Republicans are not restoring crap!


PDA






LAR-15
October 26, 2005, 04:34 PM
So they claim in this bill they are 'restoring Second Amendment rights' in DC and prohibiting the DC govt from restricting firearms YET they are still allowing the DC govt to ban NFA items?

I hope this bill does not pass. It also still states a 'sawed off shotgun' in DC is less than 20 inches.

Do something that will help all gun owners.

If you enjoyed reading about "Republicans are not restoring crap!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
LAR-15
October 26, 2005, 04:35 PM
District of Columbia Personal Protection Act (Introduced in Senate)

S 1082 IS


109th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1082
To restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

May 19, 2005
Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. BOND, Mr. BUNNING, Mr. BURNS, Mr. BURR, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. COBURN, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. ENZI, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. HATCH, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. KYL, Mr. LOTT, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. SUNUNU, Mr. TALENT, Mr. THUNE, Mr. VITTER, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. DEMINT, and Mr. THOMAS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs


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


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 United States for sporting use and for lawful defense of their persons, homes, businesses, and families.

(4) The District of Columbia has one of the highest per capita murder rates 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 affect and disarm law-abiding citizens.

(6) Legislation is required to correct the District of Columbia's law in order to restore the fundamental 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; section 1-303.43, D.C. Official Code) is amended by adding at the end the following: `Nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall authorize, or shall 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 not prohibited from possessing 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 subject to 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.

(a) In General- Section 101(10) of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (section 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, and includes the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.'.

(b) Conforming Amendment to Provisions Setting Forth Criminal Penalties- Section 1(c) of the Act of July 8, 1932 (47 Stat. 651; section 22-4501(c), D.C. Official Code) is amended to read as follows:

`(c) `Machine gun', as used in this Act, has the meaning given such term in section 101(10) of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975.'.

SEC. 5. REPEAL REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT.

(a) Repeal of Requirement-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 201(a) of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (section 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).'.

(2) DESCRIPTION OF FIREARMS REMAINING ILLEGAL- Section 201 of such Act (section 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.'.

(3) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- The heading of section 201 of such Act (section 7--2502.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking `Registration requirements' and inserting `Firearm Possession'.

(b) Conforming Amendments to Firearms Control Regulations Act- The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 is amended as follows:

(1) Sections 202 through 211 (section 7-2502.02 through 7-2502.11, D.C. Official Code) are repealed.

(2) Section 101 (section 7-2501.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking paragraph (13).

(3) Section 401 (section 7-2504.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended--

(A) in subsection (a), by striking `the District;' and all that follows and inserting the following: `the District, except that a person may engage in hand loading, reloading, or custom loading of ammunition for firearms lawfully possessed under this Act.'; and

(B) in subsection (b), by striking `which are unregisterable under section 202' and inserting `which are prohibited under section 201'.

(4) Section 402 (section 7-2504.02, D.C. Official Code) is amended--

(A) in subsection (a), by striking `Any person eligible to register a firearm' and all that follows through `such business,' and inserting the following: `Any person not otherwise prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal of District law, or from being licensed under section 923 of title 18, United States Code,'; and

(B) in subsection (b), by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:

`(1) The applicant's name;'.

(5) Section 403(b) (section 7-2504.03(b), D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking `registration certificate' and inserting `dealer's license'.

(6) Section 404(a)(3) (section 7-2504.04(a)(3)), D.C. Official Code) is amended--

(A) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking `registration certificate number (if any) of the firearm ,';

(B) in subparagraph (B)(iv), by striking `holding the registration certificate' and inserting `from whom it was received for repair';

(C) in subparagraph (C)(i), by striking `and registration certificate number (if any) of the firearm' ;

(D) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by striking `registration certificate number or';

(E) in subparagraph (D)(ii), by striking `or registration number'; and

(F) in subparagraph (E), by striking clause (iii) and redesignating clauses (iv) and (v) as clauses (iii) and (iv).

(7) Section 406(c) (section 7-2504.06(c), D.C. Official Code) is amended to read as follows:

`(c) Within 45 days of a decision becoming effective which is unfavorable to a licensee or to an applicant for a dealer's license, the licensee or application shall--

`(1) lawfully remove from the District all destructive devices in his inventory, or peaceably surrender to the Chief all destructive devices in his inventory in the manner provided in section 705; and

`(2) lawfully dispose, to himself or to another, any firearms and ammunition in his inventory.'.

(8) Section 407(b) (section 7-2504.07(b), D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking `would not be eligible' and all that follows and inserting `is prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal or District law.'.

(9) Section 502 (section 7-2505.02, D.C. Official Code) is amended--

(A) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:

`(a) Any person or organization not prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal or District law may sell or otherwise transfer ammunition or any firearm , except those which are prohibited under section 201, to a licensed dealer.';

(B) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:

`(c) Any licensed dealer may sell or otherwise transfer a firearm to any person or organization not otherwise prohibited from possessing or receiving such firearm under Federal or District law.';

(C) in subsection (d), by striking paragraphs (2) and (3); and

(D) by striking subsection (e).

(10) Section 704 (section 7-2507.04, D.C. Official Code) is amended--

(A) in subsection (a), by striking `any registration certificate or' and inserting `a'; and

(B) in subsection (b), by striking `registration certificate,'.

(c) Other Conforming Amendments- Section 2(4) of the Illegal Firearm Sale and Distribution Strict Liability Act of 1992 (section 7--2531.01(2)(4), D.C. Official Code) is amended--

(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking `or ignoring proof of the purchaser's residence in the District of Columbia'; and

(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking `registration and'.

SEC. 6. REPEAL HANDGUN AMMUNITION BAN.

(a) Definition of Restricted Pistol Bullet- Section 101(13a) of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (section 7-2501.01(13a)) is amended to read as follows:

`(13)(A) `Restricted pistol bullet' means--

`(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or

`(ii) a full-jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.

`(B) The term `restricted pistol bullet' does not include shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed for target shooting, a projectile which the Attorney General of the United States (pursuant to section 921(a)(17) of title 18, United States Code) finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any other projectile or projectile core which the Attorney General finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an oil and gas well perforating device.'.

(b) Repeal of Ban- Section 601 of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (section 7-2506.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended--

(1) by striking `ammunition' each place it appears (other than paragraph (4)) and inserting `restricted pistol bullets'; and

(2) by striking paragraph (3) and redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3).

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

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

SEC. 8. REMOVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR POSSESSION OF UNREGISTERED FIREARMS.

(a) In General- Section 706 of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (section 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. 9. REMOVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR CARRYING A FIREARM IN ONE'S DWELLING OR OTHER PREMISES.

(a) In General- Section 4(a) of the Act of July 8, 1932 (47 Stat. 651; section 22-4504(a), D.C. Official Code) is amended--

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

(2) by striking `except that:' and all that follows through `(2) If the violation' and inserting `except that if the violation'.

(b) Treatment of Certain Exceptions- Section 5(a) of such Act (47 Stat. 651; section 22-4505(a), D.C. Official Code) is amended--

(1) by striking `pistol' each place it appears and inserting `firearm' ; and

(2) by striking the period at the end and inserting the following: `, or to any person while carrying or transporting a firearm used in connection with an organized military activity, a target shoot, formal or informal target practice, sport shooting event, hunting, a firearms or hunter safety class, trapping, or a dog obedience training class or show, or the moving by a bona fide gun collector of part or all of the collector's gun collection from place to place for public or private exhibition while the person is engaged in, on the way to, or returning from that activity if each firearm is unloaded and carried in an enclosed case or an enclosed holster, or to any person carrying or transporting a firearm in compliance with sections 926A, 926B or 926C of title 18, United States Code.'.

(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to violations occurring after the 60-day period which begins on the date of the enactment of this Act.

R.H. Lee
October 26, 2005, 04:51 PM
Keep it up, GOP. You're digging your own grave.
Americans' anger may threaten GOP control of Congress (http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/nation/12994582.htm)

Headless Thompson Gunner
October 26, 2005, 04:54 PM
:rolleyes:

LAR-15
October 26, 2005, 04:54 PM
Kay Bailey Hutchison is pushing this becasuse she owns a .357 revolver, wants that legal in DC but nothing more than that.

This bill is just too screwed up.

Instead of repealing big chunks of DC code, they merely replace it with what is already stated under Federal law.

R.H. Lee
October 26, 2005, 05:03 PM
"Do you know what your sin is?" Yes I do. Voting Republican for the last 37 years.

JohnBT
October 26, 2005, 05:10 PM
"Do something that will help all gun owners."

JOIN... www.nra.org

:cool:

John

rick_reno
October 26, 2005, 05:11 PM
I can already hear the speech Bush will give when he signs this bill "With this important piece of legislation I am restoring an important right to the citizens of the District of Columbia. Bla, bla, bla."

The best part is people will believe him.

LAR-15
October 26, 2005, 05:13 PM
I'm not against repealing the DC handgun ban but a better bill could be drafted.

This bill is just for congresscritters and their cronies.

cbsbyte
October 26, 2005, 05:14 PM
Looks like there are a lot of Democrats on this site, who once became Reagan Democrats/Republicans during the Reagan era, then back Democrats during Clinton, and then back to Republican for Bush 2000 and now when something goes wrong the claim they are Libertarians. Personaly to me, a libertarian is a moderate, who tends to side with Democrats on most social issues, and Republicans on many economic issues. Pick a side already.

Charles

LAR-15
October 26, 2005, 05:14 PM
Again this bill states a 'sawed off shotgun' will still be illegal and has to be over 20 inches :uhoh:

I vote Republican

Zundfolge
October 26, 2005, 05:16 PM
:rolleyes:

More LP style "ALL OR NOTHING!" type thinking thats helped to marginalize the gun rights movement for the last 3 decades.


This is a step in the right direction. No, its not where we'd like to see the end destination, but a journey of a thousand miles begins with one step (hell, thats how we got in this mess in the first place).

auschip
October 26, 2005, 05:20 PM
Again this bill states a 'sawed off shotgun' will still be illegal and has to be over 20 inches :uhoh:

I vote Republican

It doesn't mention anything in the portion you posted about 20 inches, additionally IIRC every state has a requirement that a shotgun have an overall minimum length of 27 inches and a barrel length not shorter then 18 inches (unless registered as an NFA). I see this is steps in the right direction. When no blood runs in the street (well no more then usual anyway), then they can go to the next portion of restoring other firearms.

LAR-15
October 26, 2005, 05:22 PM
The defintion of sawed off shotguns in DC is less than 20 inches.

It IS NOT less than 18 inches

(2) DESCRIPTION OF FIREARMS REMAINING ILLEGAL- Section 201 of such Act (section 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.'.

Headless Thompson Gunner
October 26, 2005, 05:24 PM
Yeah, because we all know that having a Glock or a 12 guage is worthless unless you have a machine gun to back it up.

This law ain't perfect, but it's a helluva lot better than what we have now.

But hey, let's make sure we pound out the old tired mantras: "Republicans proposed it, so it must be evil." "It isn't absolutely perfect, so it's worthless."

:rolleyes:

:barf:

jfh
October 26, 2005, 05:26 PM
to have this incremental bill get passed AND THEN SEE THE DAMN DC MURDER RATE DROP.

It would be the nail in the coffin of the current antigun movement. I don't care if it allows conforming short-barrel shotguns or not, or that it makes Kay Bailey Hutchinson happy, or not--just get it through.

LAR-15
October 26, 2005, 05:26 PM
It is worthless.

Period.

Move out of DC if you hate the gun laws.

torpid
October 26, 2005, 05:27 PM
Personaly to me, a libertarian is a moderate, who tends to side with Democrats on most social issues, and Republicans on many economic issues. Pick a side already.

Personally to me, I did.
It just apparently isn't on your "approved" list.

:rolleyes:

R.H. Lee
October 26, 2005, 05:28 PM
This law ain't perfect, but it's a helluva lot better than what we have now.
Uh-huh. That's the 'rationale' I've used for years to justify voting Republican as they moved further and further left. You know, 'the lesser of two evils', 'the most important election in our lifetime', etc., et yada, et. :barf: I'm done with Republicans. You can keep sipping the koolaid however.

auschip
October 26, 2005, 05:28 PM
The defintion of sawed off shotguns in DC is less than 20 inches.

It IS NOT less than 18 inches

(2) DESCRIPTION OF FIREARMS REMAINING ILLEGAL- Section 201 of such Act (section 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.'.


So lets scrap the whole thing because you can't have a shotgun with a barrel 2 inches shorter? Never mind the fact that people can now own pistols in DC. BRILLIANT!!!

Zundfolge
October 26, 2005, 05:28 PM
Yes I do. Voting Republican for the last 37 years.
Yeah, because if you'd have been voting for Democrats we'd live in an America where you could buy suppressed machine guns through mail order catalogs and CCW on cross country flights without a permit :rolleyes:

R.H. Lee
October 26, 2005, 05:33 PM
Yeah, because if you'd have been voting for Democrats we'd live in an America where you could buy suppressed machine guns through mail order catalogs and CCW on cross country flights without a permit Or, we might have had the biggest, most intrusive government in the country's history.

Wait a minute. We do, but it's under Republican control of both Houses of Congress and the Whitehouse. Republicans serve individual liberty better when they're out of power, by blocking Democrat legislation.

LAR-15
October 26, 2005, 05:57 PM
I am reading it right though and see it saying silencers and AOWs are legal in DC if this is passed?

Nevermind silencers are illegal even for the police. But AOWs seem kosher

:confused:

LAR-15
October 26, 2005, 06:08 PM
Oh and why not make DC shall issue CCW while we are at it? Huh? You know the polticos like Feinstein will get permits but little people won't

:cuss:

DC's carry statute:

The Chief of Police of the District of Columbia may, upon the application of any person having a bona fide residence or place of business within the District of Columbia or of any person having a bona fide residence or place of business within the United States and a license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by the lawful authorities of any State or subdivision of the United States, issue a license to such person to carry a pistol within the District of Columbia for not more than 1 year from date of issue, if it appears that the applicant has good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol and that he or she is a suitable person to be so licensed. The license shall be in duplicate, in form to be prescribed by the Mayor of the District of Columbia and shall bear the name, address, description, photograph, and signature of the licensee and the reason given for desiring a license. The original thereof shall be delivered to the licensee, and the duplicate shall be retained by the Chief of Police of the District of Columbia and preserved in his or her office for 6 years.

willp58
October 26, 2005, 06:14 PM
Maybe the thing to do is vote Democrat if you think Bush and the repubs aren't doing a good job protecting your gun rights.
Get back to a klintoon/reno/shummer mentality if you think it will be better for us.

Hay-s00se...think this through people..

The war STINKS...However -Gun grabbing is almost nil.

cuchulainn
October 26, 2005, 06:15 PM
The RKBA will be repaired the same way it was harmed. Bit by bit, slowly.

We make the same political mistake in calling for "all or nothing" that the antis made in the 1960/1970s when they called for complete bans rather than incremental regulation.

LAR-15
October 26, 2005, 06:16 PM
Any DC members want to chime in?

What say you?

R.H. Lee
October 26, 2005, 06:23 PM
We make the same political mistake in calling for "all or nothing" that the antis made in the 1960/1970s when they called for complete bans rather than incremental regulation.
That may be true if it were happening. What are the Republicans actually doing to rollback restrictive legislation? Or are they just riding on their constituent's faith that they're not outright gun banning Democrats?

pcf
October 26, 2005, 06:25 PM
Alaska is a perfect example of how jumping up and down, screaming like a kid getting pulled out of a toy store, about any legislation that doesn't fit into an utopian gun rights agenda, is the best way to accomplish a goal. Thanks to mindless internet ramblings, Alaska, went overnight from no CCW to CCW without needing a permit.:rolleyes:

LAR-15, I'm glad your looking out for the citizens of DC. If the citizens of DC can't have it your way, the right way, of course, they shouldn't have the ability to keep loaded firearms in their home for self defense? 2 inches by far outways being robbed, raped, beaten, and murdered.

LAR-15
October 26, 2005, 06:27 PM
So when they go outside of their house the bad guys will get them then because they can't CCW.

They claim they are restoring the SA rights of DC citizens while in reality this bill picks and chooses what rights will be restored by Congress.

And there are two codes restricting firearms in DC. They are only amending one.

cuchulainn
October 26, 2005, 06:40 PM
R.H. Lee: What are the Republicans actually doing to rollback restrictive legislation?I wasn't defending the Rs -- I was describing how the RKBA will be repaired, incrementally. However, FWIW, the Rs are trying to make an incremental step in the right direction, and it seems silly to try to stop it with "all or nothing" protests.

Similarly, the wave of "shall issue" CCW is an example of the incremental approach to the RKBA. Although I agree with those who say we shouldn't need any permit whatsoever to carry, I see "shall issue" as a interim step. LAR-15: They claim they are restoring the SA rights of DC citizens while in reality this bill picks and chooses what rights will be restored by Congress.That's how incrementalism works. It ain't perfect, but it's better than leaving things alone.

pax
October 26, 2005, 06:40 PM
Looks like there are a lot of Democrats on this site, who once became Reagan Democrats/Republicans during the Reagan era, then back Democrats during Clinton, and then back to Republican for Bush 2000 and now when something goes wrong the claim they are Libertarians.
Never voted Democrat, ever. Never will.

Voted Republican for a long time. Never will again.
Personaly to me, a libertarian is a moderate, who tends to side with Democrats on most social issues, and Republicans on many economic issues. Pick a side already.
There's no "personally to me" about the word libertarian. It has a specific meaning.

A lot of people think the political spectrum is only "left=liberal/Democrat" vs. "right=conservative/Republican."

In truth, the political spectrum is best represented not by a line, but by an axis of two lines. One line (left-right) represents social issues. The other line (up-down) represents fiscal issues. One end of each line is maximum freedom; the other end is maximum government control.

Dems generally score towards individual freedom on the social scale, and towards government control on the fiscal scale.

Repubs generally score towards government control on the social scale, but away from government control on the fiscal scale.

Because libertarians consistently support maximum liberty, in both personal and economic matters, they aren't "moderates" on either scale, and certainly cannot be represented as being halfway in between the two parties when the political spectrum is pictured on a single line.

"Pick a side already." The libertarians did pick a side. They picked liberty.

Fun, quick quiz & more info at http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

pax

A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. L Neil Smith

Standing Wolf
October 26, 2005, 06:59 PM
Thanks, pax!

You just said it all and said it very well. I was going to say some of it.

Henry Bowman
October 26, 2005, 07:12 PM
Personaly to me, a libertarian is a moderate, who tends to side with Democrats on most social issues, and Republicans on many economic issues. Pick a side already. Perhaps what he meant was : "In my experience, those whom I have met who claim to be "libertarians" are really moderates who tend to side with Democrats on most social issues (abortion, prayer in school, etc.), and Republicans on many economic issues." Deep down, these people are liberals who have not yet been mugged themselves, but know people who have. They do not really understand what a libertarian (or Libertarian) really is, but are ashamed to admit that they are leftist liberals.

No offense is intended to those who are genuine libertarians and understand the true definition.

SomeKid
October 26, 2005, 07:45 PM
Dems generally score towards individual freedom on the social scale, and towards government control on the fiscal scale.

pax



pax, I would disagree.

The way they view the RKBA, 1A rights regarding worship and politcal speech, and the rights to own property tells me Democrats are really just Communists. They are always for more government, even on social issues.

Zundfolge
October 26, 2005, 07:52 PM
That may be true if it were happening. What are the Republicans actually doing to rollback restrictive legislation?
Over the last ten years we've seen "Shall Issue" CCW explode across the country, the Clinton AWB died with a mighty whimper, Alaska went to "Vermont Style" CCW, and the house and senate just passed protection from frivolous law suits.

I guess since they didn't pass that one piece of legislation that did away with every gun law back to the 1911 Sullivan Act the first day Bush was in office ... clearly they are a bunch of "Do-Nothings".

walking arsenal
October 26, 2005, 07:55 PM
wow, y'all bitter much?

Have some coffee, try decaff.

Headless Thompson Gunner
October 26, 2005, 08:19 PM
I say support the law. Give the beseiged residents of DC access to basic firearms. Lord knows they need it. With the murder rate the way it is, every day of delay could mean the difference between life and death for good, honest, desperate people.

Then we can work on the finer points like NFA weapons. But the people of DC need self defense NOW. Let's not make them wait simply because they won't be able to buy a machine gun (which most of 'em would never buy anyway...)

We can either support the law because it grants us 99% of what we want. Or we can oppose it because it fails to give us 1% of what we want. Which makes more sense?

cbsbyte
October 26, 2005, 08:25 PM
Perhaps what he meant was : "In my experience, those whom I have met who claim to be "libertarians" are really moderates who tend to side with Democrats on most social issues (abortion, prayer in school, etc.), and Republicans on many economic issues." Deep down, these people are liberals who have not yet been mugged themselves, but know people who have. They do not really understand what a libertarian (or Libertarian) really is, but are ashamed to admit that they are leftist liberals.

No offense is intended to those who are genuine libertarians and understand the true definition.

You are right. I probably have never met a true Libertarian. It seems alot of people broadly use the term libertartian to describe anyone who does not support the current political trend, or only support one aspect of it's ideaology, I.e personal freedom. Many of these people are moderates or liberals who do not know the Liberatrian idealogy but call themselves one because it sounds better than being labled a conservative or liberal. And no, I do not any problems with true libertarians. I agree with many libertarian view points, but I will not discrace libertarians by call myself one.

Charles

rick_reno
October 26, 2005, 08:31 PM
Voted Republican for a long time. Never will again.


Pax - Me too, since Nixon. The current Bush cured me of that affliction. I should write him and thank him.

RealGun
October 26, 2005, 08:36 PM
So they claim in this bill they are 'restoring Second Amendment rights' in DC and prohibiting the DC govt from restricting firearms YET they are still allowing the DC govt to ban NFA items?

I hope this bill does not pass. It also still states a 'sawed off shotgun' in DC is less than 20 inches.

Do something that will help all gun owners.

I think this bill does help all gun owners, big time. If Congress was going to tell States that they could not ignore the 2A, wouldn't DC be the place to start? Congress governs DC, so first the hypocrisy has to be removed.

BigG
October 26, 2005, 08:45 PM
EDIT: I came a little late to the party but I had no trouble getting his drift.

Looks like there are a lot of Democrats on this site, who once became Reagan Democrats/Republicans during the Reagan era, then back Democrats during Clinton, and then back to Republican for Bush 2000 and now when something goes wrong the claim they are Libertarians. Personaly to me, a libertarian is a moderate, who tends to side with Democrats on most social issues, and Republicans on many economic issues. Pick a side already.


+1 They want their bread buttered on both sides, it would seem. ;)

Lupinus
October 26, 2005, 08:55 PM
Is the bill perfect? Not by a long shot.

But it is a LOT better then what they have now. A step in the right direction is better then nothing. More will get done but it takes time if you have to compromise a bit to get your foot in the door and get things rolling you have to compromise a bit. Or would you prefer the redicules ban to continue because the bill isn't perfect?

DeseoUnTaco
October 26, 2005, 08:57 PM
So they claim in this bill they are 'restoring Second Amendment rights' in DC and prohibiting the DC govt from restricting firearms YET they are still allowing the DC govt to ban NFA items?

I hope this bill does not pass. It also still states a 'sawed off shotgun' in DC is less than 20 inches.

LAR-15, I can feel your feeling there. DC residents should not be restrained from owning normal shotguns (18"ers), NFA items, etc. But let's go step by step here. Even a small victory is a victory. Creeping CCW reform is a great example of it. Started in Florida 20 years ago, has spread to about 40 states now, and pressure is building even in California. This is the way to victory. Let's support every law that enhances our freedoms.

Flyboy
October 26, 2005, 08:58 PM
Thank you, pax; you saved me from having to muddle through it.

gulogulo1970
October 26, 2005, 09:11 PM
Are you really griping that DC is finially getting to have handguns, but not NFA items, is not helping the RTKBA cause? Give me a break.

Gotta learn to crawl before you can walk and walk before you can run.

RealGun
October 26, 2005, 09:13 PM
My only concern is what amendments the bill will draw. I don't believe there is any rule that amendments have to relate directly to DC? Anybody know?

Lupinus
October 26, 2005, 09:19 PM
why wouldnt it RG?

LAR-15
October 26, 2005, 09:20 PM
The bill does nothing to address self defense outside the home.

Therefore it is partially worthless.

The Congress has a chance to reform DC's carry laws and won't.

Not even from unreasonable may issue to reasonable may issue

Some type of CCP permit scheme needs to adopted for DC residents.

We should not be following Illinois in regards to CCW laws.

LAR-15
October 26, 2005, 09:21 PM
In the senate any amendments can be added.

Look for Schumer to load it up.

:(

LAR-15
October 26, 2005, 09:23 PM
LAR-15, I can feel your feeling there. DC residents should not be restrained from owning normal shotguns (18"ers), NFA items, etc. But let's go step by step here. Even a small victory is a victory. Creeping CCW reform is a great example of it. Started in Florida 20 years ago, has spread to about 40 states now, and pressure is building even in California. This is the way to victory. Let's support every law that enhances our freedoms.

So I go and buy an 18" Remington 870 five shot and then if I move to DC I have to get rid of the gun?

It's just a simple matter to change 20" to 18" ;)

The bill can be made better but the Republicans don't want it too. They get armed security even at the Capitol.

dpesec
October 26, 2005, 09:24 PM
People complain about the Reps leading the country down the same path as the SpendocRATS. It's true, it'll take longer and perhasp something will happen in the mean time.I'll still give the Reps most of my votes until something better comes along.

LAR-15
October 26, 2005, 09:26 PM
I will still vote Republican also but this thread was specifically directed at the DC Personal Protection Act being pushed by prominant Repubs.

Lupinus
October 26, 2005, 09:39 PM
Therefore it is partially worthless.

Yes. PARTIALLY. An inperfect bill that goes in the right direction is better then nothing. You cant get everything overnight and if you are unwilling to compromise will get nowhere.

LAR-15
October 26, 2005, 09:42 PM
But adding a CCW statute will not sink the bill and help protect residents throughout the city.

It has plenty of co sponsors in the House and Senate

GunGoBoom
October 26, 2005, 09:46 PM
<Grammaw was here.>

Pick a party; any party, folks!

1. www.constitutionparty.com

2. http://www.greenparty.org/

3. http://www.reformparty.org/

4. http://libertarianparty.com/

Just don't vote for or support the Repukelicrat UniParty.

beerslurpy
October 26, 2005, 10:00 PM
This is a potentially huge improvement, but overall a bad idea. And it is for a reason you have all forgotten about- The 2nd amendment challenge currently in the DC Circuit. If this law is passed, they will immediately lack standing, and there will be no decision and no precedent.

From every other standpoint, this is a huge win. If I lived in DC, I would gladly keep a 22 inch saiga-12 or a glock 22 by the night stand instead of nothing. If I were a robber, this law would have me shaking in my shoes. If everyone suddenly has a gun, a lot of criminals are going to die on the job. If crime dramatically drops in DC after this ban passes, it will be a huge win for gun owners.

Does this law create any policy regarding CCW, or perhaps will DC become an open carry area? I didnt see anything.

LAR-15
October 26, 2005, 10:11 PM
It just says you can carry about your house or business.

But nowhere else except to go target shooting (gun unloaded of course)

I guess it's better than nothing but my point is Republicans can make DC like the rest of the 'free states' and allow CCW as well.

By statute carrying a pistol in DC is heavily regulated (and has been since 1932)

Like in Florida, Texas, Virginia and Ohio, they should get some form of CCW

Simply put if they would allow CCW with this bill, it would be almost perfect.

The whole purpose of this bill was to allow guns for self defense in DC (but apparently in the home only)


The Senate is the real battleground.

Kim
October 26, 2005, 10:25 PM
I can not understand how this would not be considered a big win. My goodness they are overturing 30 plus year ban on handguns and any effective rifle or shotgun for defense. It is a hugh win. Perfect no. Perfection does not happen overnight even with armed revolt. Heck CCW is not perfect ---should not have to have it. I like it. If it gets passed the NYT will explode.:neener:

LAR-15
October 26, 2005, 10:28 PM
How many gun shops are in DC?

And how many will sell handguns to regular folk?

Has that not been considered (can't buy handguns outside of state, territorial boundaries)

Or is this all about politicos bringing in their OWN guns to keep in their part time residences?

Like Orrin Hatch and Dianne Feinstein?

Questions to ponder

Headless Thompson Gunner
October 26, 2005, 10:35 PM
Somehow I doubt the politicos need a law before they can arm themselves.

No cop is going to bust a senator for carrying a revolver. Even if that does happen, doesn't the constitution grant congressmen a mild sort of criminal immunity?

LAR-15
October 26, 2005, 10:40 PM
Teddy Kennedy used to have a bodyguard that toted an UZI around DC with him.

Believe the gun was confiscated but that was it

antsi
October 26, 2005, 11:01 PM
:rolleyes:
More LP style "ALL OR NOTHING!" type thinking thats helped to marginalize the gun rights movement for the last 3 decades.
.

+1

Reversing the DC handgun ban is a win. It does not amount to winning the entire war all in one fell swoop, no. But it is a tactical win.

With this kind of thinking, they would have said that Guadalcanal was a loss because we didn't take Tokyo.

antsi
October 26, 2005, 11:04 PM
You cant get everything overnight and if you are unwilling to compromise will get nowhere.

That's only if you're talking about grownup world :rolleyes:

Lupinus
October 26, 2005, 11:09 PM
winning the war in one epic battle would be great but unlikly. Like any war it is a series of battles that will progressivly get you to the total victory.

LAR-15
October 26, 2005, 11:21 PM
But this does not repeal the whole handgun ban or completely restore the SA in DC despite what the act and people like Mark Souder claim

:rolleyes:

Lupinus
October 26, 2005, 11:24 PM
it may very well not.

But agian the war is rarly won in one eptic battle.

Think of this as storming the beach at Normandy. The foothold is there now it will advance untill it is all as it should be.

Though ancient greek style of warefare would be nice lol

LAR-15
October 26, 2005, 11:29 PM
I agree but they claim the act would make DC a gun owner's paradise over night.

A little honesty please

Maybe that is what bugged me.

"Shall not be infringed" in the Findings section but then they later allow the DC govt to still ban certain guns and restrict carrying

Lupinus
October 26, 2005, 11:31 PM
I don't agree it would be near a gun owners paridise. But it well be infinatly better then now.

LAR-15
October 26, 2005, 11:34 PM
It would be better I suppose.

But it could be EVEN better than what they are proposing.

Lupinus
October 26, 2005, 11:36 PM
yes it could be but it wont happen overnight. Give it time

LAR-15
October 26, 2005, 11:38 PM
What I mean is why can't they incorporate CCW into this bill?

Why should DC residents have to wait?

Mayor Williams won't do diddly

If you want true protection, give DC residents CCW rights enjoyed in the states.

See?

If Republicans truly support RTKABA they will show it in this bill.

Lupinus
October 26, 2005, 11:50 PM
because then it has a lot less chance of being passed. Without it, it will be passed. With it there is a much higher chance that it wont be passed.

You take baby steps and get walking before you try and run. You try and jsut run from the start and you are going to trip and fall flat on your face.

PCGS65
October 27, 2005, 01:50 AM
It's a shame how people are. "This bill does nothing to restore 2nd amendment rights" the republicans are doing nothing. And if there was no bill at all. People would say the republicans are doing nothing to restore 2nd amendment rights.

For all of eternity people will complain no matter what!!! :cuss: :banghead:

LAR-15
October 27, 2005, 09:47 AM
This is just a selfish bill for politicians who spend only part time in DC to bring in their guns.

:mad:

They are only thinking about themselves

auschip
October 27, 2005, 10:37 AM
This is just a selfish bill for politicians who spend only part time in DC to bring in their guns.

:mad:

They are only thinking about themselves

If that was the case, wouldn't it make more sense to try and pass a law to give politicians a ccw in all states? That would be much easier then a law that allows the common person to own a firearm.

If you enjoyed reading about "Republicans are not restoring crap!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!