Ammo For Sale

« « Not an offer | Home | More on Hate Crimes » »

Dems and NRA Compromise

At The Hill:

Details of the compromise were still incomplete late Wednesday, but a bill is to be introduced Thursday that would narrowly enforce a June Supreme Court decision rejecting the District’s decades-old handgun ban.

A vote on the bill could occur this week, but is more likely in September. Such a delay could give opponents of such a deal time to organize against it.

Republicans have filed a discharge petition to bring a broader D.C. gun-rights bill, sponsored by Ross, to the House floor. The goal was to capitalize on the Supreme Court decision and put pressure on conservative Democrats to buck their leadership on the issue.

Looks like that pressure NRA was putting on Pro-Gun Dems earlier is paying off.

8 Responses to “Dems and NRA Compromise”

  1. Chas Says:

    Markie Marxist sez: “You’re supposed to die! People are supposed to be disarmed so that our Marxist/warrior/hero/criminals can kill them to create chaos and destabilize capitalist America! How are we supposed to create a totalitarian Marxist regime without an all-powerful government, and how are we supposed to have an all-powerful government if people think that they can protect themselves on their own? Where’s the Communist oppression in allowing people to protect themselves? Besides, people with guns can just say “no” to the government and mean it – it’s very, very difficult to get people onto buses to take them to re-education camps when they’re busy shooting at you. It doesn’t make any sense to allow private citizens to own guns!”

  2. Standard Mischief Says:

    The House bill could possibly get through the House with the type of pressure from the kind of NRA I’ve always wanted to be a member of.

    This news article
    from the WaPo says no chance of it getting through the Senate though. I’m unsure of whether that is just the WaPo talking out of their ass or what. The WaPo fails yet again because if doesn’t give the short name of the bill or the bill number. It’s like the WaPo doesn’t even want you to weigh in your opinion with your congress-critters or something)

    I think it’s this: H.R. 1399: District of Columbia Personal Protection Act

    (Ideally, as an encouragement to get the pro-gun vote out this November, I’d like to see the a slightly different bill, say S. 1001: pass the Senate, and then when the differences get hashed out in a joint session, have something get added in “accidentally” that drops the requirement to buy handguns in your own state, seeing as we have the Brady approved NICS check nationwide now. Not only is this a real bone thrown to the rest of the country,it instantly allows DC residents to defend themselves without waiting for a FFL to open doors in DC)

  3. chris Says:

    It’s good to see the NRA taking the offensive in an election year.

    Someone needs to take the fight on this issue all the way to the top (i.e. Obama) to make him take a stance on this important issue of the DC virtually ignoring the Court’s decision in Heller.

    If he opposes the proposed legislation, he correctly appears to be anti-Second Amendment (which should, of course, come very naturally for him).

    If he begrudgingly supports the proposed legislation, he would further create additional antipathy from the leftists who lifted him to victory over HRC in the primaries.

    There are several issues on which a better GOP candidate could really pressure Obama (e.g. border security, offshore and ANWAR drilling, etc.).

  4. Ron W Says:

    Chris writes, “There are several issues on which a better GOP candidate could really pressure Obama (e.g. border security, offshore and ANWAR drilling, etc.).”

    Yes! Especially on border security which is a MAJOR issue in that the Constitution mandates that “the United States SHALL protect the each of them (the States) against invasion…” (Article IV, Section 4) We have massive illegal immigration and have had scores of armed incursions across our southern border, yet President Bush says, “we can’t militarize the border” (but we have militarized police for us)

    A couple of weeks ago, Obama and McCain both PANDERED to the National Council of La Raza (that’s “The Race” in Spanish) which is a radical pro-migration rights and nominally racist organization) Like Bush, they both AGREE on open borders and they both supported, along with Bush and La Raza, Comprehensive Immigration Reform which would LEGALIZE the INVASION!!

    So with the controlled corporate media not allowing any other candidates to participate in the presidential race, there will be NO discussion of “border security” because BOTH CANDIDATES AGREE and will CONTINUE THE TREASON!!!

    Be assured that if you vote for “the lesser of two evils” , you’re voting for evil; traitors who will allow your country to be invaded and will force you to appease and accommodate the invaders. And if terrorists use this easy access (“aid and comfort to enemeies…. treason”,Article III, Section 3) to carry out some major terror event, then a Prez McCain or Obama can declare an emergency and use the Clinton-Bush police-state, martial law apparatus against citizens…since the Patriot Act makes us all terror suspects!

  5. straightarrow Says:

    I’m not sure I see the benefit of decreasing the pressure on the Dems, or why the NRA would want to do so.

    What did we get out of this compromise that wasn’t already coming our way?

    As most of you know I am not an avid NRA aficianado, but I am loathe to say anything against them for this, until I have a better understanding of what just happened.

    Any illumination would be welcome.

  6. Harold Says:

    straightarrow: Things that have occurred to me about this:

    This might indicate the NRA is not interested in gratuitously pissing off the Democratic Congress, which we and they will likely have to live with for at least the next two years.

    While it’s unlikely to make much of an impact on The Stupid Party, if this only reminds them not to take us for granted it might be worth it (especially if it gets killed in the Senate). It’s not healthy for the NRA to be viewed as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party, something their more bogus ratings in times past encourage.

    It conserves money for other lawsuits, of which there will be a LOT. This is not our Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954, but more like Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337 in 1938, which only upheld “separate but equal”, and as far as I can tell had little or no effect “on the ground”.

    While “Heller Reloaded” might get some useful case law on what’s allowed in registration, it will only be controlling law outside of D.C. if it reaches the Supremes and is granted cert. If not, other Circuits could use whatever is found in it, or if not, cause a “circuit split” like the one that Heller resolved over collective vs. individual right.

    There’s the question of how many times we want to have to fight this particular battle. In that e.g. Daley, even if zapped by Heller incorporation, will most certainly engage in his own campaign of Massive Resistance (you’ve probably seen an article of him thinking up new restrictions). Some have also wondered if we’re better off getting incorporation before various lower courts realize just what that will mean.

  7. straightarrow Says:

    Thanks Harold. I need time to think about it some more.

    If I read you right, you’re saying that it is possible this is a strategy to avoid creating implacable enemies in the house since the bill has no chance in the Senate, therefore they are reluctant to waste political capital at this juncture?

    Let me know if I have the gist of it.

  8. Harold Says:

    straightarrow: Haven’t thought that far, don’t really have enough info (it’s too early for much to leak out, plus the House has adjoined for the August recess).

    What you suggest is a possibility—certainly avoiding creating more enemies through scoring them poorly just before the election, but I’m not sure why a new bill is needed. Maybe it’s a procedural thing, maybe it’s a “who takes credit” (bipartisan vs. Republicans), maybe something in the old bill that anti-gunners intensely dislike but that has been made moot by Heller has been dropped. We can only guess right now.

    Even examining these bills is very difficult, since they amend D.C. law at a fine grain, and without a copy of that … well, it’s available if you have a subscription to Westlaw, and hopefully in D.C. libraries (and of course the Harvard Law School library :-).

    And then it really helps to have a lawyer handy to interpret terms of art, or e.g. notice where term A is given an unusual definition (e.g. in Massachusetts law, normal rifles and shotguns are not “firearms”, a term reserved for things like handguns). Even better a lawyer familiar with the relevant law and case law, you can’t get a whole picture without knowing the latter.

    Anyway, quite unusually, I’m willing to give the NRA the benefit of the doubt until we see what’s really been proposed and hear rumors of “the inside story”.