Gun Bill Could Strip D.C. Of Control

[-..__...]

Source: Washington Post

Congress Weighs Repealing Ban On Semiautomatics


By Mary Beth Sheridan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 9, 2008; Page B01

Congress plans to take up a bill this week that would repeal the District's gun-registration requirements and make it easier for residents to legally buy semiautomatic weapons, raising alarm among city officials that the measure would effectively end local gun control.

Chiefs of the D.C. police, the Capitol Police, the Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies are expected to testify against the bill during a House hearing today. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) plans to introduce a substitute bill that would simply mandate that D.C.'s gun laws conform to a recent Supreme Court ruling that struck down the city's 32-year-old ban on handguns.

But the tougher legislation is likely to prevail in the House, according to congressional sources and supporters and opponents of the bill. It has won the backing of 48 Democrats, many facing reelection in strongly pro-gun areas, and is expected to pick up broad support among Republicans.

The legislation has four main goals. It would repeal the D.C. ban on semiautomatic pistols and rifles; eliminate the city's gun-registration requirements; allow District residents to purchase guns in Virginia and Maryland; and abolish the regulation that guns kept at home be unloaded and either disassembled or fitted with trigger locks.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/09/08/ST2008090802613.html?sid=ST2008090802613&s_pos=list

---

Well... it's about fucking time someone stepped in to remedy this and restore the citizens of DC second amendment rights.

And... they have the gun-grabbers to thank for it: if Fenty/DC had actually made an effort to comply with the SCOTUS ruling,this bill might not have been necessary. They threw down the gauntlet with their childish defiance... now they're about to get smacked big time upside the head with it.

[jody]

1. Obama has a chance to reinforce his pledge “If you are a law-abiding gun owner, you have nothing to

fear from an Obama administration”.

That would help distance him from his earlier position "I support the re-imposition of the ban on the sale of assault weapons that expired in September 2004 because I believe these guns are used primarily for criminal rather than sporting intent."

Of course "assault weapons" is a gun-grabber, bait and switch phrase used to ban all semiautomatic firearms.

There are 54 to 80 million gun-owners in a U.S. electorate of 200 million.

In 2004, about 120 million voted so Obama needs the votes of gun owners.

[cobalt1999]

2. That bill will save D.C. a fortune in legal fees

They need to realize their existing ban did NOTHING except cost them money. It didn't keep guns out and it didn't stop murders, all it did was cost them a bundle in legal fees.

[bread_and_roses]

3. Oh, goody! More dead people on the streets of DC! Why not just build an arena

and let the crowds watch as people are gunned down by "legal" weapons? Modern gladiators - worked for the Roman empire, why not for us? Or maybe just build bleachers along the streets. And just think - when everyone is armed we can just get rid of the expense of policing - huge savings! Lower taxes! Hurrah!

[slackmaster]

5. Relax, kenzee13, nothing is fucked here

Allowing qualified DC residents to own guns legally is not going to result in an increase in violent crime.

...And just think - when everyone is armed...

Read and learn: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. L:earn TO read -

The statement was obviously NOT a strawman argument, but a gross exaggeration extrapolated from the eliminating of restrictions, in the manner of eating babies to reduce the incidence of starving children.

I am a lot less scared by the guns the gun freaks own than by their lack of a sense of humor.

[slackmaster]

7. The "you guys want to arm everyone" argument is indeed a strawman

Nobody wants to arm everyone.

I am a lot less scared by the guns the gun freaks own than by their lack of a sense of humor.

I see no humor in accusing someone of wanting more people to die.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. As I said.

He is "accusing someone of wanting more people to die" the way Swift wanted people to eat babies.

That you have no recognition of that is an indication that he struck a nerve. LOGIC says "more guns, fewer restrictions, = more gun deaths".

But who gives a crap about logic?

[slackmaster]

11. Sometimes I need sarcasm tags in order to see sarcasm

LOGIC says "more guns, fewer restrictions, = more gun deaths".

25 years of liberalized concealed-carry laws contradict that kind of "logic".

Who needs actual numbers when you have gut feeeelings?

[krispos42]

8. Here's a helpful visual aid

[slackmaster]

4. Too bad DC's present government hasn't gotten their shit together on this

I hate seeing Congress push them around, but they have brought it on themselves.

[WarhammerTwo]

9. I oppossed guns...

until W came along. I don't like guns. I'm scared silly of them. I would never own one and I always thought that aside from hunting, there was no need for civilians to have guns.

Then George W Bush came to office.

And then he started stripping away our rights and liberties.

And then I realized why the founding fathers put the right to own guns into the constitution. It wasn't because we needed a civilian militia in our colonial days since we lacked a formal army. It was in case our government ever became too big for it's britches that we would have to revolt against it again, much like we did with Britain. If we ever got a warmongering megalomaniac in the White House that tried to change our democracy into a dictatorship, the citizenry would need to be armed to rise up against our own army to take back our government. I never thought that could ever possibly happen here in the U.S. of A. in this day and age.

Then George W Bush came to office.

Now I will never ever deny any law-abiding, mentally sound individual from owning a gun. When a government moves to disarm its citizens, it moves to ensure their submission against outrageous injustice.

I can't believe that buffoon managed to move me toward the right on this issue. But he did. I, however, will still never own one.

[Xenotime]

12. Congress has gotten weak and let the right strip away our safety.

[depakid]

13. YES to guns NO to childrens health care

Yep- Congress sure has its priorities in place....

[-..__...]

14. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms...

is enumerated (and affirmed by the Supreme Court as an individual right), in the Bill of Rights... childrens health care isn't.

[depakid]

15. Oh please...

Like it's the only enumerated (and most asuredly NOT absolute) right that Congress or courts deal with.

Dealing with a petty DC issue over kids health strikes reasonable people both here and abroad as a sick and twisted set of priorities, no matter how you spin it.

[-..__...]

16. Would you have the same criticisms...

if Congress was wasting efforts on a gun control bill rather than using the time to pass a childrens health care bill?

Like it's the only enumerated (and most asuredly NOT absolute) right that Congress or courts deal with.

Even the SCOTUS decision has stated that the RKBA is not absolute...however, Fenty/DC has undertaken a policy that is on extremely shaky grounds of what the court has determined is allowable.

Dealing with a petty DC issue...

It's not so "petty" once you understand and see the bigger picture in this.

There's a lot more coming down the road.

The sooner that other potential hard cases get the message... the better.

[depakid]

17. As a rational human being

I'd have the same words for anynyone in any country.