www.thehill.com/news/090704/gun.aspx

Nice.

Now that would be something.

The definiton of a machine gun in DC is any self loader with more than 12 rounds.

CRC

They can't repeal the DC gun ban!

Our capital will be awash in guns and crime will be rampant!




Oh....wait.

Never mind.

Quoted: The definiton of a machine gun in DC is any self loader with more than 12 rounds. CRC

[r. lee] YOU HAVE GOT TO BE FUCKING SHITTING ME![/r. lee]

that is absolutely unbelievable, in a "I guess the law is so fucking stupid I'll believe it anyway" sort of way

Just another thing for the left to blame on the president.  

It would be nice if the ban on guns for the District went away.  The only people who obey it are the law abiding decent folks who would like to be able to defend themselves.

Not only is the House not going to take up the AWB, but they are going to vote to repeal the DC ban on 9/13.  Adding insult to injury!  Outstanding!

Quoted: Quoted: The definiton of a machine gun in DC is any self loader with more than 12 rounds. CRC [r. lee] YOU HAVE GOT TO BE FUCKING SHITTING ME![/r. lee] that is absolutely unbelievable, in a "I guess the law is so fucking stupid I'll believe it anyway" sort of way

It's 31 rounds in Ohio for a "Machine Gun"

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.

where are the GOP haters now?  that's what I thought.

https://www.donationreport.com/init/controller/ProcessEntryCmd?key=I5B7P3F2B6


https://www.donationreport.com/init/controller/ProcessEntryCmd?key=L2U1F1R5O2

bad ass, maybe our fellow Americans in D.C. may finally get their 2nd amendment rights restored

Quoted: Man, oh, man, those 'law enforcement groups' are really pathetic little liberal a-holes, are they not? It seems as if the rank and file of law enforcement officers would rally to protect the RKBA and throw those bums outta law enforcement altogether! Eric The(LaughingLoudly)Hun

The "Chiefs" in those groups, like IACP are cops only by their title.  They are politicians pure and simple.  They have no more in common with a patrol officer or detective than Walt Disney does with the person who wears the Mickey Mouse suit in the Magic Kingdom.

Funny how the antis attempt to have it both ways:

A) They say the firearm manufacturers have skirted the AWB and produced, for all practical purposes, the very same rifles without certain offending features.

B) They say if the AWB is not renewed, then "assault weapons" will be produced again and be flooding the streets for the first time in 10 years.

Well, which is it?

Hopefully that silly requirement to store guns dismantled is repealed too,

CRC

CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATORS! TELL THEM TO VOTE YES!

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.

Quoted: Funny how the antis attempt to have it both ways: A) They say the firearm manufacturers have skirted the AWB and produced, for all practical purposes, the very same rifles without certain offending features. B) They say if the AWB is not renewed, then "assault weapons" will be produced again and be flooding the streets for the first time in 10 years. Well, which is it?

you forgot to add they will have more thrusts per squeeze

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'll post  a copy of the bll.

CRC

To restore second amendment rights in the District of Columbia.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `District of Columbia Personal Protection Act'.

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(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.

(4) The District of Columbia has the highest per capita murder rate in the Nation, which may be attributed in part to local laws prohibiting possession of firearms by law-abiding persons who would otherwise be able to defend themselves and their loved ones in their own homes and businesses.

(5) The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended by the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986, and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, provide comprehensive Federal regulations applicable in the District of Columbia as elsewhere. In addition, existing District of Columbia criminal laws punish possession and illegal use of firearms by violent criminals and felons. Consequently, there is no need for local laws which only disarm law-abiding citizens.

(6) Legislation is required to correct the District of Columbia's law in order to restore the rights of its citizens under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and thereby enhance public safety.

SEC. 3. REFORM D.C. COUNCIL'S AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT FIREARMS.

Section 303.43 of title 1, District of Columbia Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: `This section shall not be construed to permit the Council, the Mayor, or any governmental or regulatory authority of the District of Columbia to prohibit, constructively prohibit, or unduly burden the ability of persons otherwise permitted to possess firearms under Federal law from acquiring, possessing in their homes or businesses, or using for sporting, self-protection or other lawful purposes, any firearm neither prohibited by Federal law nor regulated by the National Firearms Act. The District of Columbia shall not have authority to enact laws or regulations that discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms.'.

SEC. 4. REPEAL D.C. SEMIAUTOMATIC BAN.

Section 2501.01(10) of title 7, District of Columbia Code, is amended to read as follows:

`(10) Machine gun means any firearm which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to shoot automatically, more than 1 shot by a single function of the trigger.'.

SEC. 5. REPEAL REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT.

Section 2502.01 of title 7, District of Columbia Code, is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)--

(A) by striking `, and no person or organization in the District shall possess or control any firearm, unless the person or organization holds a valid registration certificate for the firearm'; and

(B) by striking beginning with `A registration' through paragraph (3); and

(2) in subsection (b)--

(A) in paragraphs (1) and (2), by striking `firearm or';

(B) in paragraph (2), by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting a period; and

(C) by striking paragraph (3).

SEC. 6. REPEAL D.C. HANDGUN BAN.

Section 2502.02 of title 7, District of Columbia Code, is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)--

(A) in paragraph (2), by inserting `or' after the semicolon;

(B) in paragraph (3), by striking `; or' and inserting a period;

(C) by striking paragraph (4); and

(D) by striking `(a)'; and

(2) by striking subsection (b).

SEC. 7. REPEAL HANDGUN AMMUNITION BAN.

Section 2506.01 of title 7, District of Columbia Code, is repealed.

SEC. 8. RESTORE RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE IN THE HOME.

Section 2507.02 of title 7, District of Columbia Code, is repealed.

SEC. 9. ADDITIONAL REPEALS.

Sections 2502.03, 2502.04, 2502.05, 2502.06, 2502.07, 2502.08, 2502.09, 2502.10, and 2502.11 of title 7, District of Columbia Code, are repealed.

SEC. 10. REMOVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR POSSESSION OF UNREGISTERED FIREARMS.

Section 2507.06 of title 7, District of Columbia Code, is amended--

(1) by striking `that:' through `(1) A' and inserting `that a'; and

(2) by striking paragraph (2).

SEC. 11. REMOVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR CARRYING A PISTOL IN ONE'S DWELLING OR OTHER PREMISES.

Section 4504(a) of title 22, District of Columbia Code, is amended--

(1) in the matter before paragraph (1), by inserting `, except in his dwelling house or place of business or on other land possessed by that person, whether loaded or unloaded,' before `a pistol'; and

(2) in paragraph (1), by striking `a pistol, without a license pursuant to District of Columbia law, or'.

that would be kick ass, 1 down, a few more stupid laws to go

In the letter to Bush, the law-enforcement groups said the “proportion of assault weapons traced to crimes has fallen by a dramatic 66 percent.”

Well, at least their math skills are good – With a grand total of three crimes associated with 'assault rifles' before the AWB and one afterwards, that's exactly a 66 percent drop, allright...

Ok help me out here.

Do you think they are going to trade the AWB renewal to get the DCgun ban repealed?

This would make sense as alot of congress/senators would like to carry while in DC.

Your thoughts please
 FREE

The gun ban is quite ridiculous really...it spoils it for gun collecters such as ourself.  Believe me, if you are a gangster or a terrorist...you're going to kill with anything really and, you're going to have access to weapons.  The gun ban does nothing...there are still always black markets and people who know how to make them out of existing copies anyway.  Also...what is the difference between an assault rifle and a normal every day semi-automatic?  weapons can kill no matter what they are, it's the people behind them that pose the threat.   The worse gun laws get, the more you disarm the honest person looking to protect the household and the more you disallow them to defend themself from armed terrorist/gangsters/thugs whatever...

Quoted: Ok help me out here. Do you think they are going to trade the AWB renewal to get the DCgun ban repealed? This would make sense as alot of congress/senators would like to carry while in DC. Your thoughts please  FREE

Congressman and senators as well as diplomats are excluded from the DC gun ban IIRC

Politicians ARE NOT excluded, just military, security guards and police. Read the piece on Senator Rockefeller.

Why do you think they want this ban oveturned?



CRC

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

No.

It will be way too late.

CRC

Quoted: Ok help me out here. Do you think they are going to trade the AWB renewal to get the DCgun ban repealed? This would make sense as alot of congress/senators would like to carry while in DC. Your thoughts please  FREE

THey can already carry in DC.

Do you REALLY think that if a dc patrol officer stopped a crongress critter, and they had a gun on them, that anything would happen?

Of course not.

Just look at what happened to John Hostettler, R-IN, at an airport. Loaded Glock, no jail time.

You or me.......

CRC

Ok it would just suck if the added the AWB renewal on the DC gun repeal on 13 Sep 04. They could make it retroactive so President Bush could sign it.

Im not trying to scream the sky is falling im just thinking of the possibilities.

Your thoughts?
FREE

Anybody know if Bush supports this?

this, boys and girls, is one reason cops get a bad rap around here

Police chiefs seek meeting with Bush on gun ban A week before the controversial assault-weapons ban is set to expire, law-enforcement officials are requesting a meeting with President Bush in hopes that he can exert pressure on Congress to renew the ban. But the White House has been mum on whether such a meeting is going to take place.

Not gonna happen.

Way too late.

CRC

.S. Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) has introduced the D.C. Personal Protection Act, which would revoke the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, end registration requirements for ammunition and other firearms, and remove bans on the possession or carrying of weapons at homes and workplaces, the Washington Post reported July 17.

Hatch, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said D.C. residents should be able to own handguns legally. The D.C. gun law has been in place since 1976.

"It is time to restore the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and to defend their families against murderous predators," said Hatch. "Try to imagine the horror that a victim felt when he faced a gun-toting criminal and could not legally reach for a firearm to protect himself."

U.S. Justice Department statistics show that the per-capita murder rate in the District from 1994 to 2001 was between 3rd- and 7th-highest among cities with more than 100,000 residents.

Saying the District is the "murder capital of the United States," Hatch called the gun law as "ineffective and deplorable as it is unconstitutional."

Currently, Hatch's bill has 18 co-sponsors.

District officials, among them Mayor Anthony A. Williams, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, and council Chairman Linda W. Cropp, oppose the legislation.

"The District is being targeted on guns for the same reason that it was targeted on school vouchers -- because we are helpless without senators and the full panoply of legal rights to protect ourselves," Norton said. "The only thing that would cause more murder and mayhem in this city is allowing freer access to guns."

Quoted: Politicians ARE NOT excluded, just military, security guards and police. Read the piece on Senator Rockefeller. Why do you think they want this ban oveturned? CRC

Actually, it started as a way to pacify/stop a lawsuit that certain politicians see as a threat to RKBA....

A bunch of folks are suing to have the ban overturned, and some pols are concerned that the USSC might take the case and rule against the 2nd as an individual right...

So this bill was created to remove the cause of action.

Quoted: They can't repeal the DC gun ban! Our capital will be awash in guns and crime will be rampant! Oh....wait. Never mind.

Yup, repeal the ban and the streets will be awash in guns and crime will be rampant! In other words, who'll notice a difference?

Don't you just LOVE public servants who play the role of MASTERS and deny their constituents fundemental rights???

July 16 Neal Knox Update – Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
just dropped a grenade in Congressional laps.

       His bill would repeal the ban on privately owned handguns in homes
and businesses  -- and registration of rifles and shotguns -- in
the nation’s capital, which has just regained its loathsome crown
as “Murder Capital of the Nation.”

If nothing else this bill will force all those tepid “Supporters of the
Second Amendment” to fish or cut bait.

Sen. Hatch’s “District of Columbia Personal Protection Act” – which does
not yet have a number – would repeal the city’s long-standing requirement
that firearms and ammunition be registered.  It was used almost 30 years
ago to effectively prohibit handguns by requiring the re-registration of
the few registered guns, then prohibiting any non-registered guns from
being registered.

Further, under existing law registered rifles and shotguns could not be
kept loaded – or even fully assembled – assuring D.C.’s criminals that
they could rape, rob and steal from law-abiding citizens without fear of
facing anything more deadly than a kitchen knife or a pan of boiling
water.

Sen. Hatch’s NRA-backed bill would eliminate criminal penalties for
possession and carrying firearms within citizens’ own homes and
businesses.

       It would also strike the provision declaring any semi-automatic
with more than 13-shot magazine capacity to be a “machine gun,” a
faulty definition which more than 70 years ago NRA President Karl
Frederick boasted of having written.

       That provision has been used to ban guns “capable of accepting”
over 13-shot guns.  I saw a 1977 letter from D.C. authorities to a
retired D.C. police officer demanding that he surrender an M1
Carbine registered with a five-shot magazine.

Interestingly, the Washington Post and Washington Times haven’t yet
mentioned the Hatch bill.

There is no better example of the failure of “gun control” than D.C.
Imagine the demands for rigid gun laws in D.C. if it didn’t already have
the most prohibitive laws in the nation.

Anti-gunners try to shift the subject by claiming that all a D.C.
resident has to do is cross a bridge into Virginia, or cross a street
into Maryland to obtain a gun.

       That’s true – if the D.C. citizens and the seller are both willing
to commit Federal felonies.  No individual, and no dealer, may
legally sell a gun across any state line.  It was to “protect”
prohibitive laws like New York’s – and D.C.’s -- that the Gun
Control Act of 1968 was enacted.

In the decade after the ’68 Act crimes with guns doubled in the nation,
and went even higher in the cities and states with the most restrictive
gun laws.

The problem with gun laws is that they disarm only the law-abiding, for
criminals pay no more attention to gun laws than they do the laws against
rape, robbery and murder.

As Sen. Hatch pointed out when introducing his bill, “According to the
Bureau of Justice Statistics, and despite the most stringent gun control
laws in the country, in 8 out of the 9 years between 1994 and 2002,
Washington, D.C. had the highest murder rate in the country.”

       And almost all of the murders with guns are committed with handguns.

Opponents of the Hatch bill – and there will be many, on both sides of
the aisle – will be flying into the face of that failure.  So they will
divide their arguments between “how much worse” the D.C. crime rates
might be without their draconian laws, and claiming that the bill
violates “home rule.”

       So on one hand they are arguing that D.C. citizens must be trusted
to govern themselves, while simultaneously arguing that they can’t
be trusted with guns.

But until it passes – or lawsuits filed by individuals connected with the
Cato Institute, and by NRA are successful – the law-abiding citizens of
the District of Columbia are denied their Second Amendment rights.
(Those two lawsuits challenging the D.C. law were filed this spring.  NRA
asked that the suits be combined, a motion denied because the NRA suit is
broader.)

Following is the full text of Sen. Hatch’s July 15 introductory statement
on the “District of Columbia Personal Protection Act”

    Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the District of Columbia
Personal Protection Act.  This is an extremely important piece of
legislation.  Most importantly, this bill goes a long way toward
restoring the constitutionally guaranteed right of Americans who
reside in the District of Columbia to possess firearms.

    Mr. President, it is no secret that the District of Columbia, our
great Nation’s Capital, suffers from the most startling violent crime
rates in the country.  It has the highest, the absolute highest,
murder rate per capita in the country.  According to the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, and despite the most stringent gun control laws
in the country, in 8 out of the 9 years between 1994 and 2002,
Washington, DC had the highest murder rate in the country.  In fact,
the results are in for 2002, and unfortunately they continue to paint
a grim picture.  Mr. President, the District of Columbia has again
reclaimed its rather unenviable title as the “Murder Capital of the
United States”.

    It is time, Mr. President, to restore the rights of law-abiding
citizens to protect themselves and to defend their families against
murderous predators.  All too often, we read in the paper about yet
another vicious murder carried out against an innocent District of
Columbia resident.  Try to imagine the horror that the victim felt
when he faced a gun-toting criminal and could not legally reach for a
firearm to protect himself.  We must act now to stop the carnage and
put law-abiding citizens in a position to exercise their right to
self defense.  It is time to tell the citizens of the District of
Columbia that the Second Amendment of the Constitution applies to
them, and not only to their fellow Americans in the rest of the
country.  The District of Columbia Personal Protection Act would do
exactly that.

Let me take a moment to highlight what this legislation would do.  This
bill would: (1) permit law-abiding citizens to possess handguns and rifles
in their homes and businesses; (2) repeal the registration requirements
for firearms and ammunition; (3) eliminate criminal penalties for
possession and carrying of firearms in their homes and businesses; and (4)
correct an erroneous provision which wrongly treats some firearms as if
they were machine guns.

    Over the years, Mr. President, I have heard over and over again from
some of my friends on the other side of the aisle that the way you
reduce violent, gun-related crime is by prohibiting the possession of
firearms.  Even if law-abiding citizens are prohibited from
possessing firearms, my liberal friends argue, it is a small price to
pay for safety and security.

    Well, I want to take this opportunity to dispel these unfounded
myths.  These myths, I might add, are exposed as such by situations
like we have today in the District of Columbia.  I have said it
before, but I will say it again, excessive regulation and the
systematic erosion of the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment
do not deter violent, gun-toting criminals.  Enacting and vigorously
enforcing stiff penalties for those that commit crimes with guns
deters violent crime.  Not only is this the proven and effective
approach to reducing gun violence, it also preserves the
constitutionally guaranteed rights of law-abiding men and women to
own and possess firearms.

In fact, I recently held a hearing that examined the Administration’s
gun crime reduction initiative, Project Safe Neighborhoods.  This
initiative has been incredibly successful.    It takes the precise
approach that I have advocated – strict and vigorous enforcement of
crimes committed with guns.  It says to criminals, “If you use a gun
during the commission of a crime, you will do very serious and very hard
time.”  And it does so, Mr. President, without trampling on the rights
of law-abiding American men and women.

Today, unfortunately but not surprisingly, the state of affairs in the
District of Columbia has highlighted exactly what those of us who care
deeply about the Second Amendment of the Constitution have always feared:
murderous criminals possess firearms and are free to prey upon law-abiding
citizens; and law-abiding citizens – precisely because they are
law-abiding citizens- may not possess a firearm in their homes to protect
themselves and their families.

    Mr. President, the prohibition of firearms in the District of
Columbia is as ineffective and deplorable as it is unconstitutional;
it is high time we rectify this wrong.  I urge my colleagues to
support this measure.

BTT

Quoted: Politicians ARE NOT excluded, just military, security guards and police. Read the piece on Senator Rockefeller. Why do you think they want this ban oveturned? CRC

that had to do with a Rife not a handgun completey different in D.C.  

Quoted: Ok help me out here. Do you think they are going to trade the AWB renewal to get the DCgun ban repealed?

In theory, it might happen, but I don't think it's realistic. They tried to do that in the Senate with FOPA, and the supporters shot it in the back. If that is taken as an indication, I don't think either side has much interest in passing "compromise" bills with some pro-gun stuff and some anti-gun stuff.

I don't really think that this bill will pass this year, but the fact that we are introducing and fighting for these kind of bills instead of fighting against anti-gun bills is a very good sign.

Of course, none of the above should be taken to mean that we shouldn't use every means at our disposal to try to pass pro-gun bills, keep pro-gun bills free from bad amendments, and kill anti-gun bills.

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

This has nothing to do with congresscritters carrying in DC. For all practical purposes, rule of law no longer applies in this country, and nobody in any elected office will ever be charged with violating any of our massive web of ridiculous and contradictory gun laws, whether or not those laws technically apply to them. That was the whole purpose of most of these laws from the beginning - they were only to be enforced on the "lower-class" (usually blacks and immigrants).

"(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.

Quoted: Quoted: Man, oh, man, those 'law enforcement groups' are really pathetic little liberal a-holes, are they not? It seems as if the rank and file of law enforcement officers would rally to protect the RKBA and throw those bums outta law enforcement altogether! Eric The(LaughingLoudly)Hun The "Chiefs" in those groups, like IACP are cops only by their title.  They are politicians pure and simple.  They have no more in common with a patrol officer or detective than Walt Disney does with the person who wears the Mickey Mouse suit in the Magic Kingdom.

Yet, when the shouting starts, LEO's allow their so called "Chiefs" do their speaking without anyone from the LEO community coming out saying they don't speak for them.

So which is it.  They speak on your behalf or don't they.  If they don't, then why allow them to speak on your behalf without rebuttal.?  If you do nothing, isn't that the same as agreeing with them.

Sorry for the rant, haven't slept in a while.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Man, oh, man, those 'law enforcement groups' are really pathetic little liberal a-holes, are they not? It seems as if the rank and file of law enforcement officers would rally to protect the RKBA and throw those bums outta law enforcement altogether! Eric The(LaughingLoudly)Hun The "Chiefs" in those groups, like IACP are cops only by their title.  They are politicians pure and simple.  They have no more in common with a patrol officer or detective than Walt Disney does with the person who wears the Mickey Mouse suit in the Magic Kingdom. Yet, when the shouting starts, LEO's allow their so called "Chiefs" do their speaking without anyone from the LEO community coming out saying they don't speak for them. So which is it.  They speak on your behalf or don't they.  If they don't, then why allow them to speak on your behalf without rebuttal.?  If you do nothing, isn't that the same as agreeing with them. Sorry for the rant, haven't slept in a while.

Who do you think the media listens too?  A guy holding the rank of "Patrolman" who is usually working, considered by the media and often the citizens (consider the various shouting matches here on arfcom) to be a robot, know nothing rouge JBT. OR are they gonna listen to and quote the "Chief". The guy in charge, who has clout, power and respectibility in the eys of the community. Since he oversees the JBT's and runs the show, especiallyt in places like LA, DC, NY etc.  Usually lower ranking officers are prohibited from talking to the media without authorization.

yeah, but theres no way that will get through the senate in time

This is an outright lie, but we should be used to that from the likes of Lunger Brady:

Sarah Brady, the honorary chairwoman of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence United with the Million Mom March, told The Hill that her side has the votes to pass the extension of the ban in the House and added that the GOP leadership does not want to bring it up.

Umm... Isn't the NFA Registration illegal under this as well then?