Trigger-Happy on the Hill

[beevul]

Trigger-Happy on the Hill

Writing D.C. gun laws isn't Congress's job.

Friday, July 25, 2008; Page A20

DISTRICT residents are sadly accustomed to congressional interference in their affairs. Usually, the meddling comes in a bid to overturn local legislation. But a move to actually write a new gun law for the District represents a new low. Or, as Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) called it, "a special outrage."

Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) is pushing a measure that seeks to usurp efforts by Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and the D.C. Council to comply with the Supreme Court ruling overturning the District's long-standing ban on handguns. Mr. Souder is resorting to a little-used parliamentary move to get to the floor a bill that would prevent the city from imposing such reasonable restrictions on firearms as requiring that they be registered. Mr. Souder, according to a report in the Hill newspaper, is getting a big assist from the National Rifle Association, which sees an election-year opportunity to pressure conservative Democrats. The NRA, in determining the grades it gives to individual lawmakers before the November election, will include whether they supported bringing H.R. 1399 to the floor.

It matters not a whit to Mr. Souder or the NRA that District residents have a right of self-governance. Once again, lawmakers are willing to impose on the District something they wouldn't contemplate for their home districts. Local officials -- not Congress -- are the best arbiters of their community's needs and priorities. What makes sense for Fort Wayne, Ind., doesn't necessarily translate to the streets of Washington, D.C. Ms. Norton underscored this point in telling members of her caucus how offended she is by Congress taking on a local gun matter when a city neighborhood has been shut down because of gun violence that took the life of a 13-year-old boy just days ago.

D.C. officials passed emergency legislation to bring local gun laws into compliance with the Supreme Court ruling. More work will be done before permanent legislation is enacted. Whether that legislation comports with the Supreme Court's decision is a matter for the courts to decide. It's just not any of Congress's business.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/24/AR2008072403508.html

I just about spit soda all over my monitor when I read "a measure that seeks to usurp efforts by Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and the D.C. Council to comply with the Supreme Court ruling overturning the District's long-standing ban on handguns".

Quite the spin doctoring.

And of course, when the writer talks about "reasonable restrictions", he/she doesn't mention that semi-automatic weapons - a type of firearm in existance for over 75 years now - are considered machineguns within those so called "reasonable restrictions".

This is why we (the pro side) win, and why we are going to keep winning. Our counterparts - some of them at least - on the other side of the gun issue continue to use spin and dishonesty to try and make their case, and all that does is turn people who ARE really reasonable and who are undecided against them.

[krispos42]

1. Is registration a "reasonable" restriction anymore?

Before RKBA was declared an individual right, gun restrictions could be pretty much artitrary because, as a priviledge, it wasn't subject to the strict scrutiny that a right would be.

Well, now it's a right. Doesn't DC now have to prove that not only is registration not an infringement, but a reasonable and effective means to an end?



I also have issue with this statement:

Local officials -- not Congress -- are the best arbiters of their community's needs and priorities.

I doubt that. Look at the nationwide messes that Republican politicians and the residents that support them continually screw themselves in the name of idealogical goal. How's Florida doing? Kansas? Texas?

[spin]

3. Florida does not require gun registration...

seems to work well here.

[krispos42]

16. I meant things like abstinance-only education...

...cutting income and property taxes, privatization of government duties, etc.

[SteveM]

2. D.C. should self-govern; but that is a question in the future...

What we have now in D.C. is an effort to subvert the Supreme Court in Jim Crow fashion, by obfuscation and subterfuge. By playing stand-in-the-school-house-door, D.C. INVITES the very dictates by Congress it otherwise rails against.

Minor point: semi-automatic weapons have been in existence since the latter 1800's. I have one made in 1905.

[TPaine7]

4. A quick skim reveals multiple levels of BS:

Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) is pushing a measure that seeks to usurp efforts by Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and the D.C. Council...

BS:

The United States Congress has supreme authority over Washington, D.C. . . .;

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia

Congress, having supreme authority over the District, cannot possibly usurp its authority. That would be like the President (Commander-in-Chief) usurping the authority of a drill sergeant.

It matters not a whit to Mr. Souder or the NRA that District residents have a right of self-governance.

No political subdivision of the United States is entitled to self-governance in defiance of the Constitution. Furthermore, Congress is empowered by the Fourteenth Amendment to protect the Second Amendment rights of State's citizens, over whom they do not enjoy total governmental authority. How can they possibly not enjoy that power over a District they explicitly rule?!

What makes sense for Fort Wayne, Ind., doesn't necessarily translate to the streets of Washington, D.C.

BS. Streets are not at issue; the ruling did not address the right to bear arms outside the home.

It's just not any of Congress's business.

See above. The editorial board needs to confine themselves to subjects they understand--or consider honesty.

[Angleae]

5. Honesty isn't a strong suit of gun control advocates

[Real_Talk]

6. You said it.

I just wish they would tell the truth... something like this would be nice.

We don't like guns. We are scared people will do bad things with guns.We would like nobody to have them. We don't have proof that guns cause a problem, but we ain't changing our minds.

[TPaine7]

7. Wow, wouldn't that be something?

Someone once replied to one of my posts in similar language, and I was impressed--so impressed that I didn't bother to refute any of the BS she threw in gratuitously. I simply wished her well.

I was almost in awe of her honesty.

[tburnsten]

8. Odd that it doesn't mention what the bill entails

"semi-automatic weapons - a type of firearm in existance for over 75 years now"

Over a century actually. The Borchardt pistol was designed and built sometime in the 1890s. I'm sure there were some obscure long arms as well that existed prior to that.


"It matters not a whit to Mr. Souder or the NRA that District residents have a right of self-governance."

Self-governance, or leaders who do what they please, and make anyone who disagrees with them a criminal?

[benEzra]

9. There's also the Mauser Model 1896...

which was a regular production model, not a prototype.

[MicaelS]

11. Can you imagine

If someone walked in with a model 1896 and tried to register it? :rofl:

[one-eyed fat man]

12. the old "broomhandle" is a problem.

There are some interesting questions on the old 1896 Mauser pistol.

1. If it was actually built before 1898 under Federal law it isn't a "gun" anymore. It's an antique and can be sold without a NICS check or anything.

2. Since the magazine is not contained within the pistol grip, it has one of the features making a pistol an assault weapon under the old Feinstein travesty.

3. Semi-auto pistols with detachable shoulder stocks are considered to be "short-barrelled rifles" under the National Firearms Act. For years, even though 7.63 Mauser ammo was not available in the US, you had to have the "tax stamp" if you had the stock. That changed not too long ago when the ATF reclassified the C96 with its stock as a "Curio or Relic". Oddly enough, guns can be classed as antiques, yet still require registration under the NFA. The Colt M1895 "potato digger" is another prime example.

4. Winston Churchill, as a young Lieutenant in the Sudan, used one to save his hide from "Dervishes". The concept of self-defense just makes Fenty soil his britches.

[tburnsten]

13. I want one so bad

Maybe one of the Chinese .45 models, or the 9mm model so it will be compatible with my other pistols. And I thought that the broomhandle mausers with the stock/holster were not counted as SBRs because of their C&R status?

[one-eyed fat man]

14. C&R and NFA

A gun can be both. An original Sten is C&R and DLO tube assembled with a Sten parts kit is not, but they are both NFA weapons.

A 100 year old Winchester Model 92 "Trapper" carbine with a with a 14 in barrel is a C&R, but maybe have been removed from the NFA registry despite being a short-barreled rifle.

Any semi-automatic pistol with a detachable shoulder stock was defined as an NFA weapon. Recently certain C&R Mauser and Luger pistols were exempted. Best example is the Luger. A corresponding stock on a Naval or Artillery Model is OK, but putting that board holster stock on a standard P-08 is still a felony.

The answer to your next question, is best summed up by the Technical Branch itself. For example, a bootlace is a machinegun because we say it is....






until we change our minds............

http://www.mp5.net/info/2007-06-25%20String%20Trick%20-%20ATF%20FTB%20Overrules%20Itself%20-%20redacted.pdf

[AtheistCrusader]

15. 1779 is the earliest I am aware of.

Girandoni Repeating Rifle. Fielded by the Austrian Army at the same time the 2nd Amendment was ratified. The concept of a semi-automatic pistol and rifle is as old as the 2nd Amendment itself. Kinda makes you wonder if the people who claim the Founding Fathers could never have anticipated modern weaponry have ever actually studied history at all.

[benEzra]

10. Snort!

Local officials -- not Congress -- are the best arbiters of their community's needs and priorities.

Where was the Post's outrage when Congress overrode states and communities who had considered and rejected the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch in the early 1990's?

The Post seems to be of the opinion that it's OK for Congress to overrule the elected state and local representatives of the people, as long as they're not doing so to enforce a Supreme Court decision they don't agree with.

FWIW, there was a lot of this type of crap after the Supreme Court struck down segregation laws, too. Lots of southern states tried to pass Fenty-like laws to "get around" the USSC nullification of state Jim Crow regulations, and guess what? Congress slapped them down with civil rights legislation.