What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Gun law dispute sinks voting rights bill for DC

manifold

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
57,723
Reaction score
8,614
Points
2,030
Location
your dreams
Gun law dispute sinks voting rights bill for DC - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON – For some residents of the nation's capital, a bill to give them a voting member of Congress wasn't worth the price: severely weakened gun laws.

"As much as I want the vote in the city, I think the gun ban is hugely important," said Betsy Cutler, 41, a paralegal who lives in Adams Morgan, a neighborhood of bars and restaurants where she has heard gunfire more than once.

House members had been expected to vote this week on a bill that would have granted, for the first time, the District of Columbia's 600,000 residents a voting representative. But politicians said Tuesday they had decided to pull the measure, calling an amendment supported by the National Rifle Association destructive to D.C.'s gun laws.

The NRA pushed to bar the city from prohibiting or interfering with the public carrying of firearms, either concealed or openly. Opponents said the amendment would have made it easy for people to carry firearms without permits and would have stopped D.C. from prohibiting guns in city-controlled buildings.

NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said the measure was needed because the city has not complied with a 2008 Supreme Court ruling requiring it to revise its gun laws.

I've always thought it was bullshit how unrelated amendments get attached to a piece of legislation. I understand it, but I still don't like it.

And what's with DC not having to abide by a SCOTUS ruling anyway???
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,853
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
Gun law dispute sinks voting rights bill for DC - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON – For some residents of the nation's capital, a bill to give them a voting member of Congress wasn't worth the price: severely weakened gun laws.

"As much as I want the vote in the city, I think the gun ban is hugely important," said Betsy Cutler, 41, a paralegal who lives in Adams Morgan, a neighborhood of bars and restaurants where she has heard gunfire more than once.

House members had been expected to vote this week on a bill that would have granted, for the first time, the District of Columbia's 600,000 residents a voting representative. But politicians said Tuesday they had decided to pull the measure, calling an amendment supported by the National Rifle Association destructive to D.C.'s gun laws.

The NRA pushed to bar the city from prohibiting or interfering with the public carrying of firearms, either concealed or openly. Opponents said the amendment would have made it easy for people to carry firearms without permits and would have stopped D.C. from prohibiting guns in city-controlled buildings.

NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said the measure was needed because the city has not complied with a 2008 Supreme Court ruling requiring it to revise its gun laws.

I've always thought it was bullshit how unrelated amendments get attached to a piece of legislation. I understand it, but I still don't like it.

And what's with DC not having to abide by a SCOTUS ruling anyway???

Doesn't the ruling in fact nullify DC's local law?
 
OP
manifold

manifold

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
57,723
Reaction score
8,614
Points
2,030
Location
your dreams
Gun law dispute sinks voting rights bill for DC - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON – For some residents of the nation's capital, a bill to give them a voting member of Congress wasn't worth the price: severely weakened gun laws.

"As much as I want the vote in the city, I think the gun ban is hugely important," said Betsy Cutler, 41, a paralegal who lives in Adams Morgan, a neighborhood of bars and restaurants where she has heard gunfire more than once.

House members had been expected to vote this week on a bill that would have granted, for the first time, the District of Columbia's 600,000 residents a voting representative. But politicians said Tuesday they had decided to pull the measure, calling an amendment supported by the National Rifle Association destructive to D.C.'s gun laws.

The NRA pushed to bar the city from prohibiting or interfering with the public carrying of firearms, either concealed or openly. Opponents said the amendment would have made it easy for people to carry firearms without permits and would have stopped D.C. from prohibiting guns in city-controlled buildings.

NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said the measure was needed because the city has not complied with a 2008 Supreme Court ruling requiring it to revise its gun laws.

I've always thought it was bullshit how unrelated amendments get attached to a piece of legislation. I understand it, but I still don't like it.

And what's with DC not having to abide by a SCOTUS ruling anyway???

Doesn't the ruling in fact nullify DC's local law?

If you read the full article there is a part I didn't quote that says they've enacted "new" laws since the ruling that do not violate it. Which of course is most likely total bullshit.
 

Meister

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
44,517
Reaction score
17,857
Points
2,290
Location
Conservative part of the Northwest
I thought the law sank because it would give the republican state of Utah one more congressional seat.
 

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,734
Reaction score
7,917
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
If those fuckers are so stupid they want more gun control then they don't deserve a vote in the House.
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
48,674
Reaction score
10,702
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
DC can not legally get a voting member without an amendment to the Constitution. Like this Amendment but stating they had the same rights as a State.

23rd Amendment | LII / Legal Information Institute

You see Congress does NOT have the power to grant them a voting member in Congress. The Constitution is clear as a bell on w3ho qualifies. And that is ONLY States.

Congress can not simply pass a bill giving them a Congressman. It requires an Amendment to the Constitution.
 

Polk

Classic
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
9,791
Reaction score
577
Points
138
Location
Ost
DC can not legally get a voting member without an amendment to the Constitution. Like this Amendment but stating they had the same rights as a State.

23rd Amendment | LII / Legal Information Institute

You see Congress does NOT have the power to grant them a voting member in Congress. The Constitution is clear as a bell on w3ho qualifies. And that is ONLY States.

Congress can not simply pass a bill giving them a Congressman. It requires an Amendment to the Constitution.

As much as the current situation is unjust, I must agree.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$20.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top