search
top

Norton Caves on Gun Issue

I think the path is clearing for DC Voting rights to pass along with DC gun rights.  If Elanor Norton is giving in, I don’t know what’s left stopping it:

Still, Norton has so far railed against keeping the amendment. But on Friday, she said the bill must pass — even if it means keeping a provision that, among other things, would allow residents to carry AK-47s without any registration.

So let’s pass this thing then.

15 Responses to “Norton Caves on Gun Issue”

  1. Carl in Chicago says:

    Would it be wrong for a legislator to vote YES on this if they believe in fulfilling the gun rights of DC residents, but also believe that such a measure is a constitutionally unacceptable way to get them representation?

    I belive in gun rights, voting rights, and the constitution. I believe that at this time, the constitution is amenable to one but not the other. So I would vote FOR the bill, knowing that the voting rights thing will be struck in court. I would do so feeling guilty, however, for “wasting” the court’s time and the taxpayer dollars.

    But given the insanity in Washington, I really don’t see how else to get this done. Another reason I’d vote YES is because I feel that the means to self-preservation is fundamental to representation in the Congress.

  2. AntiCitizenOne says:

    “carry AK-47s without registration”

    mmm…smell the fear-mongering there…sheep.

    although I want to see who can conceal an AKSU, in any case, I would be VERY happy to own an AK myself…

  3. citizenw says:

    DC denizens have been denied their inalienable (innate, inherent, intrinsic) rights, as citizens of this nation, to participate equally in the participatory form of government which all other citizens enjoy. They are Governed Without Consent. They seek Equality, Nothing More, and will settle for Equality, Nothing Less.
    They are denied recognition and respect for their inalienable right (which cannot be sold, traded, or taken away — an arbitrary, anachronistic, and artificial provision of the nation’s Constitution notwithstanding) to Consent to the laws under which we all must live, to be heard and counted in the national consensus which we develop via our national legislature.
    Denying DC the opportunity to either grant or withold their Consent over the laws under which we all must live (the same rights exercised by all other citizens in the fifty states) reults in the power exerted by Congress and the fifty states over the District being a power both illegitimate and tyrannical. Recall that our Constitution, as originally written, denied exercise of these same fundamental rights to blacks and women, too. We have corrected that over time as we strive for “a more perfect Union.” The task is not yet complete.

  4. Sebastian says:

    That’s fine CitizenW, but in order to have representation, you have to pass a constitutional amendment. Congress can’t just make it so.

  5. Carl in Chicago says:

    CitizenW, I too feel that DC residents must have representation, and they must get it by one of many constitutional means.

    But let’s make sure we have our facts straight.

    The right to representation in Congress or some other governmental body is NOT an inalienable right, as you have stated. That’s a “legal” or relative right because it depends on the existence of some form of representative government.

    The right to arms, however, IS a natural right as it extends from the right of self-preservation.

  6. Yosemite Sam says:

    So when did they pass the law that forced people to live in DC? If representation is so important to them then they can move. Or better, have them represented by a congressman from Maryland.

    But, that isn’t the point. DC representation is a just a means to get another Democratic congressman by extra Constitutional means.

    BTW, if Congress won’t abide by the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land and the binding contract between government and the people, then why should the people obey any laws that the Congress passes?

    I suspect that if Congress keeps down this lawless path then they will find out the answer to this question.

  7. RAH says:

    Not right to jettison the Constitution for something you want. ie gun rights for DC for a voting rep. The voting rep is unconstitutional so the bill should not be approved. Yes I want the gun rights but put it on the DC appopriations bill. This is just politics. I scratch your back and you scratch mine. Nthing noble about that.

  8. RAH says:

    The last bill that was bad on 1 st right to speech was McCain Feingold. It passed the House and Senate, should have been vetoed. The President punted to SCOTUS and they upheld it . Bad idea to pass laws that violate the constitution in the first basis on politcal reasons. The next guys who decide may agree wit the reasons and violate the constitution.

    In other words dont expect the next guy to do your job for you. Do it right the first time.

  9. Sebastian says:

    It’s a risk, but as I said before, this will pass regardless of whether we think it’s unconstitutional. The only thing preventing is from passing is the gun rights language. It’s politics, sure, but it’s also strategy. Tack it on to an appropriations bill, Obama has the cover to veto it. If you have Fenty and Norton saying they’ll support the bill with the gun rights language, Obama will have to sign it.

  10. Matt Groom says:

    Gee, I sure wish I could get an AK-47 without having to register it.

    I guess the laws they are trying to get passed in DC must be a whole hell of a lot less strict than even the most pro-gun state in the Union. I seriously wonder what the anti-civil rights crowd would talk about if the AK-47 had never been invented.

  11. Harry Schell says:

    This bill should not pass based on constitutional grounds.

    Meaningful in a big way is not the issue, it’s wrong and I have a great concern the Obama administration will take as many liberties with the Constitution as they can get away with. Whether Bush did or didn’t, that is no excuse for Obama to…what is wrong is wrong.

    The self-defense issue should be settled on its obvious merits. Tacking it onto a bad bill is little reason to vote for the bad bill. SCOTUS has made it pretty clear what they expect DC to do and Fenty et. al. should be called out and punished for their mendacity and illegal behavior.

    This way they lose the issue and pay no price.

    Bringing one constitutional right to the residents of DC while granting them one they shouldn’t have is not a good trade. It may be expeditious, but the precedent is lousy and pure politics. While it grinds an axe we support (armed self-defense), the winds can always change and the precedent can be used against us in the future.

  12. Sebastian says:

    Except SCOTUS didn’t make it that clear, and I’d rather settle this now, rather than pushing this through the courts in the hopes that they’ll do the right thing and throw out the registration, and restrictions on semi-autos.

    Keep in mind that if it wasn’t for this amendment to the D.C. Voting Rights Act, it would be law already.

  13. B Smith says:

    @ Matt Groom:
    “Gee, I sure wish I could get an AK-47 without having to register it.”

    You can. It’s just not currently legal :-) Yeah, I dislike that whole pesky “make me a criminal” thing, too

    “I seriously wonder what the anti-civil rights crowd would talk about if the AK-47 had never been invented.”

    Never fear, they are misinformed on so many subjects—“cop-killer bullets”, other “assault rifles” and “weapons of war”, “sniper rifles”, “machine guns”… the list is damn near infinite.

  14. RedDog says:

    How about some principles here – lets uphold the constitution! The Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. You want to over look that in order to push for a different right. Lets do it the right way. You want voting rights for DC residents, then amend the constitution. You want restoration of second amendment rights for DC, then continue to push it in the courts.

  15. Sebastian says:

    Depending on the courts to do the right thing in regards to gun rights is more risky than depending on Congress to do it. You have no idea where that 5-4 majority in Heller becomes a 5-4 majority against you.

    I’ve said it dozens of times by now, but DC Voting Rights is passing. I didn’t ask for it. I tried my level best to prevent total Democratic domination this election, but it didn’t work out. As long as the Democrats are determined to piss on the constitution and pass this turd, we can at least make it smell a little better by tacking on some gun rights language to it.

top