Gun law dispute sinks voting rights bill for DC

[manifold]

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]

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?

 

[California Girl]

This kind of crap is why we should not allow piggybacking.

 

[manifold]

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.

 

[Gunny]

This kind of crap is why we should not allow piggybacking.

I am TOTALLY against pork. Piggybacking. Whatever you want to call it. Each piece of legislation should stand on its own, IMO.

 

[Meister]

I thought the law sank because it would give the republican state of Utah one more congressional seat.

 

[The Rabbi]

If those fuckers are so stupid they want more gun control then they don't deserve a vote in the House.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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]

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.