NRA lets "pro gun" democrats off the hook

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.

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/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=244&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]

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?".

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?".

Click to expand...

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,'.

imported post

1st freedom wrote:

What part of HB6691 is a stab in the back?

Click to expand...

You need to read H.R.1399 to understand. That was the bill they were trying to get out of committee. Instead they pass this "compromise".

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.

Click to expand...

A discharge petition forces it to the floor for a vote. Nazi Pelosi can't stop it.

imported post

While it is true that HR1691 does cover all the requirements of D.C. v Heller, I feelit is a far cry from HR1399. To force the issue may have resulted in a gun friendly Republican in the door.

Well, the NRA compromised on the Brady Bill and the AWB both. When I was a member some years ago, there was NO compromising. We had a lot of anti gun idiots in Congress on both sides of the isle, they were the ones thatrefused to compromise when an anti gun bill came to a vote. The NRA quit trying and found out that they could get some stuff through that they wanted because some of the idiots were in heavy gun districts, and knew that they most likely would not win reelection. They should have pushed them to the edge and then over it if they refused.

imported post

It's all for show regardless. First, a discharge petition on the original bill would at least force a floor vote. The new Democrat-sponsored bill will go to the same committee to die before the end of the current Congress. No matter which bill goes to the floor, assuming that at least one does, it still would have to pass the Senate before the end of the current Congress. Does anyone envision Harry Reid allowing that to happen?

So, no matter what the result in the House, this bill is nothing but window dressing, a sham display intended to make these Democrats look pro-gun immediately before the election. And the NRA is going along with the charade.

Of course, that's nothing new for the NRA. They've been doing that since long before I became a Life member in 1981. Look into the shenanigans and "compromises" the NRA brokered with regard to the GCA '68, the so-called "Plastic Gun Ban," the "Armor Piercing Bullet" ban, the gutting of the original Volkmer-McClure bill, and the myriad of "compromises" and "victories" at the state level which have resulted in lost rights and legislative battles to restore them.

The NRA gets donations based upon ongoing battles, not victories. When they actually win a progun fight, donors get complacent and stop donating. So NRA goes along with these phone show bills and votes knowing that it helps the donations continue to roll in. Just my opinion, of course.

imported post

1st freedom wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

I was a "proud" member of the NRA until I talked to someone at NRA's headquarters. They were shocked at the fact that I would defend my Constitutional right to bear arms. I had called to ask if they could push the CCW for WI in the Supreme Court since the people of WI voted on and passed a State Constitutional Amendment for the right to bear arms while some judges decided that we didn't know what we were voting for. Because of this an old statute banning CCW prevails over the States Constitution. (The amendment was in 1998 while the statute is over 100 years old) We talked and it ended that he was shocked that I would view LE as an enemy if they tried to confiscate a firearm and violate the 2A. It takes $$$ to take it that far but the voice of the people in WI is ignored, our vote doesn't mean anything. The Supreme Court can decide if the laws of a State are in conflict with the Constitution.

I'm still a member and hope that it isn't just a database scheme. The attitude makes me wonder.

imported post

The people on Iowacarry.org are more than a little upset with the NRA also. After two legislators defected, the state failed this year to pass a concealed carry reform. There is no open carry allowed. Yet NRA listed the state's carry laws as "Fair" vs unfair in the NRA magazine. Fair?!? The state has discretionary issue, with 99 different sheriffs establishing 99 different permit policies. In most counties, there is no issuance of permits. In a majority of the remaining counties, only politically connected or wealthy applicants will be approved. Very few sheriffs issue on a fair, objective basis. Yet the NRA listed that state as issuing permits in a fair manner.

Again, the NRA seems more interested in not offending questionable Democrat legislators than in actually giving honest appraisals.

imported post

I wish thatI could have said everything and all members could have heard the conversation......I was told that "from my cold dead hands" was only a figure of speech. I don't think Heston would agree with that.