Bi-Partisan Bill Introduced to Restore the Second Amendment Rights of D.C. Residents

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
95
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.
 
I hope DC and other cities will take this as a warning.

Either grow up and start acting like responsible adults, or someone who CAN will come in and start running your business as THEY see fit.

They could have had a lot of restrictions that would have held up in court, but instead tried to pull this juvenile BS. Now they are going to get a VERY permissive gun policy essentially rammed down their throat with a ramrod courtesy of the US Congress.

Hopefully other municipalities will take heed that if you set the requirements bar too high it will get knocked down entirely.
 
Whats the differance between this bill & the one that the NRA was already trying to get a vote on? And which one has a better chance of actually being voted on?
 
This one has a better chance of being voted on. Like it or not, the Democrats control Congress and they get to decide what comes up and what doesn't.

Pelosi opposes gun bill but may allow vote

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.
 
Sounds like the antis (to include Pelosi and Hoyer) are in damage control mode due to the support for the discharge petition and the worry over their compatriots in conservative districts being low-hanging fruit for the NRA and other groups if they do not prove they represent their district's interests.

Kharn
 
In order to grow their majority, they had to rely on a lot of relatively conservative Democrats winning in conservative districts. I'm sure they found that distasteful...

But it does mean those Dems need to maintain at least some of their conservative creds, even as they're voting for left-wing leadership. Or they'll be out in the next election, when some Republican challenger comes along and says, "Don't be fooled again!"

A pity it's a *limited* exemption to that ban on out of state purchases.

Anybody got a link to the actual text of the bill? Rather than just the NRA's description of what it does? The devil is in the details, you know.
 
That is just it.

I bet this bill dies in the US Senate.

And at least in the 50 states there are places to buy handguns.

In DC there is not and this will correct that.
 
http://www.firearmscoalition.org/ind...=244&Itemid=63

NRA Making Deals Again

Written by Jeff Knox, on 07-31-2008

According to The Hill newspaper, the NRA has made a deal with House Democrats on a "compromise" DC gun law bill.

The burning question now is, "Why?".

If the report is accurate, NRA has agreed to support a compromise bill that would force DC to minimally comply with the Supreme Court's June ruling in the Heller case. The city has so far enacted emergency legislation which makes it very difficult for a DC resident to legally own a handgun or have it available for self-defense in the home. Republicans have introduced a sweeping firearms reform bill for the District, but it has been bottled up by the Democrat leadership. Republicans were trying to get pro-gun Democrats to join them in a petition to force the bill onto the House floor for a vote. Democrats don't want to debate and vote on anything as contentious as a serious DC gun bill so pro-gun Democrats led by John Dingell (D-Michigan), Mike Ross (D-Arkansas), and Mike Tanner (D-Tennessee) reached out to NRA for a deal.

Republicans are rightously furious over the deal which they were hoping to use as a wedge issue in the coming elections.

Again, the burning question is "Why?". Why would NRA make this deal at this time? What advantage does such a deal give them or the gun rights movement?

We are heading into an election in which many experts are predicting major Democrat gains. The Presidential candidates are both unappealing to GunVoters and have been somewhat lulled into a sense of security by the Heller victory. And there have been no contentious, gun-related bills debated in Congress to fire voters up and separate the sheep from the goats in a long, long time. Now would be an excellent time to have a loud debate about gun control and DC's outrageous response to the Heller decision is an excellent topic for such a debate. GunVoters are all very aware of the Heller decision and DC's continuing refusal to comply with the clear intent of that decision.

Pro-gun members of Congress are pushing a discharge petition that would force the fight to the floor. Even without this NRA deal, it is very unlikely that the 218 signatures needed on the discharge petition could be garnered, but the petition itself would be a good barometer for judging a politician's commitment to gun rights. The fight and the grading would be over the discharge petition rather than the actual bill. With Heller and others having filed lawsuits to force DC to comply with the ruling, action by Congress is not really desirable as it would nullify those lawsuits, but that shouldn't really be a concern as long as the core bill is strong enought in its support of gun rights to be thoroughly unpalatable to the Democrat leadership. Nancy Pelosi is never going to allow a sweeping gun rights statement to come out of "her House."

So that brings us back to this agreement and the question, "Why?". With this agreement a compromise bill which very narrowly addresses the DC issues would be brought forward with NRA support. This bill (which should be introduced later today) is expected to be narrow and limited enough to be acceptable to Pelosi and company. That means it can easily pass through the House - where pro-gun members would have little choice but to vote for it - and into the Senate where, again, it whould face little opposition. This strategy kills the lawsuits while shielding the anti-gun and faux-pro-gun mambers of Congress thereby effectively removing the only issue around which GunVoters could have been effectively rallied...

I recently wrote a piece for The Knox Report that described how a future "assault weapons" ban might be passed with NRA support. The article was intended to be a warning to NRA members to keep a close eye on their organization because there is a history of the group making seriously bad compromises that they call victories. While not as dramatic as an assault weapons ban, this appears to be another one of those mistakes.
 
This is not a bad proposal.

And anyone who won't vote for this bill is REALLY anti-gun!
 
Update on the "compromise" bill from Jeff Knox

http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=244&Itemid=63


[Note: After seeing the actual language of the bill and speaking with key players, I am much more comfortable with this deal. While I still have some concerns and mixed feelings about how this could impact Heller's new lawsuit and the way the Supreme Court's decision in Heller might be interpreted, there is absolutely nothing in this bill that could be considered a sell-out or give-away. It's a very good bill which I can't help but support. -JAK]
 
If you lived in crime ridden DC would you not want to be able to purchase a Glock or Mini-14 right now for self defense??

:confused:
 
[Note: After seeing the actual language of the bill and speaking with key players, I am much more comfortable with this deal. While I still have some concerns and mixed feelings about how this could impact Heller's new lawsuit and the way the Supreme Court's decision in Heller might be interpreted, there is absolutely nothing in this bill that could be considered a sell-out or give-away. It's a very good bill which I can't help but support. -JAK]

As written it's a good bill... but remember that 922(o) was added as a poison pill to FOPA. I don't trust Congress not to muck with it.

My prediction: IF Pelosi even lets this bill come to the floor for a vote, and if it passes, the Senate will kill it. This lets the Democrat Reps, who are all up for re-election this fall, safely vote for pro-RKBA legislation that they know will never be enacted while keeping a good NRA rating.
 
My prediction: IF Pelosi even lets this bill come to the floor for a vote, and if it passes, the Senate will kill it. This lets the Democrat Reps, who are all up for re-election this fall, safely vote for pro-RKBA legislation that they know will never be enacted while keeping a good NRA rating.
that would be my guess.

I still think in the long run you are better off finishing Heller in the courts and getting what you can out of it. It will take longer but most likely everything that is in this bill will happen within a few years anyway.
 
This strategy kills the lawsuits while shielding the anti-gun and faux-pro-gun mambers of Congress thereby effectively removing the only issue around which GunVoters could have been effectively rallied...

I notice Jeff Knox has changed his opinion on this; but I would just elaborate on some of these points.

1. This does stop the lawsuits, in D.C. only, by making them moot. On the one hand, D.C. is a great forum for us to get good case precedent. On the other hand, future decisions may not receive cert from the Supreme Court (meaning they are only good for D.C.). In addition, because of the narrow issue approach adopted by Heller (which was a great success), it could mean 20 years of litigation to get everything in this bill (assuming we continue to get favorable judges).

You can make a fair argument both ways here; but this is a question of overall strategy more than a compromise (and since Heller 2 is being handled by NRA attorney Halbrook, I am sure they are onboard with this strategy)

2. On shielding members of Congress... all this does is shield pro-gun Democrats who are afraid to stand up to their leadership and vote for a discharge petition. You can make the argument that it is better to identify these people now before the 2008 election (and the Republicans would certainly like to see their competitors crippled); but you can also make the argument that with a Democrat-controlled Congress in the foreseeable future, it isn't a smart move to put our pro-gun Democrats in a bind when an alternative can be worked out that gets us everything we want without forcing them to walk the Pelosi plank.

While NRA doesn't always make the best compromises, this is one of those situations that is not an easy call either way and there are very good reasons to go the way the NRA did.
 
Based on MAKster's link, it looks like the Democratic leadership's strategy is to kick it over to the Senate where there may be enough anti-gun votes to kill it or amend it into oblivion.
 
* 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.

I haven't read the language of the bill, but if it isn't crafted VERY carefully, someone may have just created an Equal Protection challenge to the in-state handgun purchase limits in the '68 GCA. Can MD or VA residents buy a handgun in DC?
 
As written it's a good bill... but remember that 922(o) was added as a poison pill to FOPA. I don't trust Congress not to muck with it.

Why is it that OUR side never sneaks in those poison pills? Why can't we get 922(o) repealed the same way it got put into the law?
 
Why is it that OUR side never sneaks in those poison pills? Why can't we get 922(o) repealed the same way it got put into the law?

We have to have control of Congress AND have a gun bill that the antis want so bad that they will swallow the pill. Generally tougher for us than it is for them.
 
"I notice Jeff Knox has changed his opinion on this"

It's a shame he didn't do his research first, before putting his foot in his mouth and publishing that article.

John
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top