Spirit of 34
Member
What is the actual content of the petition/bill?
Democrats afraid of NRA discharge petition
- Thread starter LAR-15
- Start date
- Status
damien
Member
"The bill, drafted before the June court ruling, would erase some of the district’s remaining gun laws."
The idea is to fix the District's gun laws since the city council has replaced the ban with an illegally tight licensing scheme. It's just the parent insisting the child take his medicine.
The idea is to fix the District's gun laws since the city council has replaced the ban with an illegally tight licensing scheme. It's just the parent insisting the child take his medicine.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
Exactly.
I am not a Republican, and I do not want the NRA tying gun rights to the broader repub agenda. If some Dems want to get on board and protect our rights, then we should ALL welcome that.
rainbowbob
Member
Then Mr Hairless is the exception to that rule.
azredhawk44
Member
Most rabid anti-gun Dems are smart enough to know that litigation is the real loss. One they can't control the repeal of.
Pelosi would much rather allow a wiping of the gun control slate in DC (to be slowly filled back up over the next 5 years), than having another Heller-style defeat shoved down the antigun collective throat.
NRA knows this too.
Result: NRA trades away strength for essentially nothing. We already have a massive wipe of DC gun laws coming to us, we need to let the results of Heller fully play out before we lobby for more. We're getting nothing, but going on record with the antigun Dems as "compromising" with them, and them "giving us" something. They are sneaky bastages and they will smuggle some piece of garbage addendum in there (remember FOPA 86?) to bite us in the end.
Talking to a Dem-controlled congress right now is just plain dumb.
AntiqueCollector
Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2007
- Messages
- 842
Now, if they'd also add in a repeal of the 1986 machine gun ban, then we can "compromise" with them...
Ohio Gun Guy
Member
I am a NRA member. I dont always agree with them. I think they are playing it safe. Just like they didnt want Parker (Heller) to go forward because they were afraid of the result.
I think they need to buy those bull balls you see dangling from trucks and put them in their pants to see how it feels for a week.
Then see if they see things differently. We dont need to go out with reckless abandon, but we no longer need to sit in the bunker. 
Give'em hell.
I think they need to buy those bull balls you see dangling from trucks and put them in their pants to see how it feels for a week.
Then see if they see things differently. We dont need to go out with reckless abandon, but we no longer need to sit in the bunker. Give'em hell.
Prince Yamato
Member
Ok, folks just read that sentence for a second. It's not the NRA pandering to the Democrats, it's the Democrats coming forth to the NRA. We're on the offense now. Big difference. I for one am glad that some of the Democrats are willing to work with the NRA. Maybe it's just Democrats trying to appear pro-gun by supporting gun rights bills. Oh well, whatever works for them. Better than the 1990s, when they'd be supporting gun bans to show how they worked for gun control.
jfh
Member.
Does anyone remember that Dingell is /used to be on the NRA Board of Directors?
Jim H.
Jim H.
inherentical
Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2007
- Messages
- 753
Mot45acp said:
*Sigh*
You do realize that by copying the article wholesale you're breaking copyright law and opening this site up to copyright infringement measures being taken against it?
jfh
Member.
tmpick: Although I am no copright legal expert, I believe the publishing the article text with a citation to the source relieves one of infringement claims, unless one is doing it for profit.
In this thread, the source is provided in the opening post--albeit a clumsy citation, but present nonetheless.
IMO, your concern is undue.
Jim H.
In this thread, the source is provided in the opening post--albeit a clumsy citation, but present nonetheless.
IMO, your concern is undue.
Jim H.
ServiceSoon
Member
Thank you for the information. My guy, a D is on there.
Titan6
member
Does this not have to go through the Senate? With Ted Stevens going down in flames I am not so sure it would make it through.
rbernie
Contributing Member
Not true. Do a ErrorNet search for 'Fair Use Doctrine' and all will be revealed.
Michael Thomson
Member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2007
- Messages
- 95
Bi-Partisan Bill Introduced to Restore the Second Amendment Rights of D.C. Residents
Two things:
First, there was a new bill introduced today (details below) to address D.C.'s efforts to obstruct the Heller decision.
Second, the new Heller suit was filed by NRA's lawyer Stephen Halbrook on Heller's behalf. http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=11366
Bi-Partisan Bill Introduced to Restore the Second Amendment Rights of D.C. Residents
Thursday, July 31, 2008
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=11372
Fairfax, VA -- Today, in a bi-partisan effort, Congressman Travis Childers, Congressmen John Dingell, John Tanner, Mike Ross and Mark Souder, along with 47 of their colleagues, introduced the Second Amendment Enforcement Act (H.R. 6691). This critical legislation overturns D.C.'s recently enacted emergency laws that continue to defy the recent Supreme Court ruling by continuing to restrict District of Columbia residents' right to self-defense. This National Rifle Association-backed bill is needed to enforce the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller.
On June 26, the U. S. Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller that "the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense." The Supreme Court clearly stated that handguns are constitutionally-protected arms because they are commonly used, are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, are considered by the American people to be the quintessential self-defense weapon, are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home and are the most preferred firearm in the nation to keep and use for protection of home and family.
The Second Amendment Enforcement Act will:
* Repeal the District's ban on semi-automatic handguns. Semi-automatic pistols have been the most commonly purchased handguns in the United States over the last 20 years, and therefore a ban on those firearms is unconstitutional as decided by Heller;
* Restore the right of self-defense by repealing the requirement that firearms be disassembled or secured with a trigger lock in the home;
* Repeal the current D.C. registration system that requires multiple visits to police headquarters; ballistics testing; passing a written test on D.C. gun laws; fingerprinting; and limiting registration to one handgun per 90 days. The current system is unduly burdensome and serves as a vehicle for even more onerous restrictions; and
* Create a limited exemption to the federal ban on interstate handgun sales by allowing D.C. residents to purchase handguns in Virginia and Maryland. Currently there are no firearms dealers in the District of Columbia, and the federal ban prohibits residents from purchasing handguns outside of the District; therefore, District residents have no means of purchasing handguns.
Two things:
First, there was a new bill introduced today (details below) to address D.C.'s efforts to obstruct the Heller decision.
Second, the new Heller suit was filed by NRA's lawyer Stephen Halbrook on Heller's behalf. http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=11366
Bi-Partisan Bill Introduced to Restore the Second Amendment Rights of D.C. Residents
Thursday, July 31, 2008
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=11372
Fairfax, VA -- Today, in a bi-partisan effort, Congressman Travis Childers, Congressmen John Dingell, John Tanner, Mike Ross and Mark Souder, along with 47 of their colleagues, introduced the Second Amendment Enforcement Act (H.R. 6691). This critical legislation overturns D.C.'s recently enacted emergency laws that continue to defy the recent Supreme Court ruling by continuing to restrict District of Columbia residents' right to self-defense. This National Rifle Association-backed bill is needed to enforce the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller.
On June 26, the U. S. Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller that "the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense." The Supreme Court clearly stated that handguns are constitutionally-protected arms because they are commonly used, are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, are considered by the American people to be the quintessential self-defense weapon, are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home and are the most preferred firearm in the nation to keep and use for protection of home and family.
The Second Amendment Enforcement Act will:
* Repeal the District's ban on semi-automatic handguns. Semi-automatic pistols have been the most commonly purchased handguns in the United States over the last 20 years, and therefore a ban on those firearms is unconstitutional as decided by Heller;
* Restore the right of self-defense by repealing the requirement that firearms be disassembled or secured with a trigger lock in the home;
* Repeal the current D.C. registration system that requires multiple visits to police headquarters; ballistics testing; passing a written test on D.C. gun laws; fingerprinting; and limiting registration to one handgun per 90 days. The current system is unduly burdensome and serves as a vehicle for even more onerous restrictions; and
* Create a limited exemption to the federal ban on interstate handgun sales by allowing D.C. residents to purchase handguns in Virginia and Maryland. Currently there are no firearms dealers in the District of Columbia, and the federal ban prohibits residents from purchasing handguns outside of the District; therefore, District residents have no means of purchasing handguns.
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,146
The way I see it.
If the anti-gun congress members can avoid the vote on the 22nd by just not showing up, and this is the ONLY day the petition could be voted upon, then what good does it do to allow the anti-gunners to take political cover by jumping in and signing the discharge petition knowing it will never be heard, while being able to falsely claim they are pro-gun in a key vote to their constitutents?
Second, if the Congress makes some laws for DC throwing out Fenty's laws and his snubbing of the SCOTUS ruling, then what are we to do with all this popcorn popped up for Heller II? Seriously, it would render irrelevant a legal issue that we need to be relevant in order to further place the smackdown *judicially* on Fenty & Co., for precedential value. Any law this Congress passes can just be changed back after Nov, whereas a court decision has some semi-permanent staying power, due to stare decisis - we strike while the iron is hot and the Scotus is 5-4.
So, I'm not a huge fan of the discharge petition, and therefore, the NRA's strategy of extracting something from the congressional knuckleheads, in order to prevent the political cover ruse of signing the petition seems like a reasonable thing to do.
If the anti-gun congress members can avoid the vote on the 22nd by just not showing up, and this is the ONLY day the petition could be voted upon, then what good does it do to allow the anti-gunners to take political cover by jumping in and signing the discharge petition knowing it will never be heard, while being able to falsely claim they are pro-gun in a key vote to their constitutents?
Second, if the Congress makes some laws for DC throwing out Fenty's laws and his snubbing of the SCOTUS ruling, then what are we to do with all this popcorn popped up for Heller II? Seriously, it would render irrelevant a legal issue that we need to be relevant in order to further place the smackdown *judicially* on Fenty & Co., for precedential value. Any law this Congress passes can just be changed back after Nov, whereas a court decision has some semi-permanent staying power, due to stare decisis - we strike while the iron is hot and the Scotus is 5-4.
So, I'm not a huge fan of the discharge petition, and therefore, the NRA's strategy of extracting something from the congressional knuckleheads, in order to prevent the political cover ruse of signing the petition seems like a reasonable thing to do.
guntotinguy
Member
I am a NRA member and proud of it too,I am an Independant not a Republican,and have also heard of a few Dems who 'are pro gun' but IMO,I think the NRA is fighting a battle most of us wouldnt be able to 'make happen' so yes I can see where the gun grabbing liberals would be afraid of such an org as NRA.
Good!!!
Good!!!
Didn't the machine gun ban of 1984 get attached to a pro-gun bill? I worry about Congress doing anything at all more than Congress doing nothing at all. Enforcement of the law is the job of the Executive Branch. The law, in this case, is in the Constitution and we have an interpretaion of that law by the Supreme Court. D.C. has already shown they do not care about any law on paper; another one from Congress isn't going to help. But then, it isn't going to pass either, unless it has some anti-gun compromise to it that is worse than the stated intent of the law.
Michael Thomson
Member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2007
- Messages
- 95
I predict this bill will get a vote.
Pelosi opposes gun bill but may allow vote
By Mike Soraghan
Posted: 07/31/08 06:59 PM [ET]
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she personally opposes a bill loosening the District of Columbia’s gun laws, but that does not mean she will block it from coming to the floor.
“I want to see the particulars,” Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday. “Then we’ll see what comes to the floor or doesn’t come to the floor.”
The bill, designed to head off a showdown between the National Rifle Association and conservative House Democrats, was introduced Thursday, with roughly 50 Democratic co-sponsors, according to congressional sources.
The bill’s lead sponsors are to be three of the Democrats’ most vulnerable members from conservative districts – Reps. Travis Childers (D-Miss.), Jason Altmire (D-Pa.) and Don Cazayoux (D-La.).
The bill, to be numbered H.R. 6691, would repeal the district’s ban on semi-automatic pistols, the requirement that handguns be registered, and allow District residents from traveling to Virginia or Maryland to buy guns. The District currently forbids importing guns, and there are no registered gun dealers with shops in Washington.
Rep. Mark Souder (D-Ind.), who introduced a discharge petition to try to force Democrats to support a similar bill, is also expected to be a co-sponsor.
The deal was negotiated with the powerful gun-rights group by Reps. John Dingell (D-Mich.), Mike Ross (D-Ark.) and John Tanner (D-Tenn.).
The details were hammered out Thursday in a meeting between Pelosi, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and lawmakers backing the bill. Supporters say they have been given a commitment of a vote by mid-September.
Souder’s discharge petition sought to bring a bill by Ross to bring a D.C. gun-rights bill directly to the floor, bypassing the committee where it was languishing.
Supporters are building on a June Supreme Court decision rejecting the District’s decades-old gun law as unconstitutional. They believe District officials, who disliked the ruling, were dragging their feet and failing to fully implement the ruling.
The NRA officials had threatened to use House members’ willingness to sign the discharge petition in its scoring for this year’s election. Conservative Democrats who didn’t sign it, most of them members of the Blue Dog Coalition, risked losing their “A-plus” ratings.
The compromise with the NRA is designed to remove pressure on Democrats to sign the discharge petition, which had 164 signatures as of Wednesday.
Pelosi opposes gun bill but may allow vote
By Mike Soraghan
Posted: 07/31/08 06:59 PM [ET]
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she personally opposes a bill loosening the District of Columbia’s gun laws, but that does not mean she will block it from coming to the floor.
“I want to see the particulars,” Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday. “Then we’ll see what comes to the floor or doesn’t come to the floor.”
The bill, designed to head off a showdown between the National Rifle Association and conservative House Democrats, was introduced Thursday, with roughly 50 Democratic co-sponsors, according to congressional sources.
The bill’s lead sponsors are to be three of the Democrats’ most vulnerable members from conservative districts – Reps. Travis Childers (D-Miss.), Jason Altmire (D-Pa.) and Don Cazayoux (D-La.).
The bill, to be numbered H.R. 6691, would repeal the district’s ban on semi-automatic pistols, the requirement that handguns be registered, and allow District residents from traveling to Virginia or Maryland to buy guns. The District currently forbids importing guns, and there are no registered gun dealers with shops in Washington.
Rep. Mark Souder (D-Ind.), who introduced a discharge petition to try to force Democrats to support a similar bill, is also expected to be a co-sponsor.
The deal was negotiated with the powerful gun-rights group by Reps. John Dingell (D-Mich.), Mike Ross (D-Ark.) and John Tanner (D-Tenn.).
The details were hammered out Thursday in a meeting between Pelosi, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and lawmakers backing the bill. Supporters say they have been given a commitment of a vote by mid-September.
Souder’s discharge petition sought to bring a bill by Ross to bring a D.C. gun-rights bill directly to the floor, bypassing the committee where it was languishing.
Supporters are building on a June Supreme Court decision rejecting the District’s decades-old gun law as unconstitutional. They believe District officials, who disliked the ruling, were dragging their feet and failing to fully implement the ruling.
The NRA officials had threatened to use House members’ willingness to sign the discharge petition in its scoring for this year’s election. Conservative Democrats who didn’t sign it, most of them members of the Blue Dog Coalition, risked losing their “A-plus” ratings.
The compromise with the NRA is designed to remove pressure on Democrats to sign the discharge petition, which had 164 signatures as of Wednesday.
ugaarguy
Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 13,828
Folks, read what Everallm posted. Look at that potential.
Link to bill here - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:9:./temp/~bdVHA7::
Discharge petition here - http://clerk.house.gov/110/lrc/pd/Petitions/Dis14.htm
From Georgia -
Reps. (with district abbreviated as (Dx)) Bishop (D2), Kingston (D1), and Marshall (D8) are co sponsors, but have not signed the discharge petition. Reps. Barrow (D12), Scott (D13), Lewis (D5), and Johnson, Jr. (D4) have neither signed the discharge petition, nor co-sponsored the bill.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Well, there are two problems with this approach. One is that the litigation is only precedent in D.C. unless it gets granted cert by the Supreme Court. Much of the debate over D.C.'s new gun law is probably not going to be resolved by the Supreme Court; but by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and District Court.
The second problem is that because a smart approach uses a very narrow attack on one issue at a time - and each issue takes several years to resolve - you could spend the next 20 years just litigating issues in D.C.
Well, a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision is only persuasive precedent on other courts. It is not binding on Chicago or New York either. As a result, it is real easy for other courts to ignore the result - especially if it is one they do not want or agree with. Also because this process takes so long (20 years), selection of judges may mean our odds improve or decrease drastically as it progresses.
The NRA is in a good position right now. Democrats need pro-gun credentials to keep their majority in Congress. The NRA is cashing in on that by demanding that they put up or shut up. If the Democrats assist, then the NRA gets to roll back a lot of laws in one shot. If the Democrats don't assist, the NRA can use it against them in the upcoming elections. From the NRA point of view, this is a winner whether it goes anywhere or not.
I'm not saying that litigation isn't a valid strategy or even a better strategy in some circumstances. I am just saying that we need every arrow in the quiver and there are a lot of valid reasons to take this approach.
Intune
Member
Yep, they realize that something is in the air. The American people are getting edgy 'cause they've been pushed a little too hard, a little too quickly. Bad move 'grabbers. Can anyone say stampede? The bane of cowboys & politicians.
The griddle's hot. Fry some eggs!
Gotta quit watching Westerns...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked