Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: NRA lets "pro gun" democrats off the hook

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    263

    Post imported post

    http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...008-07-30.html

    Pro-gun House Dems reach deal with NRA
    By Mike Soraghan
    Posted: 07/30/08 07:46 PM [ET]

    Pro-gun Democrats have reached a compromise with the National Rifle Association to avoid an election-year showdown on gun laws in the District of Columbia.

    The deal was negotiated with the powerful gun-rights group by Reps. John Dingell (D-Mich.), Mike Ross (D-Ark.) and John Tanner (D-Tenn.), according to two sources familiar with the negotiations. The NRA has also signed off.

    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.

    NRA officials had threatened to use House members’ willingness to sign the discharge petition in their scoring for this year’s election. Conservative Democrats who didn’t sign it, most of them members of the Blue Dog Coalition, risked losing their “A-plus” ratings.

    The compromise with the NRA is designed to remove pressure on Democrats to sign the discharge petition, which had 151 signatures as of Wednesday.

    Some Republican leaders are angered that the NRA has been negotiating with Democrats rather than holding their feet to the fire.

    Usually I hate these "NRA sucks" threads but this isn't right. They're letting these jerks run on a pro gun platform and then vote like the DNC says instead of like their constituents want.


  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    That is a HUGE pile of bull-squeeze. The NRA made a "deal" so that dems in congress will pass a law to make DC enforce a SCOTUS decision on the BOR? BS!!! We don't need a law passed by Congress to force DC to follow a friggin' SCOTUS order or to protect our constitutional rights. They are in contempt of court. The DC leadership needs a beat down by a court by being forced to follow the decision and everyone voting for the BS DC passed needs to be at least fined for contempt of the SCOTUS decision. Man I am one pi$$ed off gun owner at this moment.

    HEY NRA!! We already have a law about this passed over 200 years ago. It is called the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

    I am not an NRA member however, I intended to join this year. Now I wish I had already so that I could cut up my membership card and send it to them.

    I have generally given the NRA the benefit of the doubt thinking about the big picture and that maybe all of their staff and lawyers knew a bunch of stuff I didn't and maybe they had the right idea. Not in this though. They are giving the entire Dem congress a pass for voting party line, which is anti-2A, for a "narrow enforcement" to minor benefit of a few thousand gun owners in DC.

    I'm sorry, I resent the hell out of being thrown under the bus for the small population of DC gun owners. I resent the hell out of the NRA not holding supposed pro-2A dems feet to the fire. I resent the hell out of this whole stinking to high heaven deal!
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  3. #3
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Yeah, well, it looks like the NRA just pushed a lot of BS into the campfire, and it stinks to high heaven. To let these guys off like this is mutiny to the cause. They had 'em by the short and curlies, and let 'em off.OUTRAGEOUS!!!!

    Oh, they'll never let this bill out of committee now, you can bet on that. I was just about to get my lifetime membership in the NRA, but I think it's time to stop and rethink that. OUTRAGEOUS!!!!

    Do ya think the NRA is going to completely sell out? I wonder how much money they saved by doing this. Did they cut a deal NOT to give them as much moneyfor their campaign? OUTRAGEOUS!!!!

    How can they make this look goodto their membership? How do they explain it away? They'll have to get some spin tips (a.k.a. lies) from the antis.OUTRAGEOUS!!!!

    Edit: I HOPE THE DEMS STAB THE NRA IN THE BACK AND DON'T PASS IT. I ALSO HOPE IT'S A DULL JAGGED BLADE. SERVES 'EM RIGHT.

    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    So. . . .
    Instead of having Congress do something, however restricted and imperfect it might be, so slap down D.C. and enforce Heller, you people would rather let D.C. run rampant over the plain wording of the decision and continue their stupid and illegal restrictions.

    Is that what you're saying? Because it sure sounds like it to me.

    On the other hand, I'm a pragmatist, and I understand that we live in an imperfect world where the best is sometimesthe enemy of the good. Idealists (as you people have clearly shown) would rather have no progress at all if they can't get everything they want all at once.

  5. #5
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Flyer22 wrote:
    So. . . .
    Instead of having Congress do something, however restricted and imperfect it might be, so slap down D.C. and enforce Heller, you people would rather let D.C. run rampant over the plain wording of the decision and continue their stupid and illegal restrictions.

    Is that what you're saying? Because it sure sounds like it to me.

    On the other hand, I'm a pragmatist, and I understand that we live in an imperfect world where the best is sometimesthe enemy of the good. Idealists (as you people have clearly shown) would rather have no progress at all if they can't get everything they want all at once.
    It was not about all or nothing. It was about slapping the D.C. council down for thumbing their nose at SCOTUS. It was about saying to your child "Go to bed" and, knowing full well what it means, instead he goes into his room and sits on the bed playing with G.I. Joe. Technically, he's in bed.

    Well, that's what D.C. council did. Congress had a bill that would have taken all rights of gun control away from them and they folded to the Dems that didn't want to lose their A+ rating from theNRA, but they alsodidn't want MaMa to get mad at 'em for doing what was right.I'll say it again. OUTRAGEOUS!!!!

    They had the Dems in perfect position to force them todo what was right, but they squalled about losing their A+ rating and the NRA said, "OK, we''ll do what you want if you'll just quit crying". One more time. OUTRAGEOUS!!!!
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    What the hell happened to the motto, "From Our cold dead hands"?

    :X

  7. #7
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964

    Post imported post

    rodbender wrote:
    Edit: I HOPE THE DEMS STAB THE NRA IN THE BACK AND DON'T PASS IT. I ALSO HOPE IT'S A DULL JAGGED BLADE. SERVES 'EM RIGHT.
    The NRA has stabbed all of us in the back.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitableand let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come . PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  8. #8
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Task Force 16 wrote:
    What the hell happened to the motto, "From Our cold dead hands"?

    :X
    Guess it died with the man the NRA just dishonored. I miss Charleton Heston!
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  9. #9
    Regular Member sraacke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Saint Gabriel, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,222

    Post imported post


    One of my first posts was in the "NRA or GOA" thread. I stated - "I had an NRA membership until they compromised with the antis on the Assault Weapon Ban. Agreeing to the 10 round mag limit was the clincher. They will never see another dollar from my pocket."

    I stand by my previous statement.

    President/ Founding Member
    Louisiana Open Carry Awareness League
    www.laopencarry.org

  10. #10
    Regular Member gsx1138's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington, United States
    Posts
    884

    Post imported post

    You cannot win a battle by being on the defensive and giving up ground. The frontsight infomercial changed my mind about a lot of things. For one, I'm tired of the "hunter/sportsman" argument. We have weapons. The constitution allows us to carry weapons.
    "Think lightly of yourself and deeply of the world." ~ Musashi

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695

    Post imported post

    gsx1138 wrote:
    You cannot win a battle by being on the defensive and giving up ground. The frontsight infomercial changed my mind about a lot of things. For one, I'm tired of the "hunter/sportsman" argument. We have weapons. The constitution allows us to carry weapons.
    exactly, there is no need to justify our weapons with "but I use it for hunting", because then you wind up letting "non sporting gun" bans pass, and before you know it, the only guns that we are allowed to have would be nailguns. I will be sending a letter to teh NRA very shortly.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Will it be a harshly-worded letter?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    dumries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    321

    Post imported post

    HB6691
    [font="Times New Roman"]
    The Second Amendment Enforcement Act will:



    Repeal the District's ban on semi-automatic handguns. Semi-automatic pistols have been the mostcommonly purchased handguns in the United States over the last 20 years, and therefore a ban on those firearms is unconstitutional as decided by Heller;


    Restore the right ofself-defense by repealing the requirement that firearms be disassembled or secured with a trigger lock in the home;

    Repeal the current D.C. registration system that requires multiple visits to police headquarters; ballistics testing; passing a written test on D.C. gun laws; fingerprinting; and limiting registration to one handgun per 90 days. The current system is unduly burdensome and serves as a vehicle for even more onerous restrictions; and

    Create a limitedexemption to the federal ban on interstate handgun sales by allowing D.C. residents to purchase handguns in Virginia and Maryland. Currently there are no firearms dealers in the District of Columbia, and the federal ban prohibits residents from purchasing handguns outside of the District; therefore, District residents have no means of purchasing handguns.





    [font="Times New Roman"]


  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Will it be a harshly-worded letter?
    Mine was.


    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    dumries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    321

    Post imported post

    What part of HB6691 is a stab in the back?

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    1st freedom wrote:
    What part of HB6691 is a stab in the back.
    Did you read this entire thread? Especially go back and read rodbender's comments above wherein he pretty well explains the issue. HB6691 is not in and of itself in a vacuum a stab in the back, however, it is yet another compromise NOT to help gun owners but instead to preserve the A+ rating of party line voting blue-dog democrats. The NRA gave them a pass for voting party line instead of doing the right thing with no damage to their NRA pro-gun rating. The original bill would have gone much further to protect the rights of the gun owners and to smack down the DC city council for thumbing their nose at the Heller decision.

    Furthermore, this bill removes the issues about which the new Heller et al lawsuit covers and takes the DC council's contemptuous ordinance out of the courts. All to preserve the NRA rating of a few blue-dogs.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    263

    Post imported post

    1st freedom wrote:
    What part of HB6691 is a stab in the back?
    I t lets a bunch of DEMOCRATS go on saying that they "support the 2nd amendment" and maintain their NRA A+ rating without having to actually take a stand and choose between the DNC party line and your rights. In return it gets rights for the subjects of DC that could they could reasonably get through litigation under the Heller decision.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    dumries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    321

    Post imported post

    I did read the thread, I see it as a compromise on the part of house dems, not the NRA.

    How is this bill NOT good for the residents of DC?

    Was the new Heller lawsuit included in the original bill?

    What was included in the original bill that would have gone further to protect the 2A rights of DC citizens?Would the bill have been passed in it's original form?

    I ask these questions not be argumentative, but to gain some insight on your point of view. Iam a proud member of the NRA, and I believe that what they do, they do with the best of intentions for our 2A rights,however I am not that naive that I believe they don't make mistakes or could have chosen a different route.Sort of how my wife views me.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    dumries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    321

    Post imported post

    Didn't the Dem's take stand by signing on to this bill?

    Is this not reasonable litigation to force DC to comply with the Heller decision?

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    263

    Post imported post

    1st freedom wrote:
    Didn't the Dem's take stand by signing on to this bill?

    Is this not reasonable litigation to force DC to comply with the Heller decision?
    No, it is not taking a stand to sign a bill that grants by congressional authority something that the supreme court has already decided. Signing a discharge petition is taking a stand.

    It is not reasonable to present a bill with no usefull effect, just so the "blue dogs" will have something that they can safely sign without granting anyone any new rights and without having to decide whether they work for the DNC or for you.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    KC,MO, ,
    Posts
    168

    Post imported post

    Well even if the dems signed on to the discharge petition, itdoes not mean it will go to a vote. NP can make sure it does not and more than likely would see it never gets an actual vote on the floor.

    At least this way it was negotiated away from her and more likely that she will not and could not stop it from a vote. The discharge petition does not guarantee a vote is only pushes it out of committee Nancy decides if they actually gets to the floor for avote.

    What is the goal here? To get DC to scrap this crap? This does that. A discharge petition that might not and more than likely will not get an actual floor vote does not help DC residents. (The goal I Believe)

    People getting negative over some Dems that in the past would no way in hell sign on to any pro gun bill are now writing a law that tells DC to shove it! Come on guys!

    Seems to me some here are more concerned about the politics of the matter rather than actually changing what DC has done.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    You know, Jeff Knox of the Firearms Coalition originally hammered and derided the "compromise" but he changed his tune when he found out what exactly the bill actually did:

    http://www.firearmscoalition.org/ind...&Itemid=63

    Specifically:

    [Note: After seeing the actual language of the bill and speaking with key players, I am much more comfortable with this deal. While I still have some concerns and mixed feelings about how this could impact Heller's new lawsuit and the way the Supreme Court's decision in Heller might be interpreted, there is absolutely nothing in this bill that could be considered a sell-out or give-away. It's a very good bill which I can't help but support. -JAK]

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    263

    Post imported post

    hogleg wrote:
    Well even if the dems signed on to the discharge petition, itdoes not mean it will go to a vote. NP can make sure it does not and more than likely would see it never gets an actual vote on the floor.

    At least this way it was negotiated away from her and more likely that she will not and could not stop it from a vote. The discharge petition does not guarantee a vote is only pushes it out of committee Nancy decides if they actually gets to the floor for avote.

    What is the goal here? To get DC to scrap this crap? This does that. A discharge petition that might not and more than likely will not get an actual floor vote does not help DC residents. (The goal I Believe)

    People getting negative over some Dems that in the past would no way in hell sign on to any pro gun bill are now writing a law that tells DC to shove it! Come on guys!

    Seems to me some here are more concerned about the politics of the matter rather than actually changing what DC has done.
    Yes, this is political. If you look at the bills side by side:

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110OUjtit::

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110aK86xO::

    they are practically identical. Unless there's some bad stuff hidden in DC official code 7-2506.01(3), the only real difference betweent them is that 1399 is sponsored by 2 republicans and 6691 is sponsored by a bunch of dems. Both repeal the trigger lock requirement, take away DC authority to register guns, and change their fantastical definition of a machine gun.

    The merits of the individual bills aren't the issue. The issue is that the NRA is letting people who can't be counted on the vote for you and not for the DNC to go into the election with their NRA A+ intact without having to sign a discharge petition.




  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    And if the end result is the repeal of DC's bad gun laws, what's the downside?

    I will point this out to those who are less politically astute: The Democrats are not going to lose the House and Senate this year to the Republicans. If Obama wins, and decides to push a gun control agenda (which, from my calculation, is unlikely due to him not wanting to be a 1 term president), then we need those "Blue Dogs" to stand as a bulwark.

    I might also add that the AWB and the Brady bill only passed because certain "moderate" Republicans, who were anywhere from D to B rated, sold gun owners out too. If I recall correctly, it took the vote of 1 Republican to push either the Brady Bill or the AWB over the 218-216 vote needed to pass in the House.

    To my knowledge, this is the first flat out repeal of gun control by Congress, ever. You can't count the AWB or the Brady 5 day wait sunset because those where written into the statute. Also, you notice in there about eliminating the "State of Residence" restriction for handgun purchases? That's a way to destroy that entire statute because Congress wrote a rule that essentially opens up the entire statute to legal attack. "Well if you open it up for them, why not anyone?".

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    263

    Post imported post

    Lonnie Wilson wrote:
    And if the end result is the repeal of DC's bad gun laws, what's the downside?

    I will point this out to those who are less politically astute: The Democrats are not going to lose the House and Senate this year to the Republicans. If Obama wins, and decides to push a gun control agenda (which, from my calculation, is unlikely due to him not wanting to be a 1 term president), then we need those "Blue Dogs" to stand as a bulwark.

    I might also add that the AWB and the Brady bill only passed because certain "moderate" Republicans, who were anywhere from D to B rated, sold gun owners out too. If I recall correctly, it took the vote of 1 Republican to push either the Brady Bill or the AWB over the 218-216 vote needed to pass in the House.

    To my knowledge, this is the first flat out repeal of gun control by Congress, ever. You can't count the AWB or the Brady 5 day wait sunset because those where written into the statute. Also, you notice in there about eliminating the "State of Residence" restriction for handgun purchases? That's a way to destroy that entire statute because Congress wrote a rule that essentially opens up the entire statute to legal attack. "Well if you open it up for them, why not anyone?".
    I hope your right about Obama, but he is still VERY scary:

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289373,00.html

    But, why do we need "blue dogs"? When the chips are down you can't count on them. Even if they are really, honestly, pro gun. They have to go against their party every time they vote that way. A republican can vote pro gun and all his friends will still think he's cool. Let's get good, pro gun republicans. You're right about D rated republicans, though, they are a pretty low form of life. But at least you know where you stand.

    What "State of Residence" restriction? Do you mean this stuff (which sounds reasonable to me) from 6691?

    SEC. 10. AUTHORIZING PURCHASES OF FIREARMS BY DISTRICT RESIDENTS.
    • Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended in paragraph (b)(3) by inserting after `other than a State in which the licensee's place of business is located' the following: `, or to the sale or delivery of a handgun to a resident of the District of Columbia by a licensee whose place of business is located in Maryland or Virginia,'.



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •