• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

NRA lets "pro gun" democrats off the hook

thorvaldr

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
263
Location
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
imported post

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pro-gun-house-dems-reach-deal-with-nra-2008-07-30.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.
:cuss:
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.
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
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!
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
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.
 

Flyer22

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
374
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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.
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
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!!!!
 

sraacke

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
1,214
Location
Saint Gabriel, Louisiana, USA
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.

 

gsx1138

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
882
Location
Bremerton, Washington, United States
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.
 

unreconstructed1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
695
Location
Tennessee, ,
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.
 

1st freedom

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
317
Location
dumries, Virginia, USA
imported post

HB6691

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.





 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
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.
 

thorvaldr

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
263
Location
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
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.
 

1st freedom

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
317
Location
dumries, Virginia, USA
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.
 

thorvaldr

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
263
Location
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
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.
 
Top