Pelosi bends to National Rifle Association to help out Blue Dogs

[bigmoon]

-snip-
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she personally opposes a bill loosening the District of Columbia’s gun laws, but that does not mean she will block it from coming to the floor.

“I want to see the particulars,” Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday. “Then we’ll see what comes to the floor or doesn’t come to the floor.”


The bill, designed to head off a showdown between the National Rifle Association and conservative House Democrats, was introduced Thursday, with roughly 50 Democratic co-sponsors, according to congressional sources...

-snip-

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-opposes-gun-bill-but-may-allow-vote-2008-07-31.html

[madeline_con]

1. What's with this "bends" crap?

Is there some resson DC residents' constitutional rights should be differenr from those of the rest of us?

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. Why not let the residents of DC decide about their own rights?

If the overwhelming majority want strong restrictions in their own community, who are YOU to say they can't have them?

[2KS2KHonda]

4. Excellent point! If the residents of South Carolina want slaves, who is anybody to say they can't

have them?

:-)

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. You are a sick individual. nt

[2KS2KHonda]

6. Sick? Because I agree with your take on state's rights?

Okayyyyyy....

:eyes:

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. Hey, YOU are the one who equated possessing guns with

possessing people.

[2KS2KHonda]

18. Oh? Where did I do that?

??????

[madeline_con]

8. Wel,, that's just fucked up stoopid. n/t

[2KS2KHonda]

19. I agree, but it wasn't my idea.

:shrug:

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. You said it, you own it. nt

[2KS2KHonda]

24. You keep claiming that but you cannot produce any evidence I said it.

I wonder why that is...
:eyes:

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. That would be post #4, above.

What are you, a republican, thinking you can deny your own words?

[2KS2KHonda]

36. Maybe you should quit smoking...whatever you are smoking. I mentioned slaves, not guns.

jeezusfuckingchrist...

[RaleighNCDUer]

38. You're the one on crack -

The OP was about --- GUNS.

My reply was about --- GUNS.

Your reply to me was about --- SLAVES.

You equated my reply with supporting slavery.

You.

Now, toddle off to bed - it's obviously way past your bedtime.

[hack89]

56. The OP is about Constitutional rights. nt

[madeline_con]

23. Sorry, the thread got me worked up.

:hi:

[zanne]

49. Good point, 2KS2K!

They hate it when their logic is turned around and used on them!

[Thothmes]

55. The Constitution of the United States.

[madeline_con]

7. They all want strong restrictions? n/t

[AZ Criminal JD]

9. I'm a supporter of all of the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd.

I will be happy to tell the majority that they can't take away rights from the minority just because they don't like them. It is called the Constitution.

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. Then you should properly support the right of the individual states

to maintain militias as a bulwark against federal power.

The recent SC ruling flies in the face of 200 years of interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

If you want the 2nd amendment to specifically protect gun ownership as an individual right (not one restricted to members of the organized militia) the you need to AMEND the 2nd amendment to say so.

They only reason that the 2nd amendment is "unclear" or "ambiguous" is because people are trying to make it say what it does not say. There is not another paragraph in the entire constitution that is open to interpretation, ambiguous.

The Roberts court, which has been wrong on so very many issues, is suddenly right on this one? It is a RW activist court, creating what the written law does not support.

[GeniusLib]

17. Amending the Constitution to allow individual gun ownership?

"If you want the 2nd amendment to specifically protect gun ownership as an individual right (not one restricted to members of the organized militia) the you need to AMEND the 2nd amendment to say so."



I'm curious what legal precedent you are basing this theory on.

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. Based on the few state constitutions which preceeded the federal

constitution that DID specifically protect gun ownership as an individual right.

A few of the original 13 did - most of the original 13 only protected gun ownership for those who belonged to the militia, generally defined as men of good character between 21 and 45, sometimes younger or older, usually as part of an 'organized militia', sometimes not. Obviously, the implication is that those who will not be called to defend the community and those not of good character CAN be restricted in possessing firearms if the community deems it necessary.

The 2nd clearly took the 'organized militia' tack - it is the subject of the amendment - not the individual right tack. "The people" is obviously a collective reference, as opposed to "persons", such as 5th amendment "No person shall be held..."

There is nothing sancrosanct about the first ten amendments - they can be amended like any other. Shouldn't be done without a damn good reason and it should be, and is, a difficult process. But as the 2nd does NOT protect and individual right to gun ownership, and it seems most the poeple in the country WANT an individual right, the amending the 2nd to have two clauses - 1st clause the state's right to maintain militias, and 2nd clause the individual right to possess firearms - seems to me the way to go.

[2KS2KHonda]

21. Well then Texas should have the power and the right to criminalize sodomy

as it did until a couple years ago. Right?

[AZ Criminal JD]

29. You know little about Constitutional law

There are volumes and volumes of materials in law libraries on almost every section of the Constitution. There are plenty of paragraphs in the Constitution which are open to interpretation. The recent Heller ruling does not "fly in the face of 200 years of SC rulings". The only ruling that anti-gun folks can even halfway point to was made in the 1930s. In that case the lawyer for the defendant did not even show up for the hearing. He wrote a letter telling the SC his client would not pay him so in the SC hearing only the government was represented. Wow, that's a case you can use for precedent. I do support the right of states to have militias. So what. My state has both an organized militia and an unorganized component. That has nothing to do with the right of individuals to have guns for any lawful purpose.

[zanne]

50. HAH! I think you're in over your head, bamalib. nt

[AZ Criminal JD]

53. Really, then why don't you show me where I am?

I am confident you have the ability to do that.

[MicaelS]

27. Why certainly....

If people in Podunk, Iowa want to establish their town's official religion as Methodist, that's just fine, right?

[RaleighNCDUer]

28. The first amendment expressly forbids that, and you know it.

The 2nd amendment is about "A well regulated militia...shall not be infringed."

It has nothing to do with a community's restrictions on guns.

[MicaelS]

30. And in the context of the times

"Well regulated" meant "well trained" it didn't have a fucking thing to do with gun regulations.

Since you like DC's laws so much, are these new neighborhood sweeps and patrols designed to keep out people who "don't belong" in a particular neighborhood OK?

Or the one in other localities where the police want to go house to house and search for guns, with the owners permission of course. Of course.....:puke:

[RaleighNCDUer]

32. Actually, it meant "commanded by an officer" and training had shit

little to do with it - read your histories of our first hundred years for what the regulars thought of the training of the militias.

A "well-regulated militia" is one that had a recognized command, upon whose orders the militia would turn out. Except for an occassional, usually disastrous, example from the indian wars (such as Chivington's Colorado Volunteers and the Sand Creek Massacre) militias became obsolete by the Civil War. That's because their training was so bad that they usually broke after the first couple minutes under fire.

The well-regulated militia is different from the unorganized militia, which was, literally, nothing more than men of fighting age who would gather to defend their community, usually against indian raids. There was no command; they might elect someone as their officer, but it had no permanent standing after the immediate emergency.

As for your paranoia about sweeps and searches, please provide a link. Otherwise, I'll just have to believe you're pulling it out of your ass.

[MicaelS]

34. No paranoia, look right here....

http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/barrcode/entries/2008/02/27/boston_police_jump_gun_with_sa.html

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/11/17/police_to_search_for_guns_in_homes/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/12/AR2008031202717.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/04/AR2008060402205_pf.html

http://www.examiner.com/a-1423820~Lanier_plans_to_seal_off_rough__hoods_in_latest_effort_to_stop_wave_of_violence.html

[RaleighNCDUer]

37. Paranoia.

1) Boston. Just say 'no'. If you don't want the police to come in, just say no. If they really want to come in, they'll come back with a warrant. BTW, the police can ALWAYS come in IF YOU LET THEM IN.

2) Ditto.

3) DC. Same program, but better as the police must get a written release before entering, eliminating the possibility of "he said, he said".

4) DC. Trinidad. Similar programs have had marginal success in the past - if you are trying to stop gang wars and drive by shootings, you have to control the roads. BTW, how is this different from a gated community, where no one but residents are allowed in without specified business, and guards turn away those who don't belong? Oh, it DOESN'T stop everyone - only those driving getaway cars. Any gangbangers who want to do a walk-by shooting can just walk in - then run out again.

5) Same as 3.

I don't know where you're from, but you might have a different take on it if there was one person a week being murdered on your block.

[benEzra]

40. Ummm, you left a very important part out.

The 2nd amendment is about "A well regulated militia...shall not be infringed."

Ummm, you left a very important part out. You forgot the subject of the verb "shall."

The subject of the verb "shall" is the noun "right." As in, "the right...shall not be infringed."

And to whom does that right belong? The militia?

No. "...the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Same "people" as in the First and Fourth Amendments. Allowing a well-trained militia is a reason to protect that right, but the right is not specified as belonging to the militia, but to the people at large.

[slackmaster]

47. What's so special about the "community" as a human grouping?

Why should a majority of people in a municipality be able to dictate choices for neighborhoods, blocks, or individual homes?

If you really wanted the residents of DC to determine their own choices, why shouldn't the choice be left to each and every individual?

[Loki]

3. I was extremely proud when she became speaker

but as a woman and as a Democrat, I no longer support her. What a waste of an opportunity. Just like W, you're all hat and no cattle. I'm so sick of politics as usual and people like Nancy Pelosi. Get out of the fucking way because I'm taking my country back.

[bigmoon]

10. This is purely a political move

When the NRA says jump, the Dems jump

[bigmoon]

11. This is purely a political move

When the NRA says jump, the Dems jump

[spin]

15. Many other people share your viewpoint...

Politics as usual will disappear as the American voters are beginning to wake up and watch what is happening in Congress. If incumbent members of Congress want to get reelected they will have to start doing something or the voters will hand them a pink slip.

[spin]

12. Merely common sense...

D.C was trying to put so many hurdles in the path of any prospective gun owner that the Republicans will be able to portray the Democrats as anti-gun fanatics yet again. For example D.C. wanted to ban semi-auto handguns, probably the most common type pf handguns purchased in the U.S. today.

The bill, to be numbered H.R. 6691, would repeal the district’s ban on semi-automatic pistols, the requirement that handguns be registered, and allow District residents from traveling to Virginia or Maryland to buy guns. The District currently forbids importing guns, and there are no registered gun dealers with shops in Washington.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-opposes-gun-bill-but-may-allow-vote-2008-07-31.html

To read the requirements visit this link:
http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/frames.asp?doc=/mpdc/lib/mpdc/info/pdf/firearms_registraton_req.pdf

As an example of draconian registration procedures in D.C a ballistic test would have to be preformed on all handguns to be registered. How long would this take? Months, maybe years?

Ballistics Testing
A ballistics test will be conducted on every firearm registered in the District of Columbia. Owners should bring their firearms, but NO AMMNUITION. Ammunition for ballistics testing will be provided by the MPD.
http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1237,q,547431.asp

Washington D.C. has done the anti-gun lobby a disservice by appealing the decision of he United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to the Supreme Court. The effects of this decision will take a while to sort out, but by setting up unreasonable requirements D.C will again fail (I predict) and their stand will only hurt the Democratic Party.

Nancy Pelosi is showing wisdom by allowing this bill to come to the floor of the House.

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. "As an example of draconian registration procedures in D.C a ballistic test would have to be

preformed on all handguns to be registered. How long would this take? Months, maybe years?"

Just what about this would take "months, maybe years"? How is it "draconian"?

Someone brings his handgun in to the police department. An officer takes the weapon to a ballistics tank, shoots one round into the water. That round and the cartridge are attached to a card which identifies the weapon that fired it. The weapon is handed back to the owner, who takes it home. That's what, a half-hour?

No doubt the slug and cartridge will be compared to the police database of unsolved shootings to see if there is a match, but no legal gun owner should have anything to worry about for that. Of course, if the owner bought the weapon under the table and it was involved in a crime before he got ahold of it he might have some explaining to do, but really, what legitimate gun owner buys illegal weapons?

OTOH, if someone breaks in and steals your weapon, and it is registered, you would have a good chance of getting it back - assuming you let the police know it stolen in the first place. Which any responsible gun owner would do, right?

[Tejas]

31. In a perfect world,

your estimate of 1/2 hour would be realistic. Myself, I'm not too crazy about letting the LEO's fire my weapon. It's new, after they're through it, it won't be (new) anymore.

That, and the fact that accidents happen - "hey, sorry, we scratched your brand new SIG" -

[spin]

35. And what exactly would this accomplish?

Florida, for example, has no requirement to register a firearm let alone perform a ballistics test on all firearms.

I feel this is just a method to delay and discourage gun ownership. It's merely another hurdle for the honest citizen to jump over before he can legally own his weapon. Right off hand, I can't think of any state or city that has this requirement. I'm sure that in D.C. it will take a while for some officer to fire the weapon into the ballistics tank. It's not as simple as you describe. Also there is a cost to register the weapon. I'm sure glad I don't have to fork out money for what I consider an unnecessary and useless procedure here in Florida.

The cost to register any firearm is $13 per weapon. Fingerprint processing and ballistics testing — also required — cost $35 and $12 respectively. The registration process may take up to 14 days.
http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1237,q,547431.asp

And as you point out:

No doubt the slug and cartridge will be compared to the police database of unsolved shootings to see if there is a match, but no legal gun owner should have anything to worry about for that. Of course, if the owner bought the weapon under the table and it was involved in a crime before he got ahold of it he might have some explaining to do, but really, what legitimate gun owner buys illegal weapons?

Your proved my point. A lot of time, effort and tax dollars will be spent and very little if anything will be accomplished.


A responsible gun owner in Florida has a list of the serial numbers for his weapons. If a firearm is stolen he just turns the serial number of the weapon over to the police. No problem.

[RaleighNCDUer]

39. I'm sure that serial number helps a lot in identifying it as a murder weapon

after it was stolen.

With the ballistics on file the slug and the cartridge can identify the weapon. So, your handgun was stolen from your glove compartment when someone broke into your car. That weapon is later identified as the weapon used in a shooting a half-mile away. As a good citizen, you reported the weapon stolen - you are therefore not a suspect. The search for the suspect centers on the area of the shooting, and they know exactly what weapon did the shooting - find the weapon, and they have the shooter.

Of course, if you find your business partner is fucking your wife you COULD report the weapon stolen, then shoot them with it a week later. But that might not work out so well as it did when you could just shoot them and keep the weapon because the police had no record of it.

Every gun crime is committed with a gun that was, once, legitimate. Many are committed by people who never think they will commit one. A ballistics database will catch killers. It's as simple as that.

[spin]

44. Sounds good but some experts disagree...

As a rule, police support and lobby for any cost-effective tool that might improve their odds of solving or preventing crimes. Based on the current state of the technology, the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), the largest police organization in the United States, stated that two questions must be answered before substantial resources are devoted to the creation of a ballistic database.53

* First, since ballistic imprints, unlike fingerprints and DNA, can be altered, either deliberately or through normal use, how would the validity of the findings be ensured?
* Second, how would such a database be compiled and what would be the cost to create and maintain it?

The organization's statement declared:

FOP does not support any federal requirement to register privately owned firearms with the government. Without federally mandated registration of the more than 200 million firearms in the U.S. today, such a database would be no more effective than the current NIBIN maintained by BATFE. And even if such a database is limited to firearms manufactured in the future, the cost to create and maintain such a system, with such small chances it would be used to solve a firearms crime, suggests to FOP these are law enforcement dollars best spent elsewhere.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/bg/bg160/index.html#e

[Phred42]

14. She bends over , grabs her cheeks and spreads them

hard.

[benEzra]

42. No, that's what the DLC did for the repubs at the Brady Campaign in '94

thereby handing the House and Senate to the repubs for twelve years.

The "Dems'll take yer guns" meme is now dead. She's trying to keep it dead. Good for her.

[ladjf]

33. The trouble with Pelosi is that she isn't a Democrat.

[benEzra]

41. So, you believe in Rove's "all Democrats are out to ban people's guns" meme too?

Half of gun owners are Dems and indies. Pro-gun Dems helped win Congress back in 2006, after anti-gun Dems threw it away in 1994.

This is the right thing to do, IMO, both politically and morally.

[ladjf]

43. No, that is not the case. My statement was that Pelosi was not a

Democrat, meaning that she has consistently sided with Bush on key issues.

[spin]

45. She hasn't sided with Bush on offshore drilling...

which might prove to be a major mistake.

[ladjf]

46. The offshore drilling issue has become a litmus type test.

There would be no oil until ten years. Then the oil would be available on the world market to the highest bidders. It is a red herring.

However, since the oil companies would pay for it, the real cost to America is the possible environmental damage. If Obama's willingness to accept offshore drilling made the difference in the election, it would be worth the environmental risk because another Republican Presidency would be far worse.

[spin]

51. Under a another Republican administration...

drilling for oil would be the top priority. If Obama gets elected, the drilling may be more of a short term deal that bridges the gap between oil and future green energy sources.

Some experts (talking heads on the news) state that new oil from the off limits areas of the Gulf could come online in as little as 18 months because of the existing infrastructure. It's hard to verify this through credible sources. It could make a larger short term difference if it is true.

I've been interested in the ideas of the bipartisan "Gang of Ten". When Congress comes back for its next session it needs to open discussions on the energy crisis. I doubt that anything will be accomplished before the election. I also worry that a war between Israel and Iran might drive oil prices into the stratosphere and the Republicans will succeed in blaming the Democrats for the rise in the price of gasoline. This could cost us votes.

One thing for sure, neither party can afford to sit on the energy issue and use it for political gain. I just hope that any energy plan that they come up with is well thought out and moves this country and the world away from fossil fuel.

[Phred42]

52. Exactly Correct

Being Blue Dog or DLC and being a DEMOCRAT are Mutually exclusive - Period

[KharmaTrain]

48. Translation: Hoyer & The Blue Dogs Have The Votes...

Again...Hoyer is behind this motion...nothing gets to the floor without his support and as Majority Leader he can and does set the schedule as to what is brought up or sent to committee hell. Pelosi can try to block it and face a revolt in her own caucus but she can't stop this thing if Hoyer, Blue Dogs and their GOOP buddies decide they want this brought up for a vote...it's a replay of what they did with FISA.

[Overseas]

54. Don't forget her book -- NO YOUR POWER. /nt