1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Neal Knox Update: Orrin Hatch: "fish or cut bait"

Discussion in 'Legal' started by gun-fucious, Jul 16, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. gun-fucious

    gun-fucious Member

    Dec 24, 2002
    centre of the PA
    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.â€

    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

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

    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 acceptingâ€
    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 “protectâ€
    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.â€

    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.â€

    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

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

    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 Statesâ€.

    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.

  2. OF

    OF Member

    Dec 26, 2002
    Give 'em hell!
  3. Waitone

    Waitone Member

    Dec 25, 2002
    The Land of Broccoli and Fingernails
    Orin Hatch is his own, walking contradiction.

    Sometimes he comes up with valuable legislation.

    Sometimes he commits complete and total boners.

    Problem is I can't tell on a daily basis which Orin will dress out.
  4. emc

    emc Member

    Dec 24, 2002
    Central Indiana
    Waitone has an excellent point. The only consistent thing about Hatch is the lack thereof. When he's on, GREAT! But he can go the opposite direction just as easily. Go figure..... :confused:


  5. foghornl

    foghornl Member

    Dec 27, 2002
    Only thing wrong with that is if the DC gun ban gets lifted, all the surviving Bad Guys will move to Cleveland..........

    'cause thanks to Gov. Booby "FlipFlop. Which way is the wind blowing NOW?" Daft and the Spineless Ohio Senate, we STILL don't have CCW.
  6. 2dogs

    2dogs Member

    Dec 25, 2002
    the city
    As has been posted here and the KABA web site, hasn't the NRA tried to sabotage the CATO 2nd Amndmnt case?

    Now call me cynical (yes, that and crotchety too), but wouldn't this bill- good as it may be for D.C.- pretty much kill the need for the CATO 2nd case? I mean if the D.C. residents get the same rights that most states now grant (and as limited) then would there be a need for SCOTUS to take the CATO case and (possibly) have to reinforce for all time the fact that the 2nd protects all citizens God given right to own a gun.

    Is this an NRA/Hatch conspiracy?:uhoh:

    Oh yeah, cynical, crotchety and paranoid.
  7. David Park

    David Park Member

    Dec 24, 2002
    Alexandria, VA
    If I understand current D.C. law, the gun ban was put in place by the City Council, not the feds in Congress. I don't know exactly how that relationship works, but I'd like to see the details of Hatch's bill. Maybe this would be the equivalent of a statewide preemption law like we have in VA? I think we can expect more "taxation without representation" arguments/whining from D.C. liberals.

    Oh, and a Hatch conspiracy wouldn't surprise me one bit. :scrutiny:
  8. Monte Harrison

    Monte Harrison Member

    Jan 7, 2003
    Y'all don't reckon he might be a POLITICIAN, do you? The political wind is blowing in our favor right now, so politicians are setting their sails accordingly.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page