PDA

View Full Version : H.R. 1022 Now Has 47 Co-sponsors


Incitatus
05-09-2007, 3:30 PM
The new, improved and permanent AWB has 47 Co-idiots...err..sponsors.

COSPONSORS(47)

Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 4/16/2007 Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5] - 3/7/2007
Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-28] - 3/13/2007 Rep Blumenauer, Earl [OR-3] - 5/8/2007
Rep Capps, Lois [CA-23] - 3/9/2007 Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 3/9/2007
Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-7] - 3/7/2007 Rep DeGette, Diana [CO-1] - 3/13/2007
Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10] - 3/13/2007 Rep Emanuel, Rahm [IL-5] - 4/26/2007
Rep Eshoo, Anna G. [CA-14] - 3/9/2007 Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] - 4/16/2007
Rep Fattah, Chaka [PA-2] - 3/7/2007 Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 3/7/2007
Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] - 3/7/2007 Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 3/9/2007
Rep Harman, Jane [CA-36] - 4/19/2007 Rep Hirono, Mazie K. [HI-2] - 3/13/2007
Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] - 4/19/2007 Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 3/7/2007
Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. [RI-1] - 3/22/2007 Rep Langevin, James R. [RI-2] - 5/3/2007
Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] - 3/15/2007 Rep Lowey, Nita M. [NY-18] - 3/15/2007
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] - 3/7/2007 Rep Markey, Edward J. [MA-7] - 3/13/2007
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] - 3/13/2007 Rep Meehan, Martin T. [MA-5] - 3/7/2007
Rep Miller, Brad [NC-13] - 3/9/2007 Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 3/7/2007
Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] - 5/8/2007 Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC] - 5/8/2007
Rep Olver, John W. [MA-1] - 5/3/2007 Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [NJ-8] - 3/13/2007
Rep Pastor, Ed [AZ-4] - 3/22/2007 Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 3/7/2007
Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29] - 3/7/2007 Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27] - 3/15/2007
Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [NY-28] - 3/13/2007 Rep Tauscher, Ellen O. [CA-10] - 3/15/2007
Rep Van Hollen, Chris [MD-8] - 3/7/2007 Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [FL-20] - 3/22/2007
Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33] - 4/26/2007 Rep Watt, Melvin L. [NC-12] - 5/8/2007
Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30] - 4/16/2007 Rep Wexler, Robert [FL-19] - 3/9/2007
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 4/26/2007

Gee...every single one of them...what do they have in common?
Please don't tell me...I know! They're Jehova Witnesses!

http://glocktalk.com/images/smilies/anim_rofl2.gif

xenophobe
05-09-2007, 3:35 PM
So what?

DC Circuit denied en banc hearing of Parker. HR 1022 is irrelevant now.

Creeping Incrementalism
05-09-2007, 3:38 PM
I used to almost--almost--believe the Libertarian line that there's no real difference between Democrats and Republicans. After following the gun issue in California for a number of years, I've certainly learned the difference. With HR 1022, I'll be flabbergasted at the next Libertarian who says their old line about there being no difference.

DC Circuit denied en banc hearing of Parker. HR 1022 is irrelevant now. Not if the Supremes end up dismissing Parker, or not if it is ruled that only total, DC-style bans are unconstitutional.

xenophobe
05-09-2007, 3:46 PM
Not if the Supremes end up dismissing Parker, or not if it is ruled that only total, DC-style bans are unconstitutional.

Well I'm talking about right now. And there are four options. DC not pushing for SCOTUS review. SCOTUS refusing the case. SCOTUS taking the case and ruling in favor. SCOTUS ruling against.

Only the last of those options is bad. The other three means we've won.

Without Parker, Miller was mostly harmless. Now, Parker ruled that a ban was unconstitutional. Miller ruled that military-style firearms are protected. You do the math.

And as for what I stated in my last post is absolutely the truth right now.

hoffmang
05-09-2007, 3:48 PM
Creep,

The only what if is what if we lose 5-4 against. Any win that makes the 2A and individual right makes an AW ban a real loser as there is no level of scrutiny that an AW ban can actually pass if subject to scrutiny at all.

Silviera lost because there was no scrutiny applied at all.

-Gene

SemiAutoSam
05-09-2007, 3:49 PM
Gene

IYHO will this help to kill Roberti Roos, Kasler , SB23 ?

xenophobe
05-09-2007, 3:51 PM
Sam, no. Not directly. Indirectly yes. Somewhat more directly if SCOTUS agrees with the Parker reversal.


The only what if is what if we lose 5-4 against. Any win that makes the 2A and individual right makes an AW ban a real loser as there is no level of scrutiny that an AW ban can actually pass if subject to scrutiny at all.


Exactly. If HR1022 passed before Parker, an injunction and suit on the grounds that it violated the 2nd Amendment was impossible. Now it is a reality.

bwiese
05-09-2007, 5:10 PM
Gene

IYHO will this help to kill Roberti Roos, Kasler , SB23 ?

I wouldn't be surprised if RR/SB23 fell apart on its own :) faster than Parker comes to the rescue.

It's certainly had great assitance lately from our friends!

xenophobe
05-09-2007, 6:20 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if RR/SB23 fell apart on its own :) faster than Parker comes to the rescue.

Yeah. Parker is just kind of the icing on the cake with significant long-term benefits. Short term? CA DOJ is destroying RR/SB23 well enough on it's own.

6172crew
05-09-2007, 6:32 PM
One option left out is the antis waiting until the courts look better before pushing the issue, 2 years ago I think the NRA was dead set against sending anything to the SCOTUS (remember the guy who had a handicap of some sort who went up against Lockbeer).

Now things are looking better for all of us but once an anti always an anti, these guys will sit back and wait for the next loon to mow down some kids and then make a move. Even cases like roe vs. wade are being looked at again even though its been to court.

Im not trying to sound down becuase Im not but if I was them Id hold off until things look better for them in the SCOTUS...but I hope they dont Im willing to roll the dice at this point and we have a strong case against them.

Heres to Parker!:D

Solidmch
05-09-2007, 9:43 PM
The new, improved and permanent AWB has 47 Co-idiots...err..sponsors.

COSPONSORS(47)

Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 4/16/2007 Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5] - 3/7/2007
Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-28] - 3/13/2007 Rep Blumenauer, Earl [OR-3] - 5/8/2007
Rep Capps, Lois [CA-23] - 3/9/2007 Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 3/9/2007
Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-7] - 3/7/2007 Rep DeGette, Diana [CO-1] - 3/13/2007
Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10] - 3/13/2007 Rep Emanuel, Rahm [IL-5] - 4/26/2007
Rep Eshoo, Anna G. [CA-14] - 3/9/2007 Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] - 4/16/2007
Rep Fattah, Chaka [PA-2] - 3/7/2007 Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 3/7/2007
Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] - 3/7/2007 Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 3/9/2007
Rep Harman, Jane [CA-36] - 4/19/2007 Rep Hirono, Mazie K. [HI-2] - 3/13/2007
Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] - 4/19/2007 Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 3/7/2007
Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. [RI-1] - 3/22/2007 Rep Langevin, James R. [RI-2] - 5/3/2007
Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] - 3/15/2007 Rep Lowey, Nita M. [NY-18] - 3/15/2007
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] - 3/7/2007 Rep Markey, Edward J. [MA-7] - 3/13/2007
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] - 3/13/2007 Rep Meehan, Martin T. [MA-5] - 3/7/2007
Rep Miller, Brad [NC-13] - 3/9/2007 Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 3/7/2007
Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] - 5/8/2007 Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC] - 5/8/2007
Rep Olver, John W. [MA-1] - 5/3/2007 Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [NJ-8] - 3/13/2007
Rep Pastor, Ed [AZ-4] - 3/22/2007 Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 3/7/2007
Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29] - 3/7/2007 Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27] - 3/15/2007
Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [NY-28] - 3/13/2007 Rep Tauscher, Ellen O. [CA-10] - 3/15/2007
Rep Van Hollen, Chris [MD-8] - 3/7/2007 Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [FL-20] - 3/22/2007
Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33] - 4/26/2007 Rep Watt, Melvin L. [NC-12] - 5/8/2007
Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30] - 4/16/2007 Rep Wexler, Robert [FL-19] - 3/9/2007
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 4/26/2007

Gee...every single one of them...what do they have in common?
Please don't tell me...I know! They're Jehova Witnesses!

http://glocktalk.com/images/smilies/anim_rofl2.gif

Communist Sheep!

E Pluribus Unum
05-09-2007, 9:46 PM
Gee...every single one of them...what do they have in common?
Please don't tell me...I know! They're Jehova Witnesses!

How did you come to this information?

Diablo
05-10-2007, 6:35 AM
How did you come to this information?

Yikes!!!

Can't wait for the "reasoning" behind the answer..:D

xenophobe
05-10-2007, 1:50 PM
One option left out is the antis waiting until the courts look better before pushing the issue, 2 years ago I think the NRA was dead set against sending anything to the SCOTUS (remember the guy who had a handicap of some sort who went up against Lockbeer).

They don't have this option.

For one, this case is already at the footsteps of SCOTUS.

Second, the DC Circuit has already changed the landscape of gun control at the federal level and if they are going to fight it, it has to be now or they've lost.

Third, if they don't fight it, they will have to wait for another case to go up through to SCOTUS, which is unlikely to happen in the forseeable future.

This is a classic lose-lose situation for the antis, with their only glimmer of hope that SCOTUS overrules the Parker reversal.

Parker v. US, if heard, may very well be the last case on this issue for the next 50-100 years.

Oh, and by 'last case', I mean the last case on 'is the 2nd Amendment an individual right'. Of course there will be plenty of cases that come up challenging other aspects, states rights and restrictions, particular firearms protections, and other stuff, but the individual right question will have been answered, and it all depends on the scope of the ruling too.

hoffmang
05-10-2007, 1:54 PM
Xeno,

I expect there will be one more SCOTUS 2A case and that will be 14th Amendment incorporation. I'd pick about 2012 as my expectation that case.

There is an outside chance that SCOTUS will incorporate in Parker though. A very outside chance... but...

-Gene

xenophobe
05-10-2007, 2:00 PM
Ah yes. Well, I edited my post before I saw yours to say 'states rights and restrictions' which is the 14th Amendment incorporation argument.

Yes, I hope that SCOTUS does incorporate it, unfortunately that's leaping over the scope of the question being asked, so dicta is granted, but a ruling on incorporation will have to come at a later date.

Incitatus
05-10-2007, 2:20 PM
How did you come to this information?


If I tell you I would have to kill you.


:D
Disclosure:
This reply is an innocent joke. Don't take it seriously like you just did before with my previous post about Jehova Witesses.

Incitatus
05-10-2007, 2:26 PM
Communist Sheep!

Well, well, now...let's not start with the...name calling.
You know it's not PC to tell it like it is. It is divisive and creates a climate of mutual distrust on this board.
On one hand, we're all gun owners. On the other hand, everyone is entitled to vote for who represents his/her political ideals. Even if that means some gun owners are continuing to vote for gun grabbers who in return are pushing legislation meant to disarm us all, it's their right to do so. Who are we to judge, eh?

spgk380
05-10-2007, 3:00 PM
Communist Sheep!

They aren't the sheep: the people of California are the sheep. They are the high party officials. We're just the prols.

JesseXXX
05-10-2007, 3:06 PM
So.... if SB23 literally fell apart.... what would we be able to do to our rifles immidiately....?

xenophobe
05-10-2007, 3:18 PM
If SB-23 was ruled by the courts to be too confusing and stuck from law, you could do anything you wanted to your rifle. You could buy anything you wanted, for the most part.

Well, well, now...let's not start with the...name calling.
You know it's not PC to tell it like it is. It is divisive and creates a climate of mutual distrust on this board.
On one hand, we're all gun owners. On the other hand, everyone is entitled to vote for who represents his/her political ideals. Even if that means some gun owners are continuing to vote for gun grabbers who in return are pushing legislation meant to disarm us all, it's their right to do so. Who are we to judge, eh?

In the middle of an intelligent debate, you're responding to the guy who for the most part just said nothing more substantial than "boobies". :rolleyes:

Too freakin funny. :p

Incitatus
05-10-2007, 5:06 PM
If SB-23 was ruled by the courts to be too confusing and stuck from law, you could do anything you wanted to your rifle. You could buy anything you wanted, for the most part.



In the middle of an intelligent debate, you're responding to the guy who for the most part just said nothing more substantial than "boobies". :rolleyes:

Too freakin funny. :p


Glad to see you are aknowledging the merits of the person who started this thread and gave you the opportunity to participate in an "intelligent debate"

:D

anotherone
05-10-2007, 6:04 PM
The Democrats reaction to the VA Tech shooting (god bless the souls of those poor students) basically says all that needs to be said: the Dems know that gun control is a loser and that the pro-gun lobby is much wealthier and influential than the gun-control lobby. They want to retain power and realize that bans will ruin their chances.

So what if there's 47 fringe legislators supporting HR-1022. It's not going to happen in the current political climate. Heck, you can get fringe politicians to support anything... remember the weird liberal from NY who wanted to bring back the draft :rolleyes: !