Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 4/17/2010 5:56:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/17/2010 5:57:23 PM EDT by CRC]
Congress May Vote On D.C. Gun Ban Repeal Next Week

Friday, April 16, 2010


News reports indicate that the U.S. House of Representatives may consider legislation next week to which an amendment reforming Washington, D.C.’s restrictive gun laws would likely be offered. The bill—H.R. 157, the District of Columbia Voting Rights Act, introduced by the District’s anti-gun delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton—proposes that the city be authorized a vote in the United States House of Representatives.

NRA members recall that last year, a similar “D.C. House Voting Rights Act” bill—S. 160, introduced by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.)—passed in the Senate after adoption of Sen. John Ensign’s (R-Nev.) amendment restoring the Second Amendment rights of residents of our nation’s capital. Supporters of H.R. 157 did not pursue it at that time, however, to perpetuate gun control in D.C.

NRA members are urged to check the www.nraila.org website on a daily basis next week, for information concerning the status of H.R. 157 and any amendment that is offered to deal with the District’s gun laws. And, you are encouraged to be ready to contact your U.S. Representatives to ask that they support any such amendment that is proposed.
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 6:14:22 PM EDT
only states get votes, not territories.
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 6:23:07 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EagleArmsHBAR:
only states get votes, not territories.


Yep, that would be unconstitutional. Fucking Dems wanting more votes just for 1 city.
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 6:34:11 PM EDT
They KNOW McDonald is going to kill their ban anyway, so they are willing to trade it away to get a vote. Fuck them.

I don't see how they can just start handing out votes to territories anyway. Seems to me that shit is enumerated quite plainly in the constitution. Do these arrogant fucks seriously think they can overrule the constitution with a simple bill/law?
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 6:37:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By the_great_snag:
They KNOW McDonald is going to kill their ban anyway, so they are willing to trade it away to get a vote. Fuck them.

I don't see how they can just start handing out votes to territories anyway. Seems to me that shit is enumerated quite plainly in the constitution. Do these arrogant fucks seriously think they can overrule the constitution with a simple bill/law?


The Constitution is 'outdated' to them anyway. I was arguing the other day about the 2nd Amendment and about how all the writer's diaries made it clear that they considered it to be applied at the individual level. He said the 2nd Amendment was old and stupid anyway. I said that if that was true we should throw out the 1st and then shoot all non-Christians into the sun while we were at it (I don't really want to do this, but people around here love all religions besides Christianity). His response was "the 1st Amendment is different."
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 6:42:23 PM EDT
Anyone want to try and justify their votes that support giving reps and senators to DC?
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 6:46:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By uncle_ho:
Anyone want to try and justify their votes that support giving reps and senators to DC?


Yes.

1. The bill passes.

2. DC Residents get gun rights.

3. Someone files a brief with the SCOTUS on its constitutionality.

4. By 5 to 4, the voting portion of the law is declared unconstitutional.

5. The gun part is untouched.

6. Liberals explode.
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 7:04:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By uncle_ho:
Anyone want to try and justify their votes that support giving reps and senators to DC?


Easy. No Taxation without representation.

I dont think however it should be a "state" which it clearly is not, no two senators.
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 7:05:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Fender57:
Originally Posted By uncle_ho:
Anyone want to try and justify their votes that support giving reps and senators to DC?


Easy. No Taxation without representation.

I dont think however it should be a "state" which it clearly is not, no two senators.


DC was never intended to have votes
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 7:05:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Plattekill:
Originally Posted By uncle_ho:
Anyone want to try and justify their votes that support giving reps and senators to DC?


Yes.

1. The bill passes.

2. DC Residents get gun rights.

3. Someone files a brief with the SCOTUS on its constitutionality.

4. By 5 to 4, the voting portion of the law is declared unconstitutional.

5. The gun part is untouched.

6. Liberals explode.

Just like the machine gun ban. Wait, that didn't go as planned.
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 7:07:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By odiedodi:

Originally Posted By Plattekill:
Originally Posted By uncle_ho:
Anyone want to try and justify their votes that support giving reps and senators to DC?


Yes.

1. The bill passes.

2. DC Residents get gun rights.

3. Someone files a brief with the SCOTUS on its constitutionality.

4. By 5 to 4, the voting portion of the law is declared unconstitutional.

5. The gun part is untouched.

6. Liberals explode.

Just like the machine gun ban. Wait, that didn't go as planned.


What are you talking about??
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 7:10:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/17/2010 7:10:58 PM EDT by CRC]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/17/AR2010041702500.html




Sadly, however, the measure comes with an unacceptable poison pill: a surrender of the District's ability to enact its own gun laws.


Link Posted: 4/17/2010 7:31:26 PM EDT
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), the city's non-voting House member, and congressional leaders said they are negotiating to weaken the gun amendment language. But Norton said she is unwilling to sacrifice the opportunity to win a long-sought voting seat for the District by insisting on a stand-alone bill.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/14/AR2010041403637.html?waporef=obinsite
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 7:32:40 PM EDT
Last year, many city leaders, including Norton, fiercely opposed loosening the District's gun laws. And on Wednesday, council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) denounced the possibility of a trade-off. "It's wrong, it's undemocratic and it's insulting, and we should not kneel down on our basic principles just to get this bill through," she said. "It's way too bitter a pill that we should be forced to sacrifice our public safety."
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 7:58:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CRC:
Last year, many city leaders, including Norton, fiercely opposed loosening the District's gun laws. And on Wednesday, council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) denounced the possibility of a trade-off. "It's wrong, it's undemocratic and it's insulting, and we should not kneel down on our basic principles just to get this bill through," she said. "It's way too bitter a pill that we should be forced to sacrifice our public safety."


Fuck their "basic principles." It's the CONSTITUTION, shitstain! Follow it, learn it, live it!
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 8:28:04 PM EDT
When the residents of DC learn to read a book, and stop voting for Barry I will talk about giving them a Senator, meanwhile they need to STFU.
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 8:41:26 PM EDT
Unconstitutional. End of Story.
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 8:50:45 PM EDT
The Dems want DC, Puerto Rico, Samoa, Guam, The Marianas and the USVI to have representation only because they will be solid dem votes.

If there was Galt Island, a large territory primarily inhabited by libertarians and conservatives, the dems would be wrapping themselves in the constitution quicker then shit.

Self serving, nothing more, nothing less.
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 9:29:24 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Mosspointers:
Unconstitutional. End of Story.


Link Posted: 4/17/2010 9:40:41 PM EDT
Unconstitutional. it is a piss-poor way to try to get other rights respected. I think the best solution would be for D.C. to be considered part of the respective States from which the land was ceded for Federal use for the purposes of representation, including apportionment of votes. D.C. gets a say without being recognized as some special, seperate entity, which it should not, and I think it could probably be done in a manner which is constitutional.
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 9:50:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/17/2010 9:51:00 PM EDT by hellbound]
Originally Posted By CRC:
Originally Posted By odiedodi:

Originally Posted By Plattekill:
Originally Posted By uncle_ho:
Anyone want to try and justify their votes that support giving reps and senators to DC?


Yes.

1. The bill passes.

2. DC Residents get gun rights.

3. Someone files a brief with the SCOTUS on its constitutionality.

4. By 5 to 4, the voting portion of the law is declared unconstitutional.

5. The gun part is untouched.

6. Liberals explode.

Just like the machine gun ban. Wait, that didn't go as planned.


What are you talking about??


the 1986 FOPA had the hughes amendment (MG ban) snuck in at the last minute
the FOPA was so important to pass since the ATF was up to their usual shenanigans fucking with law abiding citizens and FFLs, that Reagan signed it under the impression that the Hughes amendment would later be ruled unconstitutional as that's what the NRA, other gun lobbies, and most people thought...

unfortunately, that wasn't the case and we got fucked royally with the hughes amendment
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 9:52:40 PM EDT
We need a Republican to poison pill the bill with a repeal of the 1934 NFA and Hughes Amendment.

Wait a minute. There isn't a single Republican in Congress that has the balls to do it. Nevermind. I keep forgetting that the Republican party is the party of chicken shit cowards... at least at the elected official level.
Link Posted: 4/18/2010 1:06:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Hard_Rock:
We need a Republican to poison pill the bill with a repeal of the 1934 NFA and Hughes Amendment.

Wait a minute. There isn't a single Republican in Congress that has the balls to do it. Nevermind. I keep forgetting that the Republican party is the party of chicken shit cowards... at least at the elected official level.


Uh its going to get a poison pill.

Have you not been paying attention to this thread??

Link Posted: 4/18/2010 1:14:17 PM EDT
It's getting A poison pill and a weak one at that given that Heller ripped apart a lot of what DC had done and Heller II will destroy the anti-gun crap in DC even further.

I want someone, anyone who is an elected official to poison pill that bitch with repeal of the NFA and the Hughes Amendment. Other than that, it's a waste of time. Bringing back MG's is likely to get any bill killed due to the hatred of us owning such evil implements of fun.
Link Posted: 4/18/2010 1:15:23 PM EDT
Havent you heard? Their "principles" are more important that those of the common citizen


Originally Posted By Seven-Shooter:
Originally Posted By CRC:
Last year, many city leaders, including Norton, fiercely opposed loosening the District's gun laws. And on Wednesday, council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) denounced the possibility of a trade-off. "It's wrong, it's undemocratic and it's insulting, and we should not kneel down on our basic principles just to get this bill through," she said. "It's way too bitter a pill that we should be forced to sacrifice our public safety."


Fuck their "basic principles." It's the CONSTITUTION, shitstain! Follow it, learn it, live it!


Link Posted: 4/18/2010 1:18:02 PM EDT
As a 35-year resident of the DC area, I'm perfectly OK with them not having voting rights.
Link Posted: 4/18/2010 1:38:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By the_great_snag:
They KNOW McDonald is going to kill their ban anyway, so they are willing to trade it away to get a vote. Fuck them.

I don't see how they can just start handing out votes to territories anyway. Seems to me that shit is enumerated quite plainly in the constitution. Do these arrogant fucks seriously think they can overrule the constitution with a simple bill/law?




Agreed––-this is pure politics. Absent MacDonald I might (that's *might*) support it on Second Amendment grounds, but it gets a flat out no from me now.
Link Posted: 4/18/2010 1:48:07 PM EDT
Utah Senator Orrin Hatch said last week that he would personally lead a filibuster if the House passed an amended version, so it's quite possible this is all for nothing anyway.

On a related note, it's amazing how conservative Hatch can be when he's thinking about re-election.
Link Posted: 4/19/2010 4:15:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By GarandM1:
Utah Senator Orrin Hatch said last week that he would personally lead a filibuster if the House passed an amended version, so it's quite possible this is all for nothing anyway.

On a related note, it's amazing how conservative Hatch can be when he's thinking about re-election.


Hatch isn't a bad guy
Link Posted: 4/19/2010 4:24:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Plattekill:
Originally Posted By uncle_ho:
Anyone want to try and justify their votes that support giving reps and senators to DC?


Yes.

1. The bill passes.

2. DC Residents get gun rights.

3. Someone files a brief with the SCOTUS on its constitutionality.

4. By 5 to 4, the voting portion of the law is declared unconstitutional.

5. The gun part is untouched.

6. Liberals explode.


IIRC, current language says the bill goes right to SCOTUS for review automatically after the President signs it.
Top Top