If You Pass This Bill, More Presidents Will Die

[lioneaglegriffin]

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/128765.html

ah just read the bloody thing.:cool:

[M. Sage]

Congress is considering a bill that would remove several burdensome restrictions on gun possession that the District of Columbia retained even after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that its handgun ban and firearm storage requirements violated the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment Enforcement Act, introduced by Rep. Travis Childers (D-Miss.) and supported by dozens of Democrats in the House, would repeal D.C.'s onerous gun registration rules, lift the requirement that guns be kept unloaded and locked except in the face of an "immediate" threat, and narrow the legal definition of prohibited "machine guns" so that it no longer covers magazine-loaded semiautomatics, the most popular self-defense weapons.

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) argues that the bill would allow people to carry "loaded AK-47s or .50-caliber sniper assault weapons openly in cars or in person," which would pose a "palpable risk...to the public safety of our residents" and create a challenge for "federal law enforcement and security officials in this city, where two presidents have been killed with handguns." D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier warns, "In attempted and successful assassinations around the world, the first step in attacking a motorcade is frequently to take out the security detail with semiautomatic and automatic firearms."

I'm not sure where to begin. The only provision of the bill that deals with carrying weapons applies in the gun owner's "dwelling house or place of business or on other land possessed by that person." There's nothing about carrying loaded guns in public. AK-47s and all other "automatic firearms" would remain prohibited in any case. The two assassinated presidents to whom Norton refers are Abraham Lincoln, who was killed with a single-shot derringer, and James Garfield, who was killed with a revolver. (John Hinckley also used a revolver when he tried to kill Ronald Reagan.) Both are types of weapons that would remain legal in Washington no matter what Congress does.

I assume Holmes and Lanier are not suggesting would-be assassins are deterred by laws against carrying loaded weapons. Their concern seems to be that if Childers' bill passes the streets will be filled with law-abiding citizens openly carrying loaded rifles and shotguns, making the assassins harder to identify. Leaving aside the rather important point that the bill does not change the rules for carrying guns in public, here's a good way to tell who the assassins are: They're the ones who aren't openly carrying loaded weapons.

In July I noted D.C.'s determination to continue flouting the Second Amendment.

There's the text for those interested.

[ldivinag]

best comment?
Did you know over 90% of U.S. Presidents have died?

Clearly, we need gun control.

lol...

[bdsmchs]

here's a good way to tell who the assassins are: They're the ones who aren't openly carrying loaded weapons.

Such a good quote!!

[tombinghamthegreat]

Gun control must prevent snipers from operating in DC :rolleyes:...oh wait never mind

[King$nake]

Wait - let me get this straight. A DEMOCRAT proposed this bill, and OTHER democrats support it? wtf

[jumbopanda]

Wait - let me get this straight. A DEMOCRAT proposed this bill, and OTHER democrats support it? wtf

Makes you think that the universe is ready to implode at any moment doesn't it? :TFH:

[motorhead]

i think my dog wrote that. he was a democrat until he saw hillery in a dress.

[savageevo]

I hope the NRA really looks into this bill and see if there isn't any hidden loopholes that go against the 2nd. I wonder whats happening. I guess the dems are scared in loosing control again.

[lioneaglegriffin]

I hope the NRA really looks into this bill and see if there isn't any hidden loopholes that go against the 2nd. I wonder whats happening. I guess the dems are scared in loosing control again.

read it, didn't see any obvious cracks. It actually looks better than what we have. :mad:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.6691:

[DedEye]

The level of stupidity in Eleanor Holmes Norton's comments are perhaps the most maddening part of that article.

[packnrat]

i think my dog wrote that. he was a democrat until he saw hillery in a dress.

when has she even been seen in one??

i thought she only owned pantsuits.:eek:

but then do i even want to see said:eek:


:TFH:

.

[Vic]

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) argues that the bill would allow people to carry "loaded AK-47s or .50-caliber sniper assault weapons openly in cars or in person," which would pose a "palpable risk...to the public safety of our resident


No, thats the best quote. Because we know how easy it is to lug around and carry a 50 cal rifle and an ak47

LOL.

[King$nake]

The level of stupidity in Eleanor Holmes Norton's comments are perhaps the most maddening part of that article.


I think her new name should be 'Pat'
http://www.voanews.com/english/images/Eleanor-Holmes-Norton_tv_22.jpg

[rayra]

I hope the NRA really looks into this bill and see if there isn't any hidden loopholes that go against the 2nd. I wonder whats happening. I guess the dems are scared in loosing control again.

Hell the NRA is HELPING them undercut us all. They tried to interfere in the Heller and Parker cases in the beginning, because they were afraid to take such a large risk of going to SCOTUS. Then once it's over (partially), they try to swoop in and pretend they're doing the heavy lifting. And now that Heller has DC bent over a barrel AGAIN, preparing to file HellerII to FORCE DC's compliance and further engrave favorable definitions via the SCOTUS, the NRA is ****ing around with this 'compromise' bill which will in essence obviate Heller's follow-up suit and short-circuit those likely future gains. Gains which could have been applied naturally via incorporation, just as the first Heller decision isleading to. Instead, this douchebag bill WHICH ONLY APPLIES TO DC will be passed, and we'll be left with no further national precedents just as we really had the antis on the ropes.
This bill is a MISTAKE. It's throwing away very likely large future gains in favor of a short term and narrowly-applied 'win'.

[Mulay El Raisuli]

rayra is completely correct. Screw the short term. Screw the being polite. Screw waiting months/years of 'working things out.'
Shall issue (for those that want CCW) & Open Carry (for those that don't) are what we should be fighting for. Along with the end of "Handgun Safety Certificates" to buy, etc. Anything less than that is either a hindrance to that, or at best, just a (needless?) step in that direction.
Now that The Basic Question has been answered, anything that doesn't foster those goals is just a waste of time.
The NRA is still not impressing me, which is why I still see no reason to re-join.

The Raisuli

[Rascal]

I too think that this is a Trojan horse, that would erode our chances of getting what we truly want. Beware of Democrats bearing gifts

[lioneaglegriffin]

Kestryll supports it and thats good enough for me. :chris:

[leelaw]

Wait - let me get this straight. A DEMOCRAT proposed this bill, and OTHER democrats support it? wtf

They probably think that the litigation against the DC definition of "machinegun" won't pass SCOTUS muster, and could provide standing for a fight against the 86 MG ban....


just a thought.

[Smokeybehr]

I think her new name should be 'Pat'
http://www.voanews.com/english/images/Eleanor-Holmes-Norton_tv_22.jpg

/me mumbles something about lipstick on a pig...

[Bobula]

I'm sorry but I'd be or more concerned with someone who is trained with a bolt action high power rifle then your average joe shmoe with an AK

[lioneaglegriffin]

I'm sorry but I'd be or more concerned with someone who is trained with a bolt action high power rifle then your average joe shmoe with an AK

if they knew a Remington 700 was used by snipers they would probably try to ban them too. :rolleyes:

[nick]

Wait - let me get this straight. A DEMOCRAT proposed this bill, and OTHER democrats support it? wtf

That's good, isn't it? The idea is to make 2nd Amendment less partisan and more of a civil rights issue that it is.

[nick]

if they knew a Remington 700 was used by snipers they would probably try to ban them too. :rolleyes:

Shhh, be quiet and don't give out bad ideas. The fact that these ideas may seem moronic to you doesn't mean they won't make sense to a moron. And I like my 30-06 700.

[nick]

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) argues that the bill would allow people to carry "loaded AK-47s or .50-caliber sniper assault weapons openly in cars or in person," which would pose a "palpable risk...to the public safety of our resident


No, thats the best quote. Because we know how easy it is to lug around and carry a 50 cal rifle and an ak47

LOL.

I guess, she didn't bother to read the bill, too. After all, educating oneself on the issue may endanger one's opinion.

[BlueOvalBruin]

The Dems are trying to get rid of DC's obviously weak gun laws to prevent future court challenges. I thought the NRA was opposed to this bill, am I mistaken? This is a gun control bill in sheep's clothing. Holmes is just a total retard and doesn't understand the bigger picture.

[lioneaglegriffin]

The Dems are trying to get rid of DC's obviously weak gun laws to prevent future court challenges. I thought the NRA was opposed to this bill, am I mistaken? This is a gun control bill in sheep's clothing. Holmes is just a total retard and doesn't understand the bigger picture.

THE NRA is threatening to give the dems bad Nov. 4 Grades if they don't sign off on this. So they approve, beyond approval they are twisting arms.:cool2:

[Kestryll]

Kestryll supports it and thats good enough for me. :chris:
I do?

[pdq_wizzard]

Along with the end of "Handgun Safety Certificates" to buy, etc. Anything less than that is either a hindrance to that, or at best, just a (needless?) step in that direction.

The Raisuli

So I have a question, what is so bad about the HSC? there are people out there that have no idea how to handle a gun. now the fact that you have to retake the cert every few years sucks, once you know it and have past it once you should be done for life.

[sb_pete]

That's good, isn't it? The idea is to make 2nd Amendment less partisan and more of a civil rights issue that it is.

Sounds good, but in reality its a strategic gambit, not a softening of democratic party position. DC's post Heller laws are patently ridiculous and wont pass constitutional muster. They know this. This bill should be thought of much like a "plea bargain."

The dems are hoping to not lose further down the line in court battles

The NRA is going for a win now while conditions are favorable and before Obama court nominations start coming on line.

So basically, this is just as partisan as ever.

-pete

[Glock22Fan]

So I have a question, what is so bad about the HSC? there are people out there that have no idea how to handle a gun. now the fact that you have to retake the cert every few years sucks, once you know it and have past it once you should be done for life.

Because it is another inconvenience, expense and harassment, and because the states that don't have one don't have a worse safety record than ours?

Upside - none demonstrable.
Downside - another manifestation of the "we know better than you" state.

OK, it's easy to pass (and therefore relatively useless) and not that expensive, but I know why the poster wants to get rid of it. I don't know why you have to keep retaking it either, you don't forget the safety rules and difference between a semi- and a revolver that easily.

[lioneaglegriffin]

I do?

sure you commented on the Bill on another thread.

[bdsmchs]

So I have a question, what is so bad about the HSC?

The 2A is an individual right.

Are you required to take a test, pay a fee, and get a permit before writing a book to demonstrate your 1A right?

[tombinghamthegreat]

The 2A is an individual right.

Are you required to take a test, pay a fee, and get a permit before writing a book to demonstrate your 1A right?

+1 that. But will the courts share our views?

[Mulay El Raisuli]

So I have a question, what is so bad about the HSC? there are people out there that have no idea how to handle a gun. now the fact that you have to retake the cert every few years sucks, once you know it and have past it once you should be done for life.

The answers given by bdsmchs & Glock22Fan are just what I would replied with. Actually, while Glock22Fan's comment is factual (and that always matters), bdsmchs' comment goes to the heart of my belief. I don't need govt permission to exercise any other Right, I'll be damned if I see why I should have to do so for this one.
As for people who have no idea of how to properly handle a gun, my faith in the intellect of my fellow citizen is greater than yours. I have faith that they will learn how to be safe, & that they won't carry until they have learned.

The Raisuli