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

[gopguy]

This bill was needed decades ago. However its timing couldn't be worse. The Parker case ruling is what we need to rely on for now. If it goes to the Supreme court and they knock it down. Fine, then pass this. Otherwise it needs to wait and let the ruling of the DC Circuit work its way forward.

 

[Sam Adams]

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

+1,000! Either we win Parker at the en banc appeal or the Supreme Court, in which case the bills are unneeded, or we lose and the bill is meaningless - either way, the bills need to be shelved

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

According to a report here quoting Alan Gura, Gura and Levy received assurances from the NRA and Wayne LaPierre that they would not interfere with Parker via legislation. Gura also suggested legislation that could achieve the same result without mooting Parker.

However just yesterday, I received an email from the NRA-ILA announcing that the companion bill to H.R. 1399 had been introduced in the Senate. Given that the Dems shot down their dream bill to avoid having to repeal the ban, I am not real worried that this is going anywhere; but I think NRA is playing a dangerous game in encouraging gun owners to support it.

I'd prefer to see them quietly drop any mention of it at all and just wait for Parker to sort out.

 

[Liberal Gun Nut]

If you are an NRA member, send them a letter urging them to back off. Mention your member number and say that you will cancel your membership forever if they interfere with Parker.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I haven't read the whole bill nor the entire thread, but my take on this is Congress scrambling to retain control, or at least an upper hand in the gun control battle in DC. They're trying to cut Parker off at the knees. Once the Supreme Court gets hold of this, Congress is screwed as far as a whole lot of unconstitutional law is concerned.

Woody

A law that says you cannot fire your gun in the middle of downtown unless in self defense is not unconstitutional. Laws that prohibit brandishing except in self defense or handling your gun in a threatening or unsafe manner would not be unconstitutional. Laws can be written that govern some of the uses of guns. No law can be written that infringes upon buying, keeping, storing, carrying, limiting caliber, limiting capacity, limiting quantity, limiting action, or any other limit that would infringe upon the keeping or bearing of arms. That is the truth and simple reality of the limits placed upon government by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. B.E.Wood

 

[Brett Bellmore]

Gura and Levy received assurances from the NRA and Wayne LaPierre that they would not interfere with Parker via legislation.

That's the sort of assurance you should trust as far as you could caber toss the Washington monument, after the NRA's efforts to torpedo Parker by litigation. The NRA thinks Parker is too dangerous a gamble to be worth making, and if they can "save" us from the Supreme court taking the case, AND get a pro gun bill passed at the same time, it's a no brainer so far as they're concerned.

 

[leadcounsel]

Somewhat off topic but still relevant, we had a very stacked Congress over the last several years. Where were the pro-gun bills during this time? I'm pretty upset that some pro-gun Federal laws weren't passed during what should have been a great and opportune time.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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.

^^^ Agreed

Except that I'd strike out the "almost"

 

[Liberal Gun Nut]

Here's another reason to oppose this bad bill: we no longer need it! The DC court ruled that people in DC have a right to own functional firearms. Unless a stay is granted (very unlikely) people in DC are going to be able to start buying and owning guns within the next couple of weeks. They will have their 2nd amend rights restored before this bill can even come to the floor for a vote. So this bill a) gives them nothing they don't already have and b) destroys the value of the Parker case.

There is absolutely nothing good about this bill.

 

[Macpherson]

Somewhat off topic but still relevant, we had a very stacked Congress over the last several years. Where were the pro-gun bills during this time? I'm pretty upset that some pro-gun Federal laws weren't passed during what should have been a great and opportune time.

+1

Shows how much a lot of the Republicans really care about the 2A, they will only take action to stop rights from being eroded further, but do nothing to RESTORE rights that should not have been taken away :banghead:

And that was with a very stacked Congress. We went almost a whole term with the majority, and what do we have to show for it?

 

[LAR-15]

Umm the Republicans had a SLIM majority in the Senate.

The DC Personal Protection Act PASSED THE US HOUSE IN 2004.



Yeesh some people should get a clue.

 

[LAR-15]

This bill goes farther than Parker.

 

[Pepper46]

DC?

I think this is band aid attempt to get around the Supreme Court hearing Parker.
Hold off until this comes before the Court.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

And that was with a very stacked Congress. We went almost a whole term with the majority, and what do we have to show for it?

Uh... very stacked? The Democrats controlled the Senate (remember Jumpin' Jim Jeffords) from 2000-2002, so no pro-gun legislation could be passed. From 2002-2004, the Republicans had a single vote majority in the Senate and control of the House. We passed several good gun bills in the House; but most of them died in the Senate because "control" of the Senate with a single vote is about the same amount of control as driving a car with your knees.

From 2004-2006, we finally had 55 republicans in the Senate and controlled the House. During that time they passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act and a few other smaller gun bills, which isn't too bad since you have to go back to 1994 to find a Congressional session where more than one gun bill was passed in a single session.

By 2006, we threw the bums out and nothing is going to get passed now.

I'd really encourage everyone who thinks that once their team gets control of the House and Senate they can do whatever they want to examine the legislative process more closely... or here is a better demonstration - get a majority 535 of your closest friends who all share your basic values to agree on something that affects all of their lives. I think you might find it fairly challenging, and the people in Congress do not share basic values with each other.

 

[HonorsDaddy]

Question:

Even if this legislation were put in place, does not the original issue still apply in the court? After all, people were certainly convicted of violations of that unconstitutional piece of legislation. Should not their illegal convictions be expunged and their names cleared?

Just because Congress changes the law after the fact does not let the government off the hook. What the USSC should be reviewing is the case as it stood AT THE TIME, not as it is today.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Bart

. . . because "control" of the Senate with a single vote is about the same amount of control as driving a car with your knees.

Dammit, Bart, this isn't supposed to be a funny thread, and you've got me spitting on my monitor!

I just have this wrong picture of the Senate swerving back and forth while some guy at the wheel shouts, "point of order, Mr Chairman!"

I could have gone all day without imagining that.

 

[Outlaw Man]

This bill goes farther than Parker.

I agree. They need to hold off and let Parker get sorted out, but this bill still needs to be passed. There are several items that Parker won't take care of as carefully worded as the DC court's ruling was and as you can be sure the SC's ruling will be.

 

[gopguy]

Macpherson said

+1

Shows how much a lot of the Republicans really care about the 2A, they will only take action to stop rights from being eroded further, but do nothing to RESTORE rights that should not have been taken away

And that was with a very stacked Congress. We went almost a whole term with the majority, and what do we have to show for it?

The problem is in the Senate if you don't have 60 votes to over ride a fillibuster you are SOL. The Republicans never had the votes to get past a fillibuster that would have surely been staged by the Schumer, Kennedy,Biden etc...cabal.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

gopguy

It isn't so much needing 60 Republicans in the Senate(though that would help). It's more having 60 Conservatives in the Senate.

Woody

 

[Len S]

I feel it is a given this bill is a atempt to block Parker from the SCOUS. What is not a given is what will happen if this case does reach the SCOUS. From what I have read it will be a little harder for the judges to tap dance around this one. Are we ready for what can happen. If we win this one I do not think the likes of Daley or Bloomberg will give up and have the city councils remove the laws. On a state level I can see even less happening in various locals. IL,CA, NY, MA, ands NJ. We will have to fight each one in turn. However if we lose this one I can see a sudden rash of, here are the new rules, turn in your guns. Whether the gun grabs get overturned or not at a later date is unimportant. Has any NOLA resident gotten their firearms back. In Il they would have a furnace going 24-7 and if it got ooverturned later they would say so sorry we destroyed it here is 50.00. Maybe the NRA is not all worng about this. We are ready to win but what about if we lose?

Len

 

[alan]

Re the word picture drawn by Len S, that furnace going hot and heavy, I suspect that a more likely event would be the following.

Some junk would end up being melted. As for quality pieces, I suspect that the following question would be all to appropriate. Whose gun safe or collection did these pieces end up residing in, lawfully owned property having been stolen under cover of law, from the legal owners?

 

[kludge]

SENATE VERSION OF
D.C. PERSONAL PROTECTION ACT INTRODUCED!


This week, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) introduced S. 1001, the Senate version of the "District of Columbia Personal Protection Act," with 41 original cosponsors! Like its House counterpart --H.R. 1399, introduced on March 8, by U.S. Representatives Mike Ross (D-Ark.) and Mark Souder (R-Ind.)-- the Senate legislation seeks to restore the constitutionally-guaranteed Second Amendment rights of the residents of the District of Columbia by repealing the District's onerous gun ban.

Just got this e-mail from the NRA.

PLEASE EVERYONE WRITE THE NRA and tell them to WAIT!!!

PARKER is just too important!

 

[gopguy]

Woodci wrote

It isn't so much needing 60 Republicans in the Senate(though that would help). It's more having 60 Conservatives in the Senate.

I did not say 60 Republicans I said 60 votes.

The problem is in the Senate if you don't have 60 votes to over ride a fillibuster you are SOL. The Republicans never had the votes to get past a fillibuster that would have surely been staged by the Schumer, Kennedy,Biden etc...cabal.

That was the case. Not all Republicans are pro gun. DeWine, Snowe,Chaffee, McCain, Collins, Hagel were all Republicans you could count on voting anti gun most of the time...

 

[camacho]

We are ready to win but what about if we lose?

The odd thing is there is a lot of excitement about Parker reaching the Supremes but no one envisions defeat. Unless you guys know something the rest of do not know about SCOTUS, I would not be so sure of victory. It can go either way. However, if it goes the way of collective rights, the damage will be devastating. As I wrote in another post, it is like a Russian roulette and it seems like a lot of folks here are willing to play it. I do not know if it is wise!

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

gopguy

I got that. Those sixty votes need to be conservative, though, wouldn't you agree? With all the RINO's around, some votes will have to come from the conservative Democrats. That's all I'm saying, and I'm not flaming you at all. I happen to agree. I just put a little gild on the lily.

Woody