search
top

Text of H.R.6691 Available

The text of HR6691, the Bill by the House Democrats to enforce the Heller decision on the District of Colombia is H.R.6691.  No surprises, really.  It’s actually a bit better than the Republican version, since it allows DC residents to obtain firearms in Maryland and Virginia.  NFA stuff will still be illegal in DC, and it does not address prohibition on carrying firearms.  I call that a good start, so hopefully we can get this through Congress before the elections.

12 Responses to “Text of H.R.6691 Available”

  1. kaveman308 says:

    What do you want to bet that Obama skips out on voting on this bill?

  2. Sebastian says:

    I’d say the odds of him doing that are pretty high.

  3. ATL says:

    I think Republicans ought to attach an earmark/ rider for concealed carry. That would be priceless!

  4. chris says:

    the one thing that bothers me about this law… it would still be illegal to buy or possess ammo for a gun you do not own… so if you come across a great deal on .45 ammo but dont plan on buying one yet, you cannot buy the ammo…

    likewise if you sell your gun but one single round falls into a crack in your floor somewhere, you are now a criminal.

  5. Sebastian says:

    Yeah… I’m not happy about that either. But it’s a far cry better than we’ll get out of Fenty.

  6. Carl in Chicago says:

    Yeah, agreed with previous commentators. I hope this thing gets to the Senate fast enough to force Barack Obama to explain yet another “present” vote.

  7. Jeff Dege says:

    My initial response is not to trust the Dem leadership on the gun issue. But I don’t see anything objectionable in the bill.

    So my guess is we’re going to see a last-minute floor amendment, that the Dem leadership will try to pass on a floor vote. IOW, another Hughes amendment.

    What do you think? A last-minute .50 cal ban?

    My worry isn’t that we’ll see an amendment that will kill the bill, but that we’ll see an amendment that should kill the bill, but doesn’t.

    FOPA was a good bill for gun owners, prior to the Hughes amendment. It still did a lot of good for gun owners, even with the Hughes amendment.

    Even so, it should have been pulled, once the Hughes amendment was adopted.

    If the D.C. gun ban repeal is ladened with an anti-gun amendment, it won’t be pulled, because a Dem will be the author. And I’m afraid too many of our pro-gun Congresscritters will weight the pros and cons and vote for the result.

    We need to make sure that our supporters know:

    1: That we want to see a roll-call vote on any anti-gun amendment. The Hughes amendment passed with minority support, because the speaker called for a voice vote, claimed it passed, and nobody challenged. We need people on record.

    2. That we need people to vote against any amendment that throws any part of the gun community under the bus.

    3. If an anti-gun amendment is adopted, we expect to see the resulting bill voted down. We will not accept the idea that it’s OK to screw over one small group of shooters, simply because a larger group would benefit.

  8. Sebastian says:

    I doubt it. The Dem leadership didn’t even want a gun bill coming to the floor because they didn’t want to make their party members have to get a recorded vote right before an election. Namely, they didn’t want Obama having to get a recorded vote right before an election. The only reason we have this bill is because, as part of the arm twisting, the Democrats wanted credit for getting this done.

  9. JJR says:

    I wrote my rep and asked him to support HR6691. For the heck of it, I told him to propose an amendment to allow concealed carry as well, using Texas CHL laws as a guide (since those would be the one’s he’d be most familiar with).

  10. Saladman says:

    Better than I expected; you were right about that.

    Question: is this likely to be the status quo for some time to come, or will our side be in a position to build on it? It seems like the Democrats will regard this as a finished deal; they aren’t likely to revisit the issue for the purpose of expanding the right. Is there anything I don’t know? Would it be better to let the new Heller suit go forward, or take this?

  11. Sebastian says:

    It’s hard to say. I’m not too happy that arms had to be twisted to even get this far. It might be possible to build on it in the future, but we’ll have to see what the landscape looks like after 2008.

  12. Carl in Chicago says:

    Saladman:

    My opinion is that these things are never finished … though the Heller decision certainly puts the ball in the court of fewer gun restrictions. So I don’t agree with Dege that adding a “.50 cal ban” rider would fly with this bill. This bill may or may not fly if it’s consistent with the Heller ruling. It will not fly if it’s contradictory of the Heller decision.

    Frankly, I predict this thing will sail through the House (and the dems will get lots of press how they support the 2A, etc., etc.). But I suspect there might be issues with it in the Senate. Seems to me the house dems are willing to play ball, so that the “gun issue” doesn’t hurt them. They might ride that publicity into the Senate where who knows what will happen. If it comes up in the Senate before the elections … well, then it might be pretty fun to watch them squirm.

    The dems just need to drop this gun control non-sense. I suspect that many of them know that full well.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. SayUncle » HR 6691 - [...] Democrat bill to enforce the Heller decision is available for download at Sebastian’s. He notes it’s better than the…
  2. The Right To Bear Arms » Time To Enforce The SC Ruling - [...] Sebastian has a link to the download of the bill in question and says the Democratic version is actually…
top