America is coping with the worst financial crisis in a century according to Alan Greenspan, is rebuilding from two destructive hurricanes, and is waging two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yet Congress found nearly four hours of floor time in the last two days to re-write a local gun ordinance.
Yesterday's vote in the U.S. House of Representatives - to second-guess Washington, D.C.'s efforts to re-write its gun laws in response to this summer's Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment - was a charade. That's the only way to describe it.
At the behest of the National Rifle Association, Members of Congress from Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia, Arkansas - and my home state of Indiana - took it on themselves to tell local officials what they can and cannot do, over and above what is required by the Constitution, in writing its gun laws.
It's hard to know whether the District of Columbia should be flattered or offended.
Either way, not only the District's gun laws, but also the Supreme Court's opinion on what is "presumptively lawful," apparently aren't extreme enough for the NRA.
Rep. Travis Childers (MS) was lead sponsor of the bill. I wonder how cities in his district - Corinth, Columbus, Tupelo - would feel about Congress taking time off from national issues to re-write their local ordinances?
This bill teaches some fundamental lessons. The NRA either intentionally misled the American people, or was just grossly incompetent, about its efforts to re-write D.C.'s gun laws. They in turn showed why the gun lobby shouldn't be allowed to write laws for any city - especially our nation's capital with its unique security needs.
Early drafts of the NRA bill would have permitted people to carry assault weapons openly on the streets of Washington, D.C. By stripping D.C. of its regulations, the District would have had no legal protection left against this eventuality. NRA lobbyists denied this fact even when they were confronted with the language of their own bill.
When legal analyses from the Brady Center and separately from the House Oversight Committee staff made it clear that the NRA was wrong, the NRA mocked the lawyers involved by saying their degrees must have come from Disney World.
Only just before the bill was introduced on the House floor did the NRA fix their "mistake" and amend the legislation to prohibit open-carrying of assault weapons. This shameless effort should have been the final nail in the coffin of whatever credibility the gun lobby had left.
Here are the simple facts: Any Member of Congress truly concerned with D.C.'s compliance with the Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller could have voted for a perfectly suitable option introduced by Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman (CA) and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.).
The Norton/Waxman alternative would have required the District to follow Justice Scalia's opinion in the Heller decision, which is exactly what the D.C. City Council had been working on since the end of June and finally finished Tuesday morning.
In fact, the D.C. Council passed a new gun ordinance that fully complies with all the issues raised in the Heller decision the same morning that Congress was debating whether to take the power to pass such an ordinance away from them.
Regrettably, the bill that passed the House yesterday went far beyond the Norton/Waxman bill - and far beyond what the Heller decision itself requires. Instead the House adopted the gun lobby agenda that nothing should ever be done to "discourage" gun ownership and possession.
I am hopeful that the Senate will keep this dangerous bill from moving any further.
(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)
You never listen, and no that's not torture. Your sympathy is misdirected.
No one said anything about inadequate medical care or water. There's no reason why they can't be properly fed. They don't even have to be in Death Valley either. There is plenty of space in this country, so don't talk to us about overcrowding.
Did you even read the account of the LEO who was murdered in Philly a few days ago, and another officer shot? The wretch who shot them was released from prison a month ago, after early release from a sentence that was too short to begin with.
He served 10 years of a 12 year sentence (which wasn't long enough as it is) for a carjacking, during which he committed "gunviolence", having shot his victim in the legs. He was being pursued by Philly police, because they had a warrant for his arrest, after assaulting 4 officers shortly after his premature release.
He had been thrown out of two prisons already for 27 infractions. If his incarceration had been continued, Officer McDonald would still be alive, and so would the poor, put-upon parolee. THAT is prevention Kelli. Stop whining about the rights of miscreants, while trying to deny people the right to protect themselves from scum like this.
Correct.
"the fact that we can carry openly "
I wish that was a fact. Unfortunately, some of us live in NJ, home of Kelli's favorite gun laws.
NJ is a 'may issue' (carry permit) state, as in "may issue if Hell freezes over, or if you are the Governor's brother-in-law".We can't even carry pepper spray here.
But I don't care what anyone says, I won't go to Philly unheeled.
Mr. Helmke's current blog, as I see it, relates to policy-making on guns/firearms; and focusing on the antecedents to gun-related activities that lead to violence & crime problems there. I would imagine they are as concerned about youth & gun possession/gun carrying/assault with guns, etc. as the rest of us are. In my personal view, Paul & the BC have never sounded overly concerned with such 'recreational' uses of guns like hunting or sports; but instead, focus their attentions on violence deterrence... which is one of the crucial ways to reduce gun-related violence (as you should know by now). And, on a sidenote: As far as collecting of antique firearms goes ... I'm fairly certain they don't lose much sleep over that activity (LOL).
*I won't be able to check back & resubmit this, if it's lost or deleted; so will just expect it will be fine for posting.
Oh, do you mean like the convicted felon with a gun and a flak jacket(in his car) trying to breach the Secret Service security perimeter outside Obama's Chicago home?
Don't worry though, he strongly supports Obama, just like you.
Yes you are 1 individual person, but show me one thing that you and Paul disagree on. This shouldn't be difficult since you have stated that you are much further to the left than he on gun control.
Last thing; you do have to admit that on this blog, you are the face of the Brady Campaign since Helmke or any other BC employee refuses to participate in the discussion. This is by design, Paul knows what he's doing. The more we debate you and your views/feelings, the less time we spend shreading HIS talking points.
In short, he's using you as a shield.
Shorter still, he's using you.
You, and the BC, and the VPC, etc., seem to be under the mistaken impression that private gun ownership automatically turns law abiding people into murderers.
One more thing, re: your earlier post, in which you said you wouldn't want any of us to come to YOUR aid with a gun. I read a similar post from someone here on Huffpo, shortly after the VTech massacre. He went even further, and stated that he would rather die than have anyone other than a "uniformed LEO" come to his aid with a firearm.
I'll tell you what I told him. It's easy to say something like that from the comfort of your home (that is if you think being a willing victim/martyr makes you sound noble). If your life were really being threatened, you'd be praying to God for someone to come along and rescue you, even a private gun-owner. And if you were lucky enough to have your prayer answered, you'd be eternally grateful for the help.
Let's try to keep it real.
Gotcha.
Kelli will tell you that the BC is not interested in antique weapons. Of course, she just got through telling us how she's so fond of NJ gun laws, and in NJ, you are required to have handgun permits for BP guns too (if they know you have them. I ain't tellin'). You need handgun permits for air pistols too. It's the same permit you would need for a .44 mag., or Heaven forbid, the ever scary Glock.
The BC (that famous non gun banning organization) is also backing a bill in NJ that will outlaw .50 caliber inline muzzleloaders.
Speaking of '51 Navies, she does have an interesting story for you about Wild Bill.
And BTW, speaking of antique firearms ... I find it interesting that when I talked about a WW2 gun being "antique," that the gunrights posters pounced on that as wrong (not old enough, your friend "Matt" said); but, when one of you (in this case, djkrslsn) talks about his 1950s gun being a newer "antique," you nod in agreement over his use of the term antique.
Why don't you gun-rights folks explain exactly what an "antique firearms" is ... since you're all such experts here. I'm all ears!
I've made my concerns about the NRA & its actions regarding DC well known here; and do not need to repost this. That's it for me on this issue. Looking forward to Paul Helmke's next topic. Happy "Yom Kippur" readers & lurkers.
In other news, I gave my kitty-cat some kippur snacks last night and she went yom yom yom.
Yes there is! You left out several critical portions of the reference from GOA in a pathetic attempt to create a false impression. In other words, YOU LIED! But then, that's nothing new!
Old SF MJT
The primary fact is that a true "assault weapon" is a military firearm which can be fired either "automatically" (many shots per trigger pull) or "semi-automatically" (one shot per trigger pull). In other words, a true assault weapon is a machine gun which is already regulated by federal law.
The firearms that are covered by the so-called "assault weapons" laws are semi-automatic handguns, rifles and shotguns. Some of these firearms are made to look like a military-style weapon but are mechanically indistinguishable from the traditional-looking deer rifle. "
Now what did she say about 'half truths'?
The same as a lie?
Sorry. You selectively edited a quote telling a 'half-truth' which, by your own words, is as bad as a lie.
What's pathetic is your feeble attempts to deny it.
Why?
--H.L. Mencken
I wonder what would be said by certain parties if an anti-gun bill was threatened w/ filibuster like this pro-rights bill is?
The NRA is attempting to assure that residents of DC have a choice, just like they were real Americans.
Imagine that.
In my personal view, the NRA is not helping the District of Columbia out here ... not by the longest shot & especially, not in an innocent sense. They are attempting, as they tried back in '04, to extend their guns & their hand, so-to-speak, into an area where they weren't successful (or probably even welcomed) in the past.
(Disclaimer: I haven't actually read this in the bill, but my personal insight tells me this is true.)
Very consistent!
Gun bans are for the "little people." It's OK for wealthy (and mostly white) people to own country-club skeet shotguns expensive big-game hunting rifles and/or hire armed security, but heaven forbid that a blue-collar worker should own a small-caliber rifle with a handgrip that sticks out or a 9mm pistol...