Category: Gun Rights

I like the idea that the big, bad, NRA is holding DC voting rights “hostage” by insisting that DC follow the constitution if it wasn’t to have representation in Congress.  Couldn’t the exact same charge be leveled at Nancy Pelosi?  Pelosi, Norton, and Hoyer are risking the timely passage of this bill to preserve draconian gun control, and to avoid forcing the President’s hand in signing pro-gun rights language.  NRA would be pleased to pass the Senate version of the bill quickly.  Who’s holding DC voting rights hostage again?

The Democrat leadership in the House is twisting arms.  We have to be sure to twist back.  Call your rep!   See this Washington Post article:

Supporters continued to be hard-pressed to predict when the voting rights bill, pulled from consideration Tuesday by House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), would reemerge.

“This is hard, man,” said Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), who met yesterday with House allies to go over the list of the conservative members they intend to target. “It’s close analytical work, a lot like playing chess.”

We have to make sure they don’t win this one.  There is hope:

House leaders have concluded that they have 190 solid votes in favor of blocking all amendments, 28 fewer than necessary for approval, sources with knowledge of strategy discussions said. To round up enough support, the voting rights supporters will target the group of more than 60 members from conservative areas.

Norton said she and her allies discussed a list of Democrats “to size up who was genuinely at risk [of repercussions from the NRA] and who was not. I can report to you going through the list that many are not at risk.”

Politicians who take political advice from Elanor Holmes Norton should have their heads examined.  Call your representatives.  If Holmes Norton is telling them they aren’t at risk, we have to tell them they are.

The news media has picked up the story that Pelosi had to pull her bill.  We might, from the articles, get an idea of what might happen in The House.  First, from the New York Times:

Chris Cox, the executive director of the N.R.A.’s legislative unit, wouldn’t confirm today that his organization threatened to monitor the vote in the House, or “score” it, as one of the gauges it uses to grade lawmakers’ adherence to the group’s agenda. “What I will say is that we would hold our right to take a position on a procedural motion that has a possibility of positively or adversely affecting the 2nd amendment,” Mr. Cox said. He termed “restoring Second Amendment rights” to district residents a “core issue’’ for his organization.

Next from the Washington Times:

House Democratic leaders have said the National Rifle Association is a major influence on some pro-gun Democrats on the Rules Committee, who may have agreed to attach the gun amendments to the bill.

“Leadership thought there was understanding with the NRA to keep the bill clean,” Mr. Connolly said. “Obviously there was a misunderstanding.”

From the Washington Post:

In an afternoon conference call with city officials, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said he did not have enough votes to bring the bill to the floor without the possibility of amendments, according to sources with knowledge of the discussion.

“We weren’t confident the votes would be there,” said a senior House aide who spoke on condition of anonymity because she was not authorized to discuss the matter.

Hoyer put the bill on hold Tuesday after learning that the National Rifle Association was urging its members to use a procedural maneuver to press for amendments that would repeal many of the city’s gun laws.

Based on Chris Cox’s statements in the three articles, the NRA is playing its cards close to its chest, and so is the House leadership.  Pelosi and Hoyer pretty clearly don’t want to send Obama a bill with gun rights language in it — a bill Obama will likely have to sign.  There will be a lot of back room dealing over this bill, as both sides try to influence lawmakers.

This would be a good time to contact your Representatives and make sure they know how you expect them to vote on restoring the Second Amendment to the District of Columbia.  It’s a big help to NRA’s lobbyists if they are meeting with a representative who’s also gotten dozens of phone calls and e-mails about the issue, rather than heard nothing from constituents.

In perhaps an unintentional tribute to the title of this blog, I have to wonder about this bit from SayUncle:

If, say five year ago, you told me that there would be an actual discussion on the floor of passing concealed carry laws in Illinois, I would not have believed you.

And also this from Clayton Cramer:

See this video from CNN. They actually interview an expert pointing out that guns being used in Mexico aren’t assault weapons.

Lou Dobbs has been offering quite a lot of positive coverage about gun issues, and if you had told me five years ago CNN would be asking skeptical questions about a proposal for an assault weapons ban, and questioning whether it was constitutional, I also would not have believed you.

UPDATE: More from Lou Dobbs on the New Jersey One-Gun-a-Month bill here.

Those weak and defeated Lairds of Fairfax, who refuse to fight the good fight, and who are afraid of their own shadows, sure seem to have the leadership on Capitol Hill worried.

Democrats may be running the House, but the National Rifle Association (NRA) can still stop a bill in its tracks.

House Democratic leaders on Tuesday pulled legislation from the floor that seemingly had nothing to do with guns because the NRA disliked it.

The bill in question would give the District of Columbia a voting member of Congress. The gun-rights lobby prefers a Senate version, which includes language amending the District’s gun policies, and some suggest the NRA could make life difficult for conservative Democrats if that language is not included in the House version.

Pelosi was all set up to pass a clean bill, and NRA threatened to make accepting the Senate version in the house a “key vote” meaning that politicians will be graded on the vote.  That was enough to get her to pull the bill.

“The D.C. vote bill needs to pass,” said Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.), a Blue Dog gun-rights supporter who sits on the House Rules Committee. “I would have concerns about any group who would tell us how to run our House.”

The NRA’s clout was evident last week when the amendment — removing D.C.’s ban on semiautomatic weapons, its registration requirement and trigger-lock rule — was adopted by the Senate, 62-36.

What Mr. Cardoza and his “blue dog” buddies need to understand is that it does no good if you just tell us you’re pro-Second Amendment, and answer your questionnaire well during election season.  At some point will come the time to vote.  Now is the time.  Look at blue dogs like Jason Altmire, who are actively out there fighting the leadership on this issue:

“They want to be like the rest of America. One of the things Americans do is pay attention to Supreme Court rulings,” said Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.), a member of the House Second Amendment Task Force.

That’s what earns you those A grades.  The time to start dividing friend from foe is now.  Are you blue dog Dems friends of us?  Or friends of Pelosi and Hoyer?  Time to choose.

Looks like the LA Times Sports Writer, Pete Thomas, is busy telling the truth about Assault Weapons:

Interestingly, the 1994 ban applied to semiautomatic weapons, which automatically reload but fire only one round per squeeze of a trigger. Ownership of fully automatic weapons, such as machine guns, has been heavily regulated since 1934.

But such points are moot. Banning the sale of either type of weapon in the U.S. probably would do no good.

As long as the Mexican cartels can make billions selling drugs across the border, they’ll continue to line up like salmon at the mouth of a stream — in this case border towns beneath California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas — and do what it takes to push their product.

You simply aren’t going to disarm drug cartels, and Mr. Thomas is eactly right that they will find some way to get their guns, just as they do grenades, rockets, and various other heavy weaponry that’s most definitely not coming from the United States, as mentioned in this CBS News story:

“Half of what we seize, 55 percent are assault rifles. And this is what gives these groups this intimidation power. Over 17,000 assault rifles, throughout the last two years. Two thousand and 200 grenades, missile and rocket launchers. Fifty caliber sniper rifles,” the attorney general explained.

It might surprise you to learn where all these guns are coming from. It turns out 90 percent of them are purchased in the US.

“The Second Amendment was never designed to arm criminal groups, and especially not foreign criminal groups as it is today,” Medina-Mora said.

Asked if he blames the U.S. for not doing more to stop this flow, he told Cooper, “We believe that much more needs to be done. We need a much more committed effort from the U.S.”

Has Mr. Medina-Mora, the Attorney General of Mexico, wondered why these drug turf battles haven’t, in fact, spilled over the border?  There is plenty of territory along the US border that are relatively unprotected by law enforcement.

Maybe because Texans, New Mexicans and Arizonans are also well armed and will shoot back.  The Second Amendment is not about arming criminals, it’s about recognizing that people have a right to the same tools criminals use to ply their trade to defend themselves from the same.  Maybe if Mexico took their Second Amendment a little more seriously, the drug gangs wouldn’t find a population so ripe for terrorizing.

Looks like they are shooting for more than just getting rid of the registry:

In addition to the elimination of the long-gun registry for non-restricted firearms, there is a requirement for the Auditor General to perform a cost/benefit analysis of the program every five years. Other clauses would combine the Possession Only licences with the Possession and Acquisition licences, change the licence-renewal period to 10 years and change the grandfathering dates for handguns to clarify and improve what is now a confusing situation for legal owners.

Gun rights on the march in New Jersey and Canada?  What is this world coming to?