubt that the Supreme Court would publicly turn a blind eye to the legislation and refuse to hear any case put before them on the matter. Bastards. This is HUGE!!! Awesome... im in shock... someone finally picked up their skirt and grabbed their balls. - BG

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

This same language was in the lawsuit protection act that was voted down earlier this year. That statement, not the body of the bill, was the greater loss from that vote.


"One small step for man,..."

The statement "Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my "Assault Weapon" is still true......and makes the point in a few words that ignorant legislators cannot grasp despite their "intelligence".  

Then there's tobacco and alcohol, true killers no legislator can cough up the courage to ban.  It's really quite funny especially when you can see into the mindset in places like Melbourne Australia where they are progressing to banning swords.

Quoted: Quoted: Ok but can the AWB renewal be attached to the DC gun ban repeal admendment?  FREE Not in the House. The House does not allow amendments to be proposed from the floor, they have to be proposed in committee and that is where the bill is marked up. Pro-RKBA Congressmen solidly control both the sub-committee (Crime) and committee (Judiciary) that handle gun control. Now once the bill gets to the Senate, it will be DOA. We don't have the votes to stop them from attaching a ban renewal in the Senate and unless Frist fills the tree on the bill again, they will certainly do so. However, I doubt it will even get scheduled on the Senate calendar with all the appropriations bills and 9/11 committee recommedations on the schedule. Most likely this is just a "Would you like a side order of STFU with that, Mrs. Brady?" by the House. Notice how Sarah keeps claiming they have the votes to pass it in the House; but House leaders won't let it come to a vote? Total BS - if she had the votes to pass it in the House she could force it out of committee using a discharge petition. She doesn't have the votes - and if she doesn't have them now, she isn't going to get them until November at the earliest and even then it will be pretty damn unlikely.

Doesn't the new congress seat itself in January?

Quoted: Doesn't the new congress seat itself in January?

Yes, the 109th Congress will not convene until January; but by November we will know whether Sarah has the votes she needs to try again in the House and Senate. I doubt she'll get anywhere in the House; but she may get the Senate unless we turn out in:

Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and South Dakota

We also have Alaska and Oklahoma where both candidates are pro-gun; but who wins there could effect which party controls the Senate. If the Democrats win, then that puts Leahy, Kennedy, Schumer and Feinstein in charge of the Senate Judiciary committee that controls gun legislation.

If we win our best case scenario, we will not only be able to beat the ban until January 2007 - we will be in a position to actually repeal legislation (though still not strong enough to override an anti-gun filibuster).