House Passes DC gun Ban Repeal


PDA






Ironbarr
September 29, 2004, 03:53 PM
250R/171D - I guess that means the repeal passes the House??? Or just limits the ban??? CSPAN now.

What does the Senate do now?

If you enjoyed reading about "House Passes DC gun Ban Repeal" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jack T.
September 29, 2004, 03:59 PM
I thought that was just to allow debate to continue. . .I don't think it was the actual bill.

But I hope I am wrong.

Ktulu
September 29, 2004, 04:05 PM
My bet is it will die in the senate but I hope it doesn't.

Ironbarr
September 29, 2004, 04:07 PM
As far as I could tell, it passed.

Like everything up there, you just don't know what's what till it's over, over.:(

rl2669
September 29, 2004, 04:48 PM
Watch for an AWB to be attached to this bill in the Senate, which would kill it the same way it killed product liability reform for gun makers.

I do think this has somewhat a chance of passage though, given that many lefties are terrified of a pro-RKBA precendent in the Supreme Ct which is another possible resolution of this issue.

At the very least we'll probably have JFK's nae vote to use against his rhetoric ...

Harry Tuttle
September 29, 2004, 04:52 PM
yep, its a stalking horse

Brett Bellmore
September 29, 2004, 05:07 PM
I don't think the Senate has any plans to even take this issue up; There are, after all, some anti-gun Republicans who'd vote against it, and the last thing the Republican leadership of the Senate want, is for them to be outed mere weeks before an election. Nor is it likely fodder for a lame duck session. We might see the Senate take it up next year, if we do well in the coming election, though.

Bartholomew Roberts
September 29, 2004, 05:07 PM
The Senate has already said that they won't consider the bill this session because they have more pressing appropriations bills. So the bill is effectively dead this session even though it passed the House.

However, Feinstein has also promised to attempt to amend the bill with a new ban when it comes before the Senate and she has the votes to do it right now. Unless we can get rid of some of the antis this November, don't expect to see anything gun-related pass the Senate without a semi-auto ban attached.

The good news is that if we vote our guns, we could gain more pro-RKBA Senators in this one election than we have in the last ten years.

Standing Wolf
September 29, 2004, 07:26 PM
My bet is it will die in the senate but I hope it doesn't.

It will die or be poison-pilled by the leftist extremists in the Senate.

Dbl0Kevin
September 29, 2004, 08:04 PM
The fact that 170 people voted against this bill just goes to show what gun control proponents REALLY think. All their talk about "common sense" and "reasonable" restrictions are out the window with this one. Simply being able to have handguns and rifles assembled in your home is a right that is supported by the VAST majority of Americans. I'm actually pretty surprised that it didn't pass by a much wider margin.

tulsamal
September 29, 2004, 08:22 PM
Unless we can get rid of some of the antis this November, don't expect to see anything gun-related pass the Senate without a semi-auto ban attached.

The Senate leadership has "woken up" after the way the liability bill was compromised and then killed. The GOA "helped" them to "remember" there are procedural ways to avoid things like this. Which is exactly why the anti-gun types weren't able to attach a renewal of the AWB to something else.

If course it would help to have more of a majority! And the Senate elections right now look like we could end up very close to 50-50.

Gregg

Brett Bellmore
September 29, 2004, 09:45 PM
The Senate leadership didn't "forget" anything, when they let the firearms lawsuit bill be killed by poison pill amendments. They'd gotten amendments blocked, and deliberately waived the block by voice vote.

All the procedure in the world doesn't help, when the leadership WANTS to take a dive.

I'm expecting a Republican gain in the Senate of anywhere from 1-3 seats, given that most of the contested seats are currently Democratic. That this doesn't necessarilly translate into a gain of pro-gun votes, of course, is something we all know too well.

txgho1911
September 29, 2004, 10:01 PM
I can see a thin, hazy, blurry glimmer
For NJ. Garrett, Y; LoBiondo, Y : The two brightest minds in that states government.
NY with 4 Y.

Cal. No surprises there. 21Y 33N
Mass. is in the wrong Country from the listing I see here. This whole state delegation to the house is against Kerry's shotgun.
RI. also.
Vermont Sanders, N. What's up with that?

Originally from TX I would call for some House cleaning.

This was from this resource. A British news outlet.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4523956,00.html

Don't Tread On Me
September 29, 2004, 11:36 PM
OK.


Let's make a few things clear here.


The DC repeal will pass the house. BUT, Feinswine has already promised that she will attach the AWB renewal to the bill if it comes up for a vote in the Senate.


Unless the leadership can defeat this EVIL hijacking of legislation, nothing will ever get done. I sure hope they don't sneak this one in with an AWB attached. I'd rather have the AWB gone than DC with gun rights restored. Since DC will not get their rights restored in full, ever. There will always be a catch.



Last I heard, the Senate has "put away" the issue for the moment. Keep a close eye on this. If there is no way to stop the feinwhore amendments, better to not even bring this bill to the floor at all for debate, just let it die. If it does come up, hopefully it will be rejected.


If we want real change, folks - we need to get off our butts and work hard to get 2-3 Democrats our of the Senate. If the Senate can just reach a point where poison pills cannot be attached, we will get the industry protection and the DC legislation.


Provided a Republican is president, Kerry will force Congress to produce 66% Yea votes that are un-vetoable. good luck!


The only positive would be if the Senate can once again get all the anti-liberty A-holes, especially the RINO's back on the record again as being anti-gun, especially a few weeks before an election, then kill the whole bill just like the Freedom in commerce act.



Make it happen on November 2nd.

countertop
September 29, 2004, 11:52 PM
First, it passed the House. I blogged the debate from work (watching Congress is part of my job, so it was sort of easy to get away with).

Second, Larry Craig was going to try to attach it to an appropriations bill but decided against moving forward because of the publicity. This was a good move - they needed to get it past the house.

Now, I wouldn't expect to see it come up in the senate before Election day, because as someone stated, the Republicans don't want to lose or risk the AWB. HOWEVER, if the leadership knew what they were doing (and I believe they do), for the same reasons that it was so tempting for the house to bring up (getting people on record) it will also be tempting for the senate. . .especially if the count is close enough that 1)it forces Kerry and Edwards back for another vote and 2)Daschle allows the dems to filibuster. Either scenario ultimatly backfires on the Dems. Kerry either loses gun control votes or mid west 2nd amendment hunting votes. For Daschle, it could mean losing his seat.

As far as the AWB goes . . . true, they might try to attach it and it may very well pass out of the Senate. However, after both houses pass a version of the bill, it will go to conference were any differences between the Senate version and the House version are ironed out. This is good and will provided a great opportunity to strip the AWB out since no Democrats are invited to the conference (it generall consists of the leadership of both houses, original sponsor, and the Committee and Subcommittee chair before whom it arose). Once out of conference (without the AWB provisions) it goes back to the full house and senate for a vote.

It will pass the house easily, it will be more difficult in the senate - but in light of the attacks on Kerry as a waffler and the need for Daschle to appear to be a friend of the 2nd Amendment to retain his seat, I don't see the bill being filibustered.

Does this mean we will see it in the Senate before election day? I don't know, but it very well might occur. Post election day the chances of passage decrease because its easier to filibuster. . . . but only if the Ds don't lose even more senate seats. Of course, if they pick the Senate up, its DOA. I dont know what the polling really shows out in the states, and that, more than anything, is probably whats going to determine what happens. By my own count, I think the Republicans will come out with a net gain of 2 senate seats, but we just don't know.

mrapathy2000
September 30, 2004, 12:10 AM
it wont have much time to get looked at in the senate.

target adjournment for senate is October 1st This Friday.
Gods Speed

Standing Wolf
September 30, 2004, 12:15 AM
I'm sick and tired of watching the Republicans in the Senate hide under their beds. If they had any guts, they'd simply tell the representatives of the Democratic (sic) party to sit down, shut up, and grow up, or else cut off the pork.

countertop
September 30, 2004, 01:03 AM
it wont have much time to get looked at in the senate.

target adjournment for senate is October 1st This Friday.

Huh? Thats news to me. They hope to get the CR passed on the 1st, but they still have other appropriations work to complete before leaving. Right now, the senate is scheduled to adjourn on Oct. 8. They are not going anywhere till the end of next week, at least.

In fact, they are so far behind, especialy with homeland security and intelligence, that Frist has scheduled votes for Monday and Friday and is threatening (once again) to keep em in session over this weekend.

tulsamal
September 30, 2004, 01:07 AM
Somebody around here mentioned this site and they do have some good info. The Presidential stuff is on the front page. (Bush is behind in FL in today's poll. He doesn't actually HAVE to win FL but it makes things a lot easier!)

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

They have a section on the Senate races. It shows poll results from each state. Right now they are projecting 50 GOP, 49 Dems, 1 Ind. Surely we can do better than that!

http://www.electoral-vote.com/info/senate.html

This explains it well:

So what's the bottom line? Probably the Democrats will pick up Illinois but lose Georgia and South Carolina. Assuming they hold South Dakota and Nevada and the Republicans hold Missouri and Pennsylvania, the Senate will be 45 Democrats (including Jeffords) and 49 Republicans, with tossups in Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Oklahoma. To take unambiguous control of the Senate, the Democrats have to win them all. If they win five of the six and Kerry wins and the Democrats win the special election in Massachusetts, they also take control of the Senate and John Edwards gets a real job--breaking ties in the Senate. A tall order, but not impossible. The Republicans have it much easier. They merely have to win two of the six tossups. But November is a long way away. Anything can happen.

Don't ask me what is going to happen in OK. I _thought_ Coburn would be an easy win but the Democrats are throwing some big money into advertising. I seem to see a Carson commercial every break. Sometimes two. It wouldn't be the end of the world for gun owners if Carson won but it is just one more Democrat moving them closer to taking over the leadership. Regardless of how "pro-gun" Carson is, that's not a risk worth taking.

Gregg

M1911Owner
September 30, 2004, 01:18 AM
Don't Tread On Me, in your sig line, it sounds to me like you're talking about "Diminished Capacity" magazines. Yes? ;)

sctman800
September 30, 2004, 02:33 AM
In Illinois I am voting for Keyes, the pro gun Republican who will probably lose to one of Mayor Daley's boys. But the good thing is that even if the Democrat wins he will be replacing a super RINO, Fitzgerald who is not running. In practical terms no real difference in voting records. Jim.

RealGun
September 30, 2004, 07:12 AM
It should not go unnoticed that the DC Gun Ban Repeal came up for a vote only because the Rules Committee or majority leadership, I'm not sure which, required that it first have a majority co-sponsorship before restricting amendments and limiting debate.

The Senate could and should process the issue in the same or similarly restrictive way, especially when they know a bill will be ambushed with amendments, wasting everyone's time. Nay votes should kill a bill, not amendments. Amendments should be germane. The more they cut down on the gamesmanship, the better I will like it, and the more respect for Congress will be restored. On the other hand, I welcome some strategies available to block bad legislation. I am sure each party regards an opposing majority to be dangerous.

What I despise is partisan block voting, when it is obviously not a reflection of opposing philosophies inherent in the parties. Some hint of personal integrity, voting independently, and reflection of varying constituent demographics in a party would be refreshing once in awhile. I would rather vote for candidates than parties. Platforms are so vague, weaselly, and unbinding that one never knows what one will get unless focusing on real candidates. Straight ticket voting and party block voting may be the downfall of this country. Who really stands for anything?

Frankly, I think the DC Gun Ban Repeal was a pre-election show to appeal to gun votes, recognizing that gun owning voters hurt them badly in the last two elections. I am not buying any of it until it becomes law.

What I want to know is what DC will do when they have open carry legal and find the need to pass a CCW law, restricting open carry. You gotta know that's what they will do. It's all very important, because gun owners are not willing to congregate in Washington because of gun restrictions.

The actual bill passed is HR 3193, full text as follows:

District of Columbia Personal Protection Act (Introduced in House)

HR 3193 IH


108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3193
To restore second amendment rights in the District of Columbia.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

September 25, 2003
Mr. SOUDER (for himself, Mr. ROSS, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. STENHOLM, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. GOODE, Mr. HOLDEN, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. BERRY, Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Mr. CANNON, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. JOHN, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. PLATTS, Mr. REYES, Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky, Mr. PUTNAM, Mr. MATHESON, Mr. PAUL, Mr. HALL, Mr. MICHAUD, Mr. ORTIZ, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. MICA, Mr. DEAL of Georgia, Mr. ISTOOK, Mr. NEY, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. SCHROCK, Mr. PORTER, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. CARTER, Mr. SANDLIN, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. REHBERG, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. VITTER, Mr. EVERETT, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota, Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. TURNER of Texas, Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee, Mr. OTTER, Mr. GREEN of Texas, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mr. GINGREY, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. JANKLOW, Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, and Mr. TOOMEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
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 4 of the Act entitled `An Act to prohibit the killing of wild birds and wild animals in the District of Columbia', approved June 30, 1906 (34 Stat. 809; sec. 1-303.43, D.C. Official 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 101(10) of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2501.01(10), D.C. Official 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.

(a) IN GENERAL- Section 201(a) of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2502.01(a), D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking `any firearm, unless' and all that follows through paragraph (3) and inserting the following: `any firearm described in subsection (c).'.

(b) DESCRIPTION OF FIREARMS REMAINING ILLEGAL- Section 201 of such Act (sec. 7-2502.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

`(c) A firearm described in this subsection is any of the following:

`(1) A sawed-off shotgun.

`(2) A machine gun.

`(3) A short-barreled rifle.'.

SEC. 6. REPEAL HANDGUN AMMUNITION BAN.

Section 601 of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2506.01, D.C. Official Code) is repealed.

SEC. 7. RESTORE RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE IN THE HOME.

Section 702 of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2507.02, D.C. Official Code) is repealed.

SEC. 8. ADDITIONAL REPEALS.

Sections 202 through 211 of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (secs. 7-2502.02 through 7-2502.11, D.C. Official Code) are repealed.

SEC. 9. REMOVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR POSSESSION OF UNREGISTERED FIREARMS.

(a) IN GENERAL- Section 706 of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2507.06, D.C. Official Code) is amended--

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

(2) by striking paragraph (2).

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to violations occurring after the 60-day period which begins on the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 10. REMOVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR CARRYING A PISTOL IN ONE'S DWELLING OR OTHER PREMISES.

(a) IN GENERAL- Section 4(a) of the Act of July 8, 1932 (47 Stat. 651; sec. 22-4504(a), D.C. Official 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) by striking `except that:' and all that follows through `(2) If the violation' and inserting `except that if the violation'.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to violations occurring after the 60-day period which begins on the date of the enactment of this Act.

Previous DC Gun Law is at

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/statela...ashingtondc.pdf

RealGun
September 30, 2004, 07:29 AM
If I read correctly, they will leave DC with an explicit machine gun ban, which I believe is unconstitutional. I don't think we should get used to that and lose sight of how wrong it really is. Exceptions for active and retired law enforcement don't suit me either. This is an important increment but is not a model law.

stevelyn
September 30, 2004, 07:31 AM
Standing Wolf,

You're assuming there is a difference in the two parties. The republicrats like getting their pork as much as the democans do. Don't look for them to grow much of a spine and possibly risk getting funds for a district promise cut off.

DRZinn
September 30, 2004, 10:32 AM
Watch for an AWB to be attached to this bill in the Senate, which would kill it the same way it killed product liability reform for gun makers.

The Clean Legislation Bill

Effective as of 01 January 2005:

No amendment shall be attached to any bill except by the original sponsors of the bill.

I can dream, right? Would that clear up a huge chunk of the BS, or what?

gunsmith
September 30, 2004, 10:53 AM
mean that it will go to the SCOTUS?

mack
September 30, 2004, 12:35 PM
I strongly believe that the only reason that the D.C. gun ban is being pushed to be repealed by some politicians at this time - is because of the pending lawsuits in federal court that are contesting the D.C. ban on grounds of the 2nd amendment - those lawsuits are going to make it almost impossible for the federal courts and the USSC to avoid making an actual ruling on the 2nd amendment due to the federal governments direct jurisdiction over D.C. The Courts would then be forced to either officially gutt the 2nd - though by their inaction they have already effectively gutted it - or finally rule that - "Yes, Virginia, there is an actual individual right to keep and bear arms." I think the prospect of the federal court and USSC having to make a definitive ruling on the 2nd amendment has alot of politicians wetting themselves - they don't like the possible consequences of either result. An eventual overturning of many federal, state, and local gun control laws due to a whole raft of new lawsuits based on the new jurisprudence on the 2nd amendment - or the final clear message from the government that the BOR is just a meaningless piece of paper.

If you enjoyed reading about "House Passes DC gun Ban Repeal" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!