The PSH Has Returned

The Brady Blog has now returned to their regularly scheduled hysterics:

H.R. 6691 is a disaster of a bill, and the House should have the good sense to toss it in the trash, and its NRA sponsors out on their noses.

Except we’re still waiting for an explanation about how it does any of the things that Brady is falsely claiming it does.

8 Responses to “The PSH Has Returned”

  1. Anthony says:

    Maybe the intern didn’t have classes today.

  2. AntiCitizenOne says:


  3. K-Romulus says:

    Actually, the “rifles in the streets” claim may have some arguable merit. Childers’ fix to DC Code 22-4504 removes language prohibiting the carrying of “any deadly or dangerous weapon.” It looks like Childers’ edits only leave existing language prohibiting carrying “pistols . . . or any deadly or dangerous weapon capable of being so concealed.” I think the intent of Childers was to get rid of a provision in existing law that went easier on those found with guns only in their homes, because it would be irrelevent after the bill’s passage. I can maybe do a cut and paste to show you when I get home.

  4. K-Romulus says:

    As an aside, DC Code 22-4504 is entitled “Carrying concealed weapons; possession of weapons during commission of a crime of violence;penalty.”

    The whole “rifles in the streets” thing stems from DC’s bad drafting. The code first bans open or concealed carry of pistols or similar weapons “capable of being so concealed.” It then has a harsher penalty specified for “violat(ing) this section by carrying a pistol . . . or any deadly or dangerous weapon” in any place than than in the home or business. The enhanced penalty part doesn’t match the original statement of what is being prohibited (carrying concealable weapons). So, it seems that open carry of long guns MAY ALREADY be legal in DC, just no one has tried to push the question.

  5. Guav says:

    More telling is what they said on their main page (emphasis added):

    In a major threat to the visitors and citizens of the Nation’s Capital, Congress will soon consider legislation that would allow dangerous people to openly carry assault rifles and other military weapons on the streets of our Nation’s Capital.

    And we know what they mean by “assault weapons,” but what do they mean by “other military weapons”? Are they trying to get people to think that the “streets will be flooded” with gang members walking around with RPGs?

    Oh wait, of course they are trying to imply that—nevermind.

  6. Jay Hafemeister says:

    Pray tell, what exactly is PSH?

  7. Sebastian says:

    Pants Shitting Hysterics

  8. k-romulus says:

    Here is what DC Code 22-4504 looks like with Childers’ edits (caps are the additions, everything within the brackets is deleted):

    (a) No person shall carry within the District of Columbia either openly or concealed on or about their person, `EXCEPT IN HIS DWELLING HOUSE OR PLACE OF BUSINESS OR ON OTHER LAND POSSESSED BY THAT PERSON, WHETHER LOADED OR UNLOADED, A PISTOL,’ without a license issued pursuant to District of Columbia law, or any deadly or dangerous weapon capable of being so concealed. Whoever violates this section shall be punished as provided in § 22-4515, [except that:

    (1) A person who violates this section by carrying a pistol, without a license issued pursuant to District of Columbia law, or any deadly or dangerous weapon, in a place other than the person’s dwelling place, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both; or

    (2) If the violation] EXCEPT THAT IF THE VIOLATION of this section occurs after a person has been convicted in the District of Columbia of a violation of this section or of a felony, either in the District of Columbia or another jurisdiction, the person shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both . . .. (end excerpt)

    Here is the relevant part of Childer’s bill:

    Section 4(a) of the Act of July 8, 1932 (47 Stat. 651; sec. 22-4504(a), D.C. Official Code) is amended–

    (1) in the matter before paragraph (1), by striking `a pistol,’ and inserting the following: `except in his dwelling house or place of business or on other land possessed by that person, whether loaded or unloaded, a pistol,’; and

    (2) by striking `except that:’ and all that follows through `(2) If the violation’ and inserting `except that if the violation’.