Will congressional Democrats shoot themselves in the foot by not repealing D.C.’s gun laws?

[jody]

Optimism In Face of D.C. Gun Hurdle

Senate Republicans added the gun amendment to the D.C. vote bill just before it was approved Thursday by the chamber. D.C. officials call the measure a public-safety threat.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

What could complicate negotiations on the gun amendment is the strong support it received in the Senate. It passed 62 to 36, winning one more vote than the D.C. vote bill. Democrats from pro-gun states such as Virginia supported the measure, as did most Republicans.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Senate officials, for example, could agree to bring up the gun issue at another point in exchange for dropping it from the D.C. vote bill. The amendment is similar to a gun bill that passed the House in the last session of Congress.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

The amendment, in addition to abolishing nearly all of the city's gun regulations, specifies that the District "shall not have the authority to enact laws or regulations that discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms."

* * * * * * * * * * * *

If the amendment became law, District residents would remain subject to federal firearms laws, which set minimum age requirements for gun ownership (18 for rifles, 21 for handguns) and ban gun possession by people who have been convicted of felonies or domestic violence or have been found mentally incompetent by a court

Among other things, D.C.'s current law changes the federal definition of "machine gun" to include "semiautomatic firearms".

18 USC 5845

(b) Machinegun
The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include 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 machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

District of Columbia Official Code
TITLE 7. HUMAN HEALTH CARE AND SAFETY.
SUBTITLE J. PUBLIC SAFETY.
Chapter 25. Firearms Control.

DC ST § 7-2501.01
(10) " Machine gun " means any firearm which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to shoot:

(A) Automatically, more than 1 shot by a single function of the trigger;

(B) Semiautomatically, more than 12 shots without manual reloading.

[villager]

1. Funny, all the Democrats I know who *actually live in DC* like those laws...

n/t

[Chulanowa]

2. Wecome to the Gun Forum

I hope you like Ted Nugent music, it's all they play here :)

[jody]

4. IMO perhaps sometimes "Defiance is a virtue" but defying truth and justice is always immoral. n/t

[Chulanowa]

18. And watching Red Dawn while drunk is always entertaining

:)

[jody]

3. RKBA is not unlike abortion, some oppose it and others support it. On the other hand SCOTUS says

RKBA is protected by the Second Amendment and as PA (1776) and VT (1777) said it is a natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right.

That's why Obama said "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away."

SCOTUS has not declared abortion is an enumerated right or an unenumerated right protected by the 9th.

Perhaps you disagree with President Obama, a D.C. resident.

[villager]

5. Scalia and Thomas did indeed say that, yes.

I tend to disagree with their far right interpretations of the Constitution..

[jody]

6. Breyer and Stevens in dissent disagreed about the 2nd but acknowledged that RKBA was recognized by

the states as a natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right, see state constitutions of PA (1776) and VT (1777).

Although the question was not before the court, Breyer and Stevens' own words strongly suggest they could support a finding that RKBA is protected as an unenumerated right by the 9th Amendment.

See DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER

[villager]

7. This would be the dissent where Stevens argued the 2nd spoke toward armed militias

...rather than individual rights to carry all manner of weapons?

[jody]

8. Read it again. n/t

[villager]

9. You are recalling it was a *dissent* from the Scalia opinion, yes?

n/t

[jody]

10. I gave the link to D.C. v. Heller in post #6. n/t

[villager]

11. Stevens viz. the Scalia majority, which you support: "a strained and unpersuasive reading"

n/t

[jody]

12. I support the facts as stated in state constitutions beginning with PA(1776) & VT(1777) that the

right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is a natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right.

Whether RKBA is protected by the 2nd as the majority decided in the Heller case or it is protected as an unenumerated right by the 9th matters not one whit to me.

Those who believe RKBA is not an inalienable/unalienable right need to read the 50 state constitutions in which about 45 clearly recognize that fact.

As an inalienable/unalienable right, it is impossible for states to have given that right away when they ratified the Constitution and later Bill of Rights.

Those who would ban firearms need to learn to live with that situation because the 80+ million gun owners in these United States will not recognize any government action that bans firearms.

[villager]

13. Me, I tend to prefer Stevens over Scalia and Thomas...

n/t

[jody]

14. OK with me because Stevens' arguments support RKBA as an unenumerated right under the 9th. Glad to

meet anyone who supports all inalienable/unalienable rights whether enumerated in the BOR or protected as unenumerated rights by the 9th. :hi:

[villager]

15. Talk about a strained and unpersuasive reading!

;-)

[jody]

16. Does that mean you don't support the arguments made by Breyer and Stevens? n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

17. Who cares? The Bush administration wanted to ignore the Constitution also.

[LuisCipher]

20. Must not know that many Dems then

I dont know ONE Democrat that would agree with that statement. I actually know one who sold his home in Upper G-town and moved across the Potomac to Old Town. As did I.

[Jackson1999]

22. Ummm..not quite

I am a Dem who *actually lives in DC* and do not support DC's draconian laws. I know many other "luger liberals" who live here and feel the same as well.

[yay]

19. Lunacy

Just about ANYTHING now day's is a bloody "machine gun"

[slackmaster]

23. Eh?

I don't understand your comment.

[Furyataurus]

21. Good for D.C.

waiting more than 10 minutes to be approved to buy a firearm is ridiculous. It takes WEEKS if not MONTHS to even get a long gun, rifle or shotgun, in D.C. let alone a handgun. There is no need for registration either, when you buy a firearm the serial # of the firearm is on the form 4473 as well as the buyer's DL and SS number. Business's are required to keep those forms for 20 years IIRC. Plus, people should be free to keep their firearm's loaded and ready to go at all times. People should not be forced to keep ammo seperate from the firearm and have it locked or trigger locked as well. The police and military enjoy this freedom and it should be the same for civilian's.