H.R.1399 : To restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia.

[Outlaw Man]

The text of this bill is pretty long. You can read it here, and I'll summarize.

It gives very logical reasons for repealing the laws - federal regulations already prohibit the bad guns and total bans only disarm law-abiding citizens (yes, it says that). The bill repeals the registration requirement, semi-auto ban, and handgun ammo ban.

It also takes away the mayor's control:

'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.'

This is a great law from everything I've read. It was started by a Democrat (which might give it a better shot) and has 39 co-sponsors.

I'd love to see this pass, but it would pretty much negate the Parker case and any chance of the Supreme Court making a decision. I haven't decided how I want to act on this one, but it's definitely one to keep an eye on.

Thoughts?

 

[General Geoff]

It's great that this bill draws a line in the sand, though I fear the line it draws is too far into freedom's territory.

That said, it's a great start.

 

[K-Romulus]

"Undue burden"

HR 1399 has 30 co-sponsors, beating the AWBII.

Here is a PDF version: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h1399ih.txt.pdf

That's a great legal hook taken from the abortion wars. Basically, the USSC said that no "undue burdens" are allowed on those seeking an abortion because such burdens serve to stifle the exercise of the right.

Once Parker gets affirmed by the USSC, the "undue burden" wars will begin re:BS gun licensing laws like MA/NY/NJ. That should be a fun campaign.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Actually, H.R. 1022 also has 30 co-sponsors currently (including 8 House Judiciary Committee members).

As for this bill, there won't be any "undue burden" litigation if it passes because this bill only affects D.C. and it will destroy the chance of Parker reaching the Supreme Court. In his blog, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh opined that it might even destroy whatever precedential value Parker had in the D.C. Circuit (i.e. instead of the Second being an individual right in D.C., it would go back to being an issue of first impression - another three judge panel could rule completely opposite).

Personally, I think these bills should be put on hold until Parker can be heard and a ruling issued.

 

[javacodeman]

Personally, I think these bills should be put on hold until Parker can be heard and a ruling issued.

Beat me to it. I agree.

 

[alan]

1. The effected legislation should never have been enacted by D.C. legislature.

2. The Congress should have rejected it, when they had the opportunuity, by the way, that was in 1976. How come this sudden "concern"?

3. To the extent that H.R. 1399 might tend to "muddy the waters" it is undesirable, objectionable. Talking of objectionable, look at who it's supporters are, seems like the usual cast of anti gun characters. "Round up the usual suspects".

 

[cuervo]

If a law has been ruled illegal, another law should not have to be passed to repeal it--it should be stricken from the codes.

Therefore, until more (illegal) laws are passed, any handgun should be allowed in DC right now, at least in the home since that was the major focus of the ruling.

I think, however, the ruling is being suspended until an appeal makes it to SCOTUS. So, guns are still illegal until the ruling goes into effect.

 

[Outlaw Man]

3. To the extent that H.R. 1399 might tend to "muddy the waters" it is undesirable, objectionable. Talking of objectionable, look at who it's supporters are, seems like the usual cast of anti gun characters. "Round up the usual suspects".

I can't speak for the co-sponsors, but Mike Ross is fairly pro-gun. Probably the most so of Arkansas' representatives.

Still, I'm leaning towards being against this bill. Normally, I'd be all for it, but I agree that the timing is poor.

 

[NickEllis]

Wow, this could have Congress doing acrobatics... might be the first time you see pro-gun senators having to vote against a pro-gun bill, and the anti-'s all for it. I hope Congress knows the stakes on this one! Should this get through, I would say its much more important to retain Parker, and we should pressure Congress to stall on passage of the bill.

Nick

 

[Outlaw Man]

Update

The bill now has 62 co-sponsors.

It's a pretty even split of Rs vs. Ds, which could make for an interesting vote should this reach the floor.

 

[scurtis_34471]

This is bad, because it could keep the Parker case from going to the Supreme Court.

 

[Kaylee]

3. To the extent that H.R. 1399 might tend to "muddy the waters" it is undesirable, objectionable. Talking of objectionable, look at who it's supporters are, seems like the usual cast of anti gun characters. "Round up the usual suspects".

Who are you talking about, specifically? None of the names in the cosponsor list look familiar to me?

That said... we're finally fighting on the enemy's territory it looks like.

They pass it, DC gets some rights back.
They fail to pass it, Parker keeps going.

Either way, we take another step forward.

Looks to me so far the inertia's finally on the side of the angels.

 

[F4GIB]

NRA is terrified of a Supreme Court decision.

This is one of the many things they have done to doom the Parker case. If it is enacted, Parker is moot and any appeal will be dismissed.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Opinions. One thing we have plenty of here is opinions. Personally, I am disappointed with how this unfolded. Why?...Thanks for asking. If this was such an important issue to Congress, then they would have done something around I'm thinking within the last 31 years maybe. I find it peculiar that nothing was said or done by congress until "they" (they=congress) felt like the court ruling might not go in their favor. The united states constitution and the united states government system worked. The judicial branch did its job AND IN A BIG WAY. WHy ruin that now???? The good news is things are being made right. Not in the way that I would prefer, but the end result is the same.

 

[Liberal Gun Nut]

THIS IS A VERY BAD LAW! This bill would demolish the Parker case by removing their standing. It would mean the entire Parker case was wasted. The Parker case would no longer be precedent.

THIS BILL IS A TRAP!

 

[alan]

Outlaw Man writes among other things:

Still, I'm leaning towards being against this bill. Normally, I'd be all for it, but I agree that the timing is poor.

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

Seems like the timing is a lot more than "poor", given that this POS legislation has been on the books for 30 plus years.


Kaylee:

The following comes to mind, in aswer to your question.

Should 1399 pass rendering Parker moot, then D.C.'s gain might well turn out to be a loss for constitutional rights in the rest of the country. In any case, the timing if this proposal is more than slightly suspicious, though it might be that I'm simply that dirty minded old man that you might have heard sad songs sung about.

Also if I remember, some of the names of 1399's supporters stand high in the halls of anti gun congress critters. To name one offhand, try Tom Lantos (California), who by the way had personal experience living under a dictatorship in Europe.

 

[Liberal Gun Nut]

Yeah, to describe the timing as "poor" is like saying, "well, I shot him as he was standing on the street. His timing was poor; he shouldn't have been standing there at the time I was shooting in that direction."

DC's law has been on the books since 1976. Congress and the whitehouse have seen many shifts of power and party in that time, and now that there's finally a strong 2A case about to hit the Supreme Court, they finally are getting together to repeal this law?

That's not "poor timing." That's "carefully planned timing to do something very bad."

 

[tmajors]

I'm almost inclined to believe that this bill was brought not because people actually want the laws repealed but that they don't want the Parker case going in front of SCOTUS. Nobody wants the issue in front of SCOTUS because they are afraid they will lose. Both sides.

 

[Jamie C.]

Haven't you folks figured this out yet?

You've got the pro-gun people on one side, the anti-gun people on the other, and a whole lot of money being made in the middle. And for the politicians, they've also got a bargaining chip or form of currency to use to get/stay elected.

And nobody... not the NRA, Sarah Brady, SCOTUS, or the U.S. government.... wants to screw that up by saying either side is right and the other is wrong.

Sorry, but the events unfolding don't surprise me at all. If any one of the groups I mentioned above can prevent Parker from going before SCOTUS, they will.

And if nobody can figure out how to stop it, my money's on SCOTUS ruling in such a way as to not disturb the status quo.

After all, they haven't done anything to change the situation in what? 70 years now?

That can't possibly be because they haven't had the chance, could it?


J.C.

 

[chemist308]

Well I just read it.

My take away from the read is that DC Citizens will now have the same rights as the rest of us. The bill does ban machine guns, sawed off shotguns and rifles (class III), destructive devices (grenades, bombs and such) and body armor penetrating bullets (steel core). Those things are already illegal.

Somebody please enlighten me as to why this bill is a bad thing. I'm truly not understanding why we don't want that to pass.

 

[Liberal Gun Nut]

It will wreck the best Second Amendment Supreme Court case we are ever likely to see. If the Parker case gets wrecked, we're likelty to sooner or later have a rotten 2A case involving a drug dealer and a public defender.

This bill is horrible and slimy.

 

[Juna]

if it passes because this bill only affects D.C. and it will destroy the chance of Parker reaching the Supreme Court.

That's my fear exactly, and I suspect that's why the bill was introduced. This way they can pretend to be pro-gun and appeal to gun owners, but they're skirting the SC ruling, which might have then essentially ruled gun control laws unconstitutional around the nation. I think it's a wolf in sheep's clothing version of the end around to avoid an SC decision on the subject so that they can later continue to nickel & dime away our IIA rights.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

After all, they haven't done anything to change the situation in what? 70 years now?

That can't possibly be because they haven't had the chance, could it?

Well, if you look at the recent history of Second Amendment litigation, there are basically three waves of litigation. The first comes after the 1968 Gun Control Act and is almost universally bad for the Second Amendment. Much of the bad precedent that is established in many circuits comes during this time. The only Justice who was around (and even then only for the very end of this period) for this period who is still on the Court is Stevens. So we have a totally different Court now.

The second round of challenges commenced with the machinegun ban in 1986. Some people thought that this would be a perfect opportunity to challenge the ban - the Circuit Courts almost unanimously shut down those attempts and the Supreme Court has denied cert in every one of them. The remainder of pro-RKBA law you see around this period studiously avoids even bringing up 2A issues and instead attacks from oblique angles on issues like due process, states rights, commerce clause, etc. About half of this Supreme Court is still around.

The third round is going on right now and was kicked off with the Emerson decision in my opinion. I wouldn't bet too heavily on what the Supreme Court has done in the past. The nine people who make it up right now are a lot different than the Court in 1968 and even somewhat different than the Court in 1990. The difference right now is that we have a case with good facts and it seems from the peanut gallery, that we have the four votes to grant cert.

 

[TexasRifleman]

They pass it, DC gets some rights back.
They fail to pass it, Parker keeps going.

Either way, we take another step forward.

Parker being shelved is nowhere near a step forward.

This is bad bad business.

 

[LAR-15]

This bill has been introduced every year since 2003.

Tom DeLay got it passed the House in 2004 with bipartisan support. The Dems in the Senate blocked it from being brought up there.

Last week this bill was added as an amendment to a bill to give DC voting rights.

The Dem leadership pulled the bill as the Republicans knew they would.

If this bill had a chance of passing it would have passed last week as part of the DC voting bill.

One problem with this bill is it leaves the definition of 'sawed off shotgun' at 20 inches instead of 18 inches.

So shotguns with barrels of 18 and 19 inches would still be banned in DC.