Senate votes for DC to get vote and Guns? (Duplicate threads merged)

[Grassman]

U.S. Senate Votes to Uphold
Second Amendment in Washington, D.C.

Thursday, February 26, 2009
Fairfax, Va. -

The United States Senate has voted, with overwhelming bipartisan support, to adopt an amendment offered by Senator John Ensign (R-NV) that seeks to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens in the District of Columbia. The amendment, attached to S.160, the D.C. Voting Rights Act, will repeal restrictive gun control laws passed by the District of Columbia's (D.C.) city council after the landmark D.C. v. Heller Supreme Court decision. The vote margin was 62-36.

"Today's vote brings us one step closer to restoring the Second Amendment freedom of law-abiding D.C. residents," said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. "It's ludicrous that good people in our nation's capital continue to be harassed as they try to defend themselves and their loved ones in their own homes. This vote reinforces the historic Heller ruling."

After the Heller ruling, the D.C. city council passed a law requiring would-be gun owners to pay a registration fee, pass a 20-question multiple choice test, take a five-hour training course, undergo an invasive background check every six years, re-register any firearm every three years, and finally, submit all handguns for ballistics testing. Current D.C. law also bans an overwhelming majority of firearms commonly used for self-defense. This Ensign Amendment would also remedy that unjust practice.

"NRA would like to thank the lead sponsor, Sen. John Ensign for his efforts to reform D.C.'s gun laws and enable folks to protect their property and their loved ones," concluded Cox. "It's time for leaders in Washington to wake up to the fact that the Supreme Court decision is now the law of the land."

 

[cavman]

Senate votes for DC to get vote and Guns?

Just a single line about the gun amendment added in. It provides no further information.



http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/26/senate-votes-give-dc-full-house-vote/



Senate votes to give D.C. full House vote
Timothy Warren (Contact)
Thursday, February 26, 2009

Buzz up!

The Senate voted in favor Thursday afternoon of giving the District a full House vote, but not before attaching an amendment that could doom the legislation.

The vote was 61-37.

The amendment by Sen. John Ensign, Nevada Republican, would further expand gun ownership in the District.

"Our opponents thought that they would either defeat our bill or diminish our victory by adding this gun bill amendment," said Ilir Zherka of the advocacy group DC Vote. "They didn't. We passed a significant hurdle in our fight for full democracy for D.C. residents.

"If anything, this amendment has strengthened our resolve to continue to fight for the rights of Washingtonians," Mr. Zherka said. "Congress repeatedly treats the District as a testing ground for flawed, dangerous legislation. This has to stop. And we'll keep fighting to ensure that the bill signed into law is not tainted by this amendment."

A flurry of amendments were presented but failed, including one by Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, that would have ceded most of District to Maryland. The vote failed 67-30.

The legislation now on Capitol Hill would give the Democrat-dominated District a full House vote and Republican-leaning Utah a fourth House member. The House passed similar legislation last year and is now review its version. The vote could come as early as next week.

Mr. Kyl said the amendment was to give D.C. residents a vote in both houses. He said the current bill is unconstitutional. If the legislation passes and is signed by President Obama, Democrat, as he has indicated he would, the issue would likely go to court and be decided by the Supreme Court.

The Senate also defeated an amendment that would have allowed D.C. residents to not pay federal income taxes and a motion Tuesday by Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, challenging the bill's constitutionality.

Sen. Jon Kyl (Getty Images)
[Get Copyright Permissions] Click here for reprint permissions!
Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC

 

[cavman]

more from the Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...2601678.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009022503961



Senate Passes Bill Giving the District a House Vote
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, left, and D.C. delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, championed the D.C. voting rights bill.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, left, and D.C. delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, championed the D.C. voting rights bill. (Jacquelyn Martin - AP)



By Mary Beth Sheridan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 26, 2009; 4:53 PM

The Senate today passed a bill that for the first time would give the District a full voting member of the House of Representatives. But senators managed to attach an amendment that would scrap most of the District's local gun-control laws.
This Story

The 61-37 vote marked the first time in 31 years that the Senate had approved a D.C. voting-rights bill. The addition of the gun language could complicate the bill's passage into law, however, since it will be necessary to reconcile the Senate version of the legislation with the companion bill in the House. Voting-rights supporters hope the gun amendment can be removed in those negotiations.

The House is expected to approve the D.C. vote bill next week, and President Obama has indicated he will sign it into law.

"We are coming to a pivotal moment in a march that has gone on for years and years," said Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), the co-sponsor of the D.C. vote legislation, in a brief speech before the vote.

The Senate's Republican leader, Mitch McConnell (Ky.) said the bill violated the constitutional provision that House representatives should be chosen by the "people of the several states." The District is not a state, he noted.

"The Constitution is short because its authors wanted it to be clear," McConnell said. He added: "it could not have been more so" on the issue of House representation.

The D.C. vote bill would expand the House permanently by two seats. One would go to the strongly Democratic District, while the other would go to the next state in line to pick up a seat based on population count. For two years, that seat would be Republican-leaning Utah. It would then pass to whichever state qualified based on Census results.

Similar legislation died in the Senate two years ago after passing the House. But it benefited this time from the Democrats' pickup of at least seven seats in the last elections.

If it becomes law, the bill will expand the House for the first time since 1913. But it is likely to face a legal challenge that could go all the way to the Supreme Court.
ad_icon

The gun amendment is similar to a sweeping measure approved by the House last year that was fiercely opposed by the D.C. government. It would limit the District's authority to restrict firearms, repeal the D.C. semiautomatic gun ban and remove gun-registration requirements. It drew bipartisan support. Among those supporting the amendment were Virginia's Democratic senators, Mark Warner and Jim Webb.

Opponents denounced it on the Senate floor.

"It's reckless, it's irresponsible, it will lead to more violence," charged Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). She said that approval of the amendment would be "the first step to removing all common-sense gun regulation all over this land."

The sponsor of the amendment, Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) said his goal was "to remove the tremendous barriers and burdens on law-abiding citizens" in the city who were seeking to "protect themselves in their own homes."
This Story



He pointed to a large chart showing the D.C. murder rate over the years. "We want the law-abiding citizens to have the arms--not just the criminals," he said. Ensign charged that the D.C. government hadn't gone far enough in reforming its gun laws since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the city's handgun ban last year.

D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) and D.C. Council members disagreed, and furiously protested the firearms amendment.

"The District of Columbia leadership is fully united in its opposition to unwarranted amendments that would dramatically damage the District's carefully revised gun law and expose the District to great harm through the undoing of its laws," D.C. Council President Vincent C. Gray and Council Member Phil Mendelson, chairman of the council's public-safety commission, said in a letter to Congress released yesterday.

The voting-rights bill was the first such measure to pass the Senate since 1978, when Congress approved a constitutional amendment that would have given the District a House representative and two senators. That amendment died eight years later after failing to win enough support from the states.

Staff writer Hamil Harris contributed to this report

 

[winston smith]

It would be great if the law was brought to the SCOTUS and the voting part was struck down as unconstitutional- and the gun rights part was kept in effect.

This MAY be the text of the bill, any further clarification would be appreciated:


SEC. X01. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Second Amendment Enforcement Act''.

SEC. X02. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(2) As the Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States have recognized, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.

(3) The law-abiding citizens of the District of Columbia are deprived by local laws of handguns, rifles, and shotguns that are commonly kept by law-abiding persons throughout the United States for sporting use and for lawful defense of their persons, homes, businesses, and families.

(4) The District of Columbia has the highest per capita murder rate in the Nation, which may be attributed in part to local laws prohibiting possession of firearms by law-abiding persons who would otherwise be able to defend themselves and their loved ones in their own homes and businesses.

(5) The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended by the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986, and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, provide comprehensive Federal regulations applicable in the District of Columbia as elsewhere. In addition, existing District of Columbia criminal laws punish possession and illegal use of firearms by violent criminals and felons. Consequently, there is no need for local laws which only affect and disarm law-abiding citizens.

(6) Officials of the District of Columbia have indicated their intention to continue to unduly restrict lawful firearm possession and use by citizens of the District.

(7) Legislation is required to correct the District of Columbia's law in order to restore the fundamental rights of its citizens under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and thereby enhance public safety.

SEC. X03. REFORM D.C. COUNCIL'S AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT FIREARMS.

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. 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, 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. Nothing in the previous two sentences shall be construed to prohibit the District of Columbia from regulating or prohibiting the carrying of firearms by a person, either concealed or openly, other than at the person's dwelling place, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person.''.

SEC. X04. REPEAL D.C. SEMIAUTOMATIC BAN.

(a) In General.--Section 101(10) of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2501.01(10), D.C. Official Code) is amended to read as follows:

``(10) `Machine gun' means any firearm which shoots, is designed to shoot, or may be readily restored to shoot automatically, more than 1 shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger, and includes the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any combination of parts from which a machine gun

[Page: S2491] GPO's PDFcan be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment to Provisions Setting Forth Criminal Penalties.--Section 1(c) of the Act of July 8, 1932 (47 Stat. 651; sec. 22--4501(c), D.C. Official Code) is amended to read as follows:

``(c) `Machine gun', as used in this Act, has the meaning given such term in section 101(10) of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975.''.

SEC. X05. REPEAL REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT.

(a) Repeal of Requirement.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--Section 201(a) of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2502.01(a), D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking ``any firearm, unless'' and all that follows through paragraph (3) and inserting the following: ``any firearm described in subsection (c).''.

(2) DESCRIPTION OF FIREARMS REMAINING ILLEGAL.--Section 201 of such Act (sec. 7-2502.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

``(c) A firearm described in this subsection is any of the following:

``(1) A sawed-off shotgun.

``(2) A machine gun.

``(3) A short-barreled rifle.''.

(3) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.--The heading of section 201 of such Act (sec. 7-2502.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking ``Registration requirements'' and inserting ``Firearm Possession''.

(b) Conforming Amendments to Firearms Control Regulations Act.--The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 is amended as follows:

(1) Sections 202 through 211 (secs. 7-2502.02 through 7-2502.11, D.C. Official Code) are repealed.

(2) Section 101 (sec. 7-2501.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking paragraph (13).

(3) Section 401 (sec. 7-2504.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended--

(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``the District;'' and all that follows and inserting the following: ``the District, except that a person may engage in hand loading, reloading, or custom loading of ammunition for firearms lawfully possessed under this Act.''; and

(B) in subsection (b), by striking ``which are unregisterable under section 202'' and inserting ``which are prohibited under section 201''.

(4) Section 402 (sec. 7-2504.02, D.C. Official Code) is amended--

(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``Any person eligible to register a firearm'' and all that follows through ``such business,'' and inserting the following: ``Any person not otherwise prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal or District law, or from being licensed under section 923 of title 18, United States Code,''; and

(B) in subsection (b), by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:

``(1) The applicant's name;''.

(5) Section 403(b) (sec. 7-2504.03(b), D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking ``registration certificate'' and inserting ``dealer's license''.

(6) Section 404(a)(3) (sec. 7-2504.04(a)(3)), D.C. Official Code) is amended--

(A) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ``registration certificate number (if any) of the firearm,'';

(B) in subparagraph (B)(iv), by striking ``holding the registration certificate'' and inserting ``from whom it was received for repair'';

(C) in subparagraph (C)(i), by striking ``and registration certificate number (if any) of the firearm'';

(D) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by striking ``registration certificate number or''; and

(E) by striking subparagraphs (D) and (E).

(7) Section 406(c) (sec. 7-2504.06(c), D.C. Official Code) is amended to read as follows:

``(c) Within 45 days of a decision becoming effective which is unfavorable to a licensee or to an applicant for a dealer's license, the licensee or application shall--

``(1) lawfully remove from the District all destructive devices in his inventory, or peaceably surrender to the Chief all destructive devices in his inventory in the manner provided in section 705; and

``(2) lawfully dispose, to himself or to another, any firearms and ammunition in his inventory.''.

(8) Section 407(b) (sec. 7-2504.07(b), D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking ``would not be eligible'' and all that follows and inserting ``is prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal or District law.''.

(9) Section 502 (sec. 7-2505.02, D.C. Official Code) is amended--

(A) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:

``(a) Any person or organization not prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal or District law may sell or otherwise transfer ammunition or any firearm, except those which are prohibited under section 201, to a licensed dealer.'';

(B) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:

``(c) Any licensed dealer may sell or otherwise transfer a firearm to any person or organization not otherwise prohibited from possessing or receiving such firearm under Federal or District law.'';

(C) in subsection (d), by striking paragraphs (2) and (3); and

(D) by striking subsection (e).

(10) Section 704 (sec. 7-2507.04, D.C. Official Code) is amended--

(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``any registration certificate or'' and inserting ``a''; and

(B) in subsection (b), by striking ``registration certificate,''.

(c) Other Conforming Amendments.--Section 2(4) of the Illegal Firearm Sale and Distribution Strict Liability Act of 1992 (sec. 7-2531.01(4), D.C. Official Code) is amended--

(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or ignoring proof of the purchaser's residence in the District of Columbia''; and

(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``registration and''.

SEC. X06. REPEAL HANDGUN AMMUNITION BAN.

Section 601(3) of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2506.01(3), D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking ``is the holder of the valid registration certificate for'' and inserting ``owns''.

SEC. X07. RESTORE RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE IN THE HOME.

Section 702 of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2507.02, D.C. Official Code) is repealed.

SEC. X08. REMOVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR POSSESSION OF UNREGISTERED FIREARMS.

(a) In General.--Section 706 of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2507.06, D.C. Official Code) is amended--

(1) by striking ``that:'' and all that follows through ``(1) A'' and inserting ``that a''; and

(2) by striking paragraph (2).

(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to violations occurring after the 60-day period which begins on the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. X09. REMOVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR CARRYING A FIREARM IN ONE'S DWELLING OR OTHER PREMISES.

(a) In General.--Section 4(a) of the Act of July 8, 1932 (47 Stat. 651; sec. 22-4504(a), D.C. Official Code) is amended--

(1) in the matter before paragraph (1), by striking ``a pistol,'' and inserting the following: ``except in his dwelling house or place of business or on other land possessed by that person, whether loaded or unloaded, a firearm,''; and

(2) by striking ``except that:'' and all that follows through ``(2) If the violation'' and inserting ``except that if the violation''.

(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 5 of such Act (47 Stat. 651; sec. 22-4505, D.C. Official Code) is amended--

(1) by striking ``pistol'' each place it appears and inserting ``firearm''; and

(2) by striking ``pistols'' each place it appears and inserting ``firearms''.

SEC. X10. AUTHORIZING PURCHASES OF FIREARMS BY DISTRICT RESIDENTS.

Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended in paragraph (b)(3) by inserting after ``other than a State in which the licensee's place of business is located'' the following: ``, or to the sale or delivery of a handgun to a resident of the District of Columbia by a licensee whose place of business is located in Maryland or Virginia,''.

SEC. X11. REPEALS OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ACTS.

The Firearms Registration Amendment Act of 2008 and the Firearms Registration Emergency Amendment Act of 2008, as passed by the District of Columbia, are repealed.

SEC. X12. SEVERABILITY.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this title and amendments made by this title, and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

 

[shdwfx]

To Mayor Fenty: eat crow.

 

[ServiceSoon]

What does crow taste like?

 

[Radagast]

Crows eat carrion and road kill, so I would think crow tastes pretty fowl.

 

[Gamera]

"It's reckless, it's irresponsible, it will lead to more violence," charged Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). She said that approval of the amendment would be "the first step to removing all common-sense gun regulation all over this land."

 

[CapnMac]

"It's reckless, it's irresponsible, it will lead to more violence," charged Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). She said that approval of the amendment would be "the first step to removing all common-sense gun regulation all over this land."

Well, that sounds like reason enough to be "for" if DiFi is "agin" <g>

 

[seale]

charged Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). She said that approval of the amendment would be "the first step to removing all common-sense gun regulation all over this land."

We can only hope, you witch.

 

[Kim]

Crow tastes like Dove. And yes it is unconstitutional. The voting part is unless it is a liberal reading the Constitution. If they had the guts to do it right ( I am not aganist the voting rights just the unconstitutinal way they are going about it) they would ammend the Constitution.

 

[gc70]

Firearm Provision Blows Up D.C. Voting Rights Bill

For the second time in as many weeks, the House has had to postpone action on a major bill important to Democratic leaders.

The House Democratic leadership Tuesday decided to delay a plan to grant a seat in the House to the District of Columbia. Since it is not a state, Washington, D.C., does not get a vote in Congress.

The Senate approved a similar bill to give the District voting representation. And approval in the House seemed all but assured. But an amendment attached to the Senate version of the legislation by Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., created problems in the House.

Ensign's amendment would give Washington residents better access to firearms. The Supreme Court last year ruled that the District's 32-year-old ban on firearms was unconstitutional.

Passing the District of Columbia legislation was supposed to be easy in the House compared to the Senate. But the National Rifle Association signaled it could make a procedural vote on the issue a test case for lawmakers' Second Amendment voting records.

Nearly every piece of legislation that comes to the House floor must receive what's called a "rule." The rule establishes the guidelines for how lawmakers will handle the measure on the floor. Everything from time allotments to amendments are contained in the rule.

However, the Democratic leadership faced a potential revolt from moderate and conservative Democrats on the vote to approve the rule if the leadership failed to include Ensign's firearms provision.

The House cannot debate a bill if the procedural vote on the rule fails.

So this conundrum forced the Democrats to punt on representation for the District of Columbia for now.

This episode mirrors a scenario two years ago when Republicans forced Democrats to yank a similar bill for Washington, D.C. off the floor when they attempted to make pro-Second Amendment lawmakers to either vote for the legislation or against gun rights.

Last week House Democrats had to postpone a vote on a bill designed to ease the nation's housing crisis. Democrats intended to approve a plan that would grant bankruptcy judges the right to lower mortgage rates and interest payments for struggling homeowners. Concerns about whether there were enough Democrats to support the plan made the leadership delay a vote on that plan until later this week.

It appears that some Democrats are concerned about their Second Amendment voting records.

 

[Igloodude]

And this:

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/nra-forces-pelosi-retreat-2009-03-03.html

NRA forces Pelosi retreat
By Mike Soraghan
Posted: 03/03/09 08:18 PM [ET]

Democrats may be running the House, but the National Rifle Association (NRA) can still stop a bill in its tracks.

House Democratic leaders on Tuesday pulled legislation from the floor that seemingly had nothing to do with guns because the NRA disliked it.

The bill in question would give the District of Columbia a voting member of Congress. The gun-rights lobby prefers a Senate version, which includes language amending the District’s gun policies, and some suggest the NRA could make life difficult for conservative Democrats if that language is not included in the House version.

There was no official call to arms, nothing on the NRA website, no alerts floating around. Just speculation among Democrats and Republicans that the NRA would make a procedural vote on legislation that would give the District of Columbia a voting member of Congress a “test vote.”

That means that if centrist Democrats voted with their leadership, they could lose their prized “A-ratings” from the NRA, which many consider essential to keeping their jobs in rural, Southern and Western districts.
So the D.C. Voting Rights Act was pulled from consideration for Wednesday. Aides stressed that negotiations are continuing and it could be brought back soon.

The reluctance to bring the vote to the floor highlights the continuing clout of the NRA, as well as the difficulty faced by Democrats, whose majority comes from an increasing number of members elected in Republican districts.

Still, the NRA has aroused the ire of some gun-rights Democrats by appearing to tell House leaders that an amendment has to be considered. Some Blue Dogs say that amounts to telling the House how to run its business.

“The D.C. vote bill needs to pass,” said Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.), a Blue Dog gun-rights supporter who sits on the House Rules Committee. “I would have concerns about any group who would tell us how to run our House.”

The NRA’s clout was evident last week when the amendment — removing D.C.’s ban on semiautomatic weapons, its registration requirement and trigger-lock rule — was adopted by the Senate, 62-36.

Also, Democratic leaders like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) were quick to shoot down the administration’s trial balloon on bringing back the assault-weapons ban.

Supporters of the District’s voting-rights legislation predicted that a similar amendment could be kept off the House bill. As long as it were in only one version, Democratic leaders could strip it out in conference. Conference reports can’t be amended, just voted up or down, so the conference report would pass without the gun bill.

But that got complicated when word spread in the House that the NRA would “score” the procedural vote (called a “rule”) used to bring up the Voting Rights Act if it didn’t allow for a vote on the gun language. That means that voting to bring the bill to the floor would be considered a vote against gun rights.

NRA officials wouldn’t comment on whether they were scoring the bill. But Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.), also a Blue Dog gun-rights supporter, said he’d “heard it mentioned they might do that. Anytime you do that, it makes it tougher.”

D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), the House’s most passionate supporter of District voting rights, said there was no doubt in her mind why the bill was being pulled.

“Members are reacting in knee-jerk fashion to the NRA,” Norton said. “This is Democratic members doing something to kill a basic civil rights bill.”

Democratic leaders, led by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), were put in a bind. If they allow the gun language on the bill, they would not only give the NRA a victory, they might lose the bill. Since many Republicans would vote against voting rights for the District even with gun language in the legislation, the leaders might lose enough Democrats that the whole bill would be defeated.

“If the rule passes, we might not be able to pass the bill,” Hoyer said.

He added that since Congress has given D.C. home rule, it should not be dictating its gun laws.

“That’s for them to do,” Hoyer said of D.C. officials. “On principle, this is not appropriate.”

But there are clearly Democrats who want to change D.C.’s gun policies, considered the strictest in the nation before the Supreme Court last year tossed out the city’s handgun ban.

“They want to be like the rest of America. One of the things Americans do is pay attention to Supreme Court rulings,” said Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.), a member of the House Second Amendment Task Force.

Republicans protested pulling the voting-rights legislation, saying it shows the length that Democrats will go to in order to prevent gun legislation from passing.

“By maneuvering to deny Second Amendment rights to residents of our nation’s capital, Democratic leaders have made it clear that ‘regular order’ and the will of the American people will be respected only when it serves their interests,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio).

Democrats fought similar battles in the last Congress. The D.C. gun vote was pulled in the House when Republicans tried to send the bill back to committee to add the gun language. Then the NRA and Republicans tried an election-year squeeze on Blue Dogs to get the D.C. gun language to the floor using a discharge petition. But Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) and Blue Dog leaders negotiated a compromise.

I just re-upped my NRA subscription.

 

[Master Blaster]

So the D.C. Voting Rights Act was pulled from consideration for Wednesday. Aides stressed that negotiations are continuing and it could be brought back soon.

The reluctance to bring the vote to the floor highlights the continuing clout of the NRA, as well as the difficulty faced by Democrats, whose majority comes from an increasing number of members elected in Republican districts.
Still, the NRA has aroused the ire of some gun-rights Democrats by appearing to tell House leaders that an amendment has to be considered. Some Blue Dogs say that amounts to telling the House how to run its business.

“The D.C. vote bill needs to pass,” said Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.), a Blue Dog gun-rights supporter who sits on the House Rules Committee. “I would have concerns about any group who would tell us how to run our House.”

Yes its very annoying when voters who are members of the NRA want their views represented in congress.
SUCKS to have to answer to those silly voters.