Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/2/2007 6:46:27 PM EDT
H.R.1399
Title: To restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia.
Sponsor: Rep Ross, Mike [AR-4] (introduced 3/8/2007) Cosponsors (239)
Related Bills: S.1001
Latest Major Action: 3/27/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Post Office, and the District of Columbia. COSPONSORS(239), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)


Rep Aderholt, Robert B. [AL-4] - 3/20/2007
Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO-2] - 5/10/2007
Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] - 6/21/2007
Rep Altmire, Jason [PA-4] - 4/17/2007
Rep Baca, Joe [CA-43] - 5/24/2007
Rep Bachmann, Michele [MN-6] - 3/27/2007
Rep Bachus, Spencer [AL-6] - 7/31/2007
Rep Baker, Richard H. [LA-6] - 4/17/2007
Rep Barrett, J. Gresham [SC-3] - 5/9/2007
Rep Barrow, John [GA-12] - 4/17/2007
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] - 7/24/2007
Rep Barton, Joe [TX-6] - 3/20/2007
Rep Berry, Marion [AR-1] - 5/24/2007
Rep Biggert, Judy [IL-13] - 6/27/2007
Rep Bilbray, Brian P. [CA-50] - 3/20/2007
Rep Bilirakis, Gus M. [FL-9] - 7/18/2007
Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] - 5/24/2007
Rep Bishop, Sanford D., Jr. [GA-2] - 4/19/2007
Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] - 3/20/2007
Rep Blunt, Roy [MO-7] - 5/21/2007
Rep Boehner, John A. [OH-8] - 5/10/2007
Rep Bonner, Jo [AL-1] - 6/6/2007
Rep Boozman, John [AR-3] - 3/27/2007
Rep Boren, Dan [OK-2] - 5/3/2007
Rep Boswell, Leonard L. [IA-3] - 4/17/2007
Rep Boucher, Rick [VA-9] - 3/23/2007
Rep Boustany, Charles W., Jr. [LA-7] - 5/24/2007
Rep Boyd, Allen [FL-2] - 3/23/2007
Rep Boyda, Nancy E. [KS-2] - 6/6/2007
Rep Brady, Kevin [TX-8] - 5/10/2007
Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] - 8/4/2007
Rep Brown, Henry E., Jr. [SC-1] - 4/17/2007
Rep Brown-Waite, Ginny [FL-5] - 3/20/2007
Rep Buchanan, Vern [FL-13] - 3/20/2007
Rep Burgess, Michael C. [TX-26] - 3/20/2007
Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] - 6/12/2007
Rep Buyer, Steve [IN-4] - 7/24/2007
Rep Calvert, Ken [CA-44] - 4/25/2007
Rep Camp, Dave [MI-4] - 6/7/2007
Rep Campbell, John [CA-48] - 4/17/2007
Rep Cannon, Chris [UT-3] - 3/20/2007
Rep Cantor, Eric [VA-7] - 3/20/2007
Rep Capito, Shelley Moore [WV-2] - 3/29/2007
Rep Cardoza, Dennis A. [CA-18] - 3/23/2007
Rep Carney, Christopher P. [PA-10] - 5/15/2007
Rep Carter, John R. [TX-31] - 4/17/2007
Rep Chabot, Steve [OH-1] - 5/24/2007
Rep Chandler, Ben [KY-6] - 4/17/2007
Rep Coble, Howard [NC-6] - 6/6/2007
Rep Cole, Tom [OK-4] - 5/10/2007
Rep Conaway, K. Michael [TX-11] - 3/20/2007
Rep Cooper, Jim [TN-5] - 5/24/2007
Rep Costello, Jerry F. [IL-12] - 4/24/2007
Rep Cramer, Robert E. (Bud), Jr. [AL-5] - 5/24/2007
Rep Crenshaw, Ander [FL-4] - 4/17/2007
Rep Cubin, Barbara [WY] - 3/29/2007
Rep Cuellar, Henry [TX-28] - 5/24/2007
Rep Culberson, John Abney [TX-7] - 3/20/2007
Rep Davis, Artur [AL-7] - 3/23/2007
Rep Davis, David [TN-1] - 4/30/2007
Rep Davis, Geoff [KY-4] - 3/23/2007
Rep Davis, Jo Ann [VA-1] - 5/9/2007
Rep Davis, Lincoln [TN-4] - 5/21/2007
Rep Davis, Tom [VA-11] - 7/18/2007
Rep Deal, Nathan [GA-9] - 5/21/2007
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] - 3/29/2007
Rep Dent, Charles W. [PA-15] - 6/21/2007
Rep Diaz-Balart, Lincoln [FL-21] - 5/10/2007
Rep Diaz-Balart, Mario [FL-25] - 3/23/2007
Rep Dingell, John D. [MI-15] - 3/20/2007
Rep Donnelly, Joe [IN-2] - 7/24/2007
Rep Doolittle, John T. [CA-4] - 3/20/2007
Rep Drake, Thelma D. [VA-2] - 3/29/2007
Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [TN-2] - 7/31/2007
Rep Edwards, Chet [TX-17] - 5/21/2007
Rep Ellsworth, Brad [IN-8] - 3/20/2007
Rep Emerson, Jo Ann [MO-8] - 7/11/2007
Rep English, Phil [PA-3] - 5/24/2007
Rep Everett, Terry [AL-2] - 5/24/2007
Rep Fallin, Mary [OK-5] - 3/27/2007
Rep Feeney, Tom [FL-24] - 3/29/2007
Rep Flake, Jeff [AZ-6] - 6/28/2007
Rep Forbes, J. Randy [VA-4] - 6/6/2007
Rep Fortenberry, Jeff [NE-1] - 7/24/2007
Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] - 7/16/2007
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2] - 3/20/2007
Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] - 4/30/2007
Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] - 3/27/2007
Rep Gerlach, Jim [PA-6] - 6/21/2007
Rep Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [NY-20] - 5/24/2007
Rep Gillmor, Paul E. [OH-5] - 6/21/2007
Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] - 4/17/2007
Rep Gohmert, Louie [TX-1] - 6/28/2007
Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA-5] - 4/17/2007
Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] - 5/24/2007
Rep Gordon, Bart [TN-6] - 4/17/2007
Rep Granger, Kay [TX-12] - 7/31/2007
Rep Graves, Sam [MO-6] - 6/21/2007
Rep Green, Gene [TX-29] - 3/23/2007
Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] - 4/17/2007
Rep Hastert, J. Dennis [IL-14] - 8/2/2007
Rep Hastings, Doc [WA-4] - 6/6/2007
Rep Hayes, Robin [NC-8] - 6/6/2007
Rep Heller, Dean [NV-2] - 3/20/2007
Rep Hensarling, Jeb [TX-5] - 3/20/2007
Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] - 5/15/2007
Rep Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie [SD] - 6/27/2007
Rep Higgins, Brian [NY-27] - 6/22/2007
Rep Hill, Baron P. [IN-9] - 5/24/2007
Rep Hoekstra, Peter [MI-2] - 8/2/2007
Rep Holden, Tim [PA-17] - 3/20/2007
Rep Hulshof, Kenny C. [MO-9] - 7/11/2007
Rep Hunter, Duncan [CA-52] - 3/20/2007
Rep Inglis, Bob [SC-4] - 8/4/2007
Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49] - 3/20/2007
Rep Jindal, Bobby [LA-1] - 6/7/2007
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] - 4/17/2007
Rep Johnson, Timothy V. [IL-15] - 3/20/2007
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 3/20/2007
Rep Jordan, Jim [OH-4] - 3/20/2007
Rep Kagen, Steve [WI-8] - 10/2/2007
Rep Kanjorski, Paul E. [PA-11] - 5/24/2007
Rep Keller, Ric [FL-8] - 3/23/2007
Rep Kind, Ron [WI-3] - 5/24/2007
Rep King, Steve [IA-5] - 4/25/2007
Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1] - 6/21/2007
Rep Kline, John [MN-2] - 4/25/2007
Rep Knollenberg, Joe [MI-9] - 7/31/2007
Rep Kuhl, John R. "Randy", Jr. [NY-29] - 6/22/2007
Rep Lamborn, Doug [CO-5] - 4/17/2007
Rep Lampson, Nick [TX-22] - 3/29/2007
Rep Latham, Tom [IA-4] - 5/9/2007
Rep LaTourette, Steven C. [OH-14] - 8/4/2007
Rep Lewis, Jerry [CA-41] - 6/21/2007
Rep Lewis, Ron [KY-2] - 6/21/2007
Rep Linder, John [GA-7] - 6/21/2007
Rep Lucas, Frank D. [OK-3] - 7/31/2007
Rep Mack, Connie [FL-14] - 3/20/2007
Rep Mahoney, Tim [FL-16] - 5/24/2007
Rep Manzullo, Donald A. [IL-16] - 7/25/2007
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] - 3/23/2007
Rep Marshall, Jim [GA-8] - 5/21/2007
Rep Matheson, Jim [UT-2] - 3/20/2007
Rep McCarthy, Kevin [CA-22] - 8/4/2007
Rep McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] - 4/17/2007
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] - 6/27/2007
Rep McCrery, Jim [LA-4] - 6/6/2007
Rep McHenry, Patrick T. [NC-10] - 3/20/2007
Rep McHugh, John M. [NY-23] - 8/2/2007
Rep McIntyre, Mike [NC-7] - 5/24/2007
Rep McKeon, Howard P. "Buck" [CA-25] - 8/4/2007
Rep McMorris Rodgers, Cathy [WA-5] - 6/28/2007
Rep Melancon, Charlie [LA-3] - 5/21/2007
Rep Mica, John L. [FL-7] - 6/7/2007
Rep Michaud, Michael H. [ME-2] - 3/23/2007
Rep Miller, Candice S. [MI-10] - 6/12/2007
Rep Miller, Gary G. [CA-42] - 5/15/2007
Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] - 3/20/2007
Rep Mollohan, Alan B. [WV-1] - 3/27/2007
Rep Moran, Jerry [KS-1] - 5/24/2007
Rep Murphy, Tim [PA-18] - 8/2/2007
Rep Murtha, John P. [PA-12] - 4/17/2007
Rep Musgrave, Marilyn N. [CO-4] - 4/17/2007
Rep Myrick, Sue Wilkins [NC-9] - 7/18/2007
Rep Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19] - 4/24/2007
Rep Nunes, Devin [CA-21] - 6/28/2007
Rep Ortiz, Solomon P. [TX-27] - 5/24/2007
Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] - 6/28/2007
Rep Pearce, Stevan [NM-2] - 5/24/2007
Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] - 3/23/2007
Rep Peterson, Collin C. [MN-7] - 3/29/2007
Rep Peterson, John E. [PA-5] - 4/17/2007
Rep Petri, Thomas E. [WI-6] - 8/4/2007
Rep Pickering, Charles W. "Chip" [MS-3] - 4/25/2007
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] - 3/23/2007
Rep Platts, Todd Russell [PA-19] - 4/25/2007
Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] - 3/20/2007
Rep Pomeroy, Earl [ND] - 5/21/2007
Rep Porter, Jon C. [NV-3] - 3/23/2007
Rep Price, Tom [GA-6] - 4/25/2007
Rep Pryce, Deborah [OH-15] - 3/20/2007
Rep Putnam, Adam H. [FL-12] - 3/20/2007
Rep Radanovich, George [CA-19] - 5/24/2007
Rep Rahall, Nick J., II [WV-3] - 3/20/2007
Rep Regula, Ralph [OH-16] - 8/4/2007
Rep Rehberg, Dennis R. [MT] - 5/9/2007
Rep Reichert, David G. [WA-8] - 11/9/2007
Rep Renzi, Rick [AZ-1] - 4/17/2007
Rep Reyes, Silvestre [TX-16] - 5/24/2007
Rep Reynolds, Thomas M. [NY-26] - 6/12/2007
Rep Rodriguez, Ciro D. [TX-23] - 7/25/2007
Rep Rogers, Harold [KY-5] - 10/4/2007
Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3] - 3/20/2007
Rep Rogers, Mike J. [MI-8] - 7/18/2007
Rep Rohrabacher, Dana [CA-46] - 6/6/2007
Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [FL-18] - 6/22/2007
Rep Royce, Edward R. [CA-40] - 6/21/2007
Rep Ryan, Paul [WI-1] - 5/21/2007
Rep Ryan, Tim [OH-17] - 5/21/2007
Rep Salazar, John T. [CO-3] - 3/23/2007
Rep Sali, Bill [ID-1] - 3/20/2007
Rep Schmidt, Jean [OH-2] - 5/21/2007
Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [WI-5] - 7/25/2007
Rep Sessions, Pete [TX-32] - 3/23/2007
Rep Shadegg, John B. [AZ-3] - 5/24/2007
Rep Shimkus, John [IL-19] - 4/17/2007
Rep Shuler, Heath [NC-11] - 3/23/2007
Rep Shuster, Bill [PA-9] - 3/20/2007
Rep Simpson, Michael K. [ID-2] - 3/20/2007
Rep Skelton, Ike [MO-4] - 3/20/2007
Rep Smith, Adrian [NE-3] - 3/23/2007
Rep Smith, Lamar [TX-21] - 5/10/2007
Rep Souder, Mark E. [IN-3] - 3/8/2007
Rep Space, Zachary T. [OH-18] - 5/24/2007
Rep Stearns, Cliff [FL-6] - 6/7/2007
Rep Stupak, Bart [MI-1] - 5/24/2007
Rep Sullivan, John [OK-1] - 4/17/2007
Rep Tancredo, Thomas G. [CO-6] - 5/21/2007
Rep Tanner, John S. [TN-8] - 5/24/2007
Rep Taylor, Gene [MS-4] - 5/24/2007
Rep Terry, Lee [NE-2] - 7/11/2007
Rep Thornberry, Mac [TX-13] - 7/31/2007
Rep Tiahrt, Todd [KS-4] - 7/16/2007
Rep Tiberi, Patrick J. [OH-12] - 5/9/2007
Rep Turner, Michael R. [OH-3] - 7/11/2007
Rep Upton, Fred [MI-6] - 7/24/2007
Rep Walberg, Timothy [MI-7] - 3/23/2007
Rep Walden, Greg [OR-2] - 6/6/2007
Rep Walz, Timothy J. [MN-1] - 6/21/2007
Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] - 3/20/2007
Rep Weldon, Dave [FL-15] - 5/24/2007
Rep Weller, Jerry [IL-11] - 5/3/2007
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] - 4/25/2007
Rep Whitfield, Ed [KY-1] - 6/27/2007
Rep Wicker, Roger F. [MS-1] - 6/12/2007
Rep Wilson, Charles A. [OH-6] - 5/21/2007
Rep Wilson, Heather [NM-1] - 10/31/2007
Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] - 3/20/2007
Rep Young, Don [AK] - 4/17/2007

THOMAS Home | Contact | Accessibility | Legal | FirstGov
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 6:47:25 PM EDT
Any dems on there want to make Heller v DC moot.
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 6:55:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/2/2007 6:59:04 PM EDT by Charging_Handle]
Wow. The most surprising thing about that list is that I recognized quite a few names of democrats on it. Of course some of them are considered the "conservative" democrats elected in 2006. Maybe they are actually living up to that billing. Also, that's a very sizable list of co-sponsors, much more impressive than any co-sponsor list I've seen for anti-gun legislation in recent years.
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 7:06:15 PM EDT
Why now?
Why is this legislation only being presented after Heller has been accepted by the SCOTUS?
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 7:07:34 PM EDT
Probably because they are shitting their pants that a 2nd Amendment decision is being made.
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 7:13:41 PM EDT
FUCKYEAH!
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 7:13:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:
Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] - 6/28/2007


I'm glad to see that Representative Moonbat is helping out.

Link Posted: 12/2/2007 7:15:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By harleyrkc:
Why now?
Why is this legislation only being presented after Heller has been accepted by the SCOTUS?


My guess is that they see the handwriting on the wall. They want to make sure that they are on the 'right' side of the issue when the ruling comes down.
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 7:16:26 PM EDT
This bill was introduced awhile ago but is still gaining sponsors

Link Posted: 12/2/2007 7:18:20 PM EDT
Well good news is good news. Things are starting to look up for us.
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 7:19:04 PM EDT
it'll get attached to some appropriations bill that will get vetoed and the politicians will say, "look, we tried!"


this shouldn't have to come down to passing a law that makes it "legal" to own a gun in DC. the 2A is clear and shouldn't have to be interpreted.
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 7:22:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Top_Secret:
Probably because they are shitting their pants that a 2nd Amendment decision is being made.


I'd like to think your right, but that would imply that our politicians know what logical thought is.
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 7:23:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
... that's a very sizable list of co-sponsors, much more impressive than any co-sponsor list I've seen for anti-gun legislation in recent years.


Thats because its not gun legislation it's anti- DC v Heller legislation
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 8:28:06 PM EDT
Any relief created by Heller v DC would still have to be IMPLIMENTED by legislation by congress. All SCOTUS would do is remove the old law- it would just leave a vacume.
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 8:32:08 PM EDT
Rep Musgrave, Marilyn N. [CO-4] - 4/17/2007

This surprised me. She is all about taking our guns away in CO.
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 8:39:14 PM EDT
All three of my reps are on there. They are good guys.
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 8:39:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/2/2007 8:41:01 PM EDT by Cliffhanger]
If this law as passed, would the Supreme Court then reject hearing the Heller case?

If so, this would actually be "anti-gun" legislation, as it would make the actual SCOTUS opinion of the 2nd Amendment go away. Meaning we lose again.

So would this make the Heller case go away in the SCOTUS?
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 8:40:23 PM EDT

of course, OK represents...
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 8:42:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By harleyrkc:
Why now?
Why is this legislation only being presented after Heller has been accepted by the SCOTUS?


To protect the NRAs relevence and funding.
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 8:43:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/2/2007 8:57:45 PM EDT by Mxpatriot51]
When does the CA version come out?



And my Rep. is on that list
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 8:45:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By luckypunk:
FUCKYEAH!



Uhhhh NO!!! We are a few months away from something the SCOTUS has been ducking for 70+ years, this is the ultimate in bad timing.
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 8:47:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mxpatriot51:
When does the CA version come out?



When the earth shifts it's poles probably.
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 8:48:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By luckypunk:
FUCKYEAH!



Uhhhh NO!!! We are a few months away from something the SCOTUS has been ducking for 70+ years, this is the ultimate in bad timing.



I think this was planned.
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 8:52:02 PM EDT

Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] - 3/29/2007


Wow. Did not see that one coming.
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 8:54:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Cliffhanger:

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By luckypunk:
FUCKYEAH!



Uhhhh NO!!! We are a few months away from something the SCOTUS has been ducking for 70+ years, this is the ultimate in bad timing.



I think this was planned.


The tards are scared, that is a good thing. Cant wait to see the utter horseshit that gets tacked on to this legislation too. Probably A massive ammunition tax on MIL/LE calibres.
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 9:00:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By Cliffhanger:

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By luckypunk:
FUCKYEAH!



Uhhhh NO!!! We are a few months away from something the SCOTUS has been ducking for 70+ years, this is the ultimate in bad timing.



I think this was planned.


The tards are scared, that is a good thing. Cant wait to see the utter horseshit that gets tacked on to this legislation too. Probably A massive ammunition tax on MIL/LE calibres.



You know, if the SCOTUS does not hear the Heller case and doesn't rule on the side of the 2nd because of this legislation, I am going to NEVER trust in our political process again. If this is the case, you can't trust ANY of them to do the right thing.

As far as I am concerned, if this screws up our chance at finally getting our 2nd Amendment Rights back in full, our "friends" at the NRA and the so called "pro-gun" legislators can KMA. If the Heller case is pulled off the docket because of this, the NRA will NEVER get another dime from me. Period. I am getting really sick and tired of this snow job by our so called friends. I hope I am wrong, but I doubt it.
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 9:03:23 PM EDT
My rep is on there, but its not really that suprising
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 9:03:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By harleyrkc:
Why now?
Why is this legislation only being presented after Heller has been accepted by the SCOTUS?


It was sponsored by Sen. Kay Hutchison from Texas and was introduced in March. She also sponsored a similar bill in 2005.

Link Posted: 12/2/2007 9:04:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/2/2007 9:06:34 PM EDT by Cliffhanger]

Originally Posted By brushdog:

Originally Posted By harleyrkc:
Why now?
Why is this legislation only being presented after Heller has been accepted by the SCOTUS?


It was sponsored by Sen. Kay Hutchison from Texas and was introduced in March. She also sponsored a similar bill in 2005.





So did she know the Heller case would go up to the SCOTUS when she wrote this? And do you have a link to the similar bill. I'd really like to read that.

I would really like to hold out the hope that this legislation would be passed and that the SCOTUS would also hear the Heller case. But I have a feeling we'll end up getting screwed in the end of all of it.
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 9:12:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Cliffhanger:

Originally Posted By brushdog:

Originally Posted By harleyrkc:
Why now?
Why is this legislation only being presented after Heller has been accepted by the SCOTUS?


It was sponsored by Sen. Kay Hutchison from Texas and was introduced in March. She also sponsored a similar bill in 2005.





So did she know the Heller case would go up to the SCOTUS when she wrote this? And do you have a link to the similar bill. I'd really like to read that.

I would really like to hold out the hope that this legislation would be passed and that the SCOTUS would also hear the Heller case. But I have a feeling we'll end up getting screwed in the end of all of it.


I'm not sure, but Orrin Hatch sponsored a similar bill in 2003 too.

www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s108-1414
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 9:14:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/2/2007 9:15:16 PM EDT by Cliffhanger]

Originally Posted By brushdog:

Originally Posted By Cliffhanger:

Originally Posted By brushdog:

Originally Posted By harleyrkc:
Why now?
Why is this legislation only being presented after Heller has been accepted by the SCOTUS?


It was sponsored by Sen. Kay Hutchison from Texas and was introduced in March. She also sponsored a similar bill in 2005.





So did she know the Heller case would go up to the SCOTUS when she wrote this? And do you have a link to the similar bill. I'd really like to read that.

I would really like to hold out the hope that this legislation would be passed and that the SCOTUS would also hear the Heller case. But I have a feeling we'll end up getting screwed in the end of all of it.


I'm not sure, but Orrin Hatch sponsored a similar bill in 2003 too.

www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s108-1414



Thanks, they had a link to it. "S. 1082 [109th]: District of Columbia Personal Protection Act"...DEAD.
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 9:18:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Cliffhanger:

Originally Posted By brushdog:

Originally Posted By Cliffhanger:

Originally Posted By brushdog:

Originally Posted By harleyrkc:
Why now?
Why is this legislation only being presented after Heller has been accepted by the SCOTUS?


It was sponsored by Sen. Kay Hutchison from Texas and was introduced in March. She also sponsored a similar bill in 2005.





So did she know the Heller case would go up to the SCOTUS when she wrote this? And do you have a link to the similar bill. I'd really like to read that.

I would really like to hold out the hope that this legislation would be passed and that the SCOTUS would also hear the Heller case. But I have a feeling we'll end up getting screwed in the end of all of it.


I'm not sure, but Orrin Hatch sponsored a similar bill in 2003 too.

www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s108-1414



Thanks, they had a link to it. "S. 1082 [109th]: District of Columbia Personal Protection Act"...DEAD.


The current one is 1001
www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1001
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 9:20:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By luckypunk:
FUCKYEAH!



Uhhhh NO!!! We are a few months away from something the SCOTUS has been ducking for 70+ years, this is the ultimate in bad timing.


Yep.
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 9:20:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Any relief created by Heller v DC would still have to be IMPLIMENTED by legislation by congress. All SCOTUS would do is remove the old law- it would just leave a vacume.


Incorrect. Congress doesn't have to legislate anything for us to have the right to keep and bear arms.
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 9:28:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DD977GM2:
Rep Musgrave, Marilyn N. [CO-4] - 4/17/2007

This surprised me. She is all about taking our guns away in CO.


What has Musgrave done to try to take guns away?
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 9:30:32 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 9:38:11 PM EDT
15 are from California
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 9:44:29 PM EDT
Its good to see my Reps on there.

God Bless Texas.

James
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 9:48:12 PM EDT
height=8
Originally Posted By DD977GM2:
Rep Musgrave, Marilyn N. [CO-4] - 4/17/2007

This surprised me. She is all about taking our guns away in CO. h,
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 10:06:02 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 10:13:52 PM EDT
This has been coming up ever since 'Heller' was 'Parker'...

It was initiated because many on the pro-gun side do not want to take the chance of an anti-gun ruling...

So the NRA decided to see about getting relief for the DC folks through legislation.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 3:44:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
This has been coming up ever since 'Heller' was 'Parker'...

It was initiated because many on the pro-gun side do not want to take the chance of an anti-gun ruling...

So the NRA decided to see about getting relief for the DC folks through legislation.


and mooting the Parker precedent.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 3:54:36 AM EDT
Great to see my Congressman, Virgil Goode is on the list. But not suprised about it, he's a pretty good guy.

Mike
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 4:02:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Steve_in_Washington:

Originally Posted By CRC:
Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] - 6/28/2007


I'm glad to see that Representative Moonbat is helping out.



He has the most conservative record of all of the nominee's, doesn't surprise me.

This does though

Rep Drake, Thelma D. [VA-2] - 3/29/2007

She is a democrat, glad to see it though.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 4:05:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By badfish274:
Any dems on there want to make Heller v DC moot.


That is 100% what I was thinking.

Post 223, BTW!
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 4:11:34 AM EDT
After a quick glance, I see no CT reps on that list.

No surprise there, though.

Link Posted: 12/3/2007 4:12:15 AM EDT
Nope. AR-15 would not make Heller moot. M4's would be a step in the right direction but incomplete. DC has a total ban on handguns. Heller would continue as long as handguns are arms.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 4:21:11 AM EDT
I have already started to contact all my state congresspersons, thanking them for supporting the 2A. Especially the Dems.

I suggests that everyone here do the same.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 4:27:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
This has been coming up ever since 'Heller' was 'Parker'...

It was initiated because many on the pro-gun side do not want to take the chance of an anti-gun ruling...

So the NRA decided to see about getting relief for the DC folks through legislation.


This legislation shouldn't affect anything regarding Heller.

The legislation doesn't address the conflict between courts in interpreting a constitutional issue of individual vs. collevtive rights, so the SCOTUS shold still be hearing the case.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 4:35:45 AM EDT
I think this is a flanking maneuver.

If Congress makes an end run around the supreme court before it makes a decision then they cal also stipulate the definition of what the 2A means to individuals and leave their current gun control in place.

This could leave much more gun control in place than if the SCOTUS just said 2A applies to an individual and forces courts and Congress to redefine.

Congress could come in and say "yes, 2A applies to DC and is an individual right, based on our definition which involves gun control."

SCOTUS may say "yes, 2A applies to DC and is an individual right, now make sure your laws don't restrict the individual right."

The latter is much more favorable to me than the former.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 4:36:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Cliffhanger:

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By Cliffhanger:

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By luckypunk:
FUCKYEAH!



Uhhhh NO!!! We are a few months away from something the SCOTUS has been ducking for 70+ years, this is the ultimate in bad timing.



I think this was planned.


The tards are scared, that is a good thing. Cant wait to see the utter horseshit that gets tacked on to this legislation too. Probably A massive ammunition tax on MIL/LE calibres.



You know, if the SCOTUS does not hear the Heller case and doesn't rule on the side of the 2nd because of this legislation, I am going to NEVER trust in our political process again. If this is the case, you can't trust ANY of them to do the right thing.

As far as I am concerned, if this screws up our chance at finally getting our 2nd Amendment Rights back in full, our "friends" at the NRA and the so called "pro-gun" legislators can KMA. If the Heller case is pulled off the docket because of this, the NRA will NEVER get another dime from me. Period. I am getting really sick and tired of this snow job by our so called friends. I hope I am wrong, but I doubt it.


Its my understanding that once the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case, its cannot be pulled off the docket. In addition, there is a larger question to be ruled on by the Supremes; whether the 2nd is an individual right or not. Which is not being addressed by the above proposed legislation.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top