House Bill HR3689 Would Restore 2A Rights To DC

Status
Not open for further replies.

dc dalton

Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
653
Location
NE PA
Section 4 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to prohibit the killing of wild birds and wild animals in the District of Columbia’’, approved June 30, 1906 (34 Stat. 809; sec. 23 1–303.43, D.C. Official Code), is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘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, transporting for legitimate purposes, 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.

The bill would also repeal the semi-auto ban, repeal registration requirement and authorize ammo sales, repeal the handgun ammunition ban, restore the right of self defense in the home and remove criminal penalties for possession of unregistered firearms.


http://amgoa.org/Proposed-Federal-Gun-Legislation-HB3689/Federal-Law/503
 
Last edited:
To all the naysayers, remember that the D.C. voters and politicians don't have a say in this. The federal Congress can override anything the D.C. government purports to do. If the Senate and Presidency pass into Republican hands, anything is possible.
 
This will probably pass the house, but not the senate.

It would have a better chance if it was included as an amendment to another bill, much like was done to the bill that allowed gun owners to carry in National Parks.
 
The closest Congress came to negating the D.C gun regulations was, a few years ago, when voting representation for the District in the House was being considered. In a compromise, Utah would get an extra congressional seat early (since it was expected that Utah would get another seat anyway, at the next census), plus the D.C. gun laws would revert back to the federal requirements. D.C had been complaining for years about "no taxation without representation" and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton wanted that vote really bad. But the D.C. politicos nixed the deal, proving that gun control was more important to them than having a vote in Congress. We're dealing with ideological fanatics here.
 
Would still have to be signed into law by the president, so even if it were to get past the at best lukewarm senate it'll die on Obama's desk.
 
From my limited experience, it seems most of the people in DC don't mind the governmental restrictions on their freedoms. They live in a total police state and don't even realize it. While I would like to see it happen, I don't think it would actually have any impact on most of the people there. Never seen so many sheeple in one place in my life.
 
From my limited experience, it seems most of the people in DC don't mind the governmental restrictions on their freedoms. They live in a total police state and don't even realize it. While I would like to see it happen, I don't think it would actually have any impact on most of the people there. Never seen so many sheeple in one place in my life.

What we have, as they say in the insurance industry, is an "adverse selection" process. People who are remotely interested in guns don't locate in the District (or in the Maryland suburbs either). They live in the Virginia suburbs instead. This was true 40 years ago, when I first moved to the area. The ideologies, in the respective areas, become self-reinforcing. Unfortunately now the spillover effect is being felt in Northern Virginia too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top