Second Amendment Enforcement Act Introduced in U.S. Congress

[GreenStormCloud]

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=13726

NRA-Backed Second Amendment Enforcement Act Introduced in U.S. Congress


Tuesday, April 27, 2010


Fairfax, Va. - The National Rifle Association announced its support for critical legislation being introduced in Congress today by Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.), and Representatives Travis Childers (D-Miss.) and Mark Souder (R-Ind.). The Second Amendment Enforcement Act will restore Second Amendment rights to residents of the District of Columbia. This legislation is necessary because the D.C. Council continues to circumvent the Supreme Court’s historic 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller.

Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, said, “It’s a shame that this legislation is even necessary to restore rights that citizens of the District should already have the freedom to exercise. We are grateful that a bipartisan group of members of Congress led by Senators McCain and Tester, and Congressmen Childers and Souder, have taken this significant step to require the D.C. Council to abide by the Heller decision and allow law-abiding citizens in D.C. to protect themselves and their loved ones.”

The Second Amendment Enforcement Act seeks to secure for District residents the rights reinforced by the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller. The legislation would repeal D.C.'s ban on many common semi-automatic firearms, restore the right of self-defense in the home, authorize purchases of firearms and ammunition by D.C. residents, repeal the District's burdensome gun registration requirement and ensure that firearms may be transported and carried for legitimate purposes.

“Since the Heller ruling, the D.C. Council has willfully disregarded the intentions of our nation’s highest court,” Cox continued. “NRA remains committed to restoring the right to self-defense for law-abiding citizens in Washington, D.C. by whatever legal or legislative means necessary.”

The legislation introduced today is similar to the Ensign Amendment adopted by the Senate in 2009, and to the Childers Amendment that passed the House in 2008. Both measures passed their respective chambers with broad bi-partisan majorities.

It is worth noting that the bill is co-sponsored by both an R and a D.

[msongs]

1. freedom to carry guns on airplanes and in public schools shall not be infringed at any time nt

[Hoopla Phil]

2. I think you read the wrong article. This one did not address guns on planes. Or perhaps

you were about to start your own thread on the subject and replied to this one by mistake.

[shadowrider]

4. --Snort--

[shadowrider]

3. The first amendment ensures you're allowed to make riduculous statements

NO ONE has ever suggested such a thing (Except anti-gun people who take hyperbole to a new level)

[backwoodsbob]

68. freedom to create non existant issues shall not be infringed

especially among the anti 2a here.

[Hoopla Phil]

5. Glad to see this is bi-partisan but it's shameful to be needed.

[baldguy]

6. Does it include the "well regulated" part?

[X_Digger]

9. Well-regulated like your colon, not your public utility.

What, 15,000 odd federal laws not enough for you?

[Hoopla Phil]

10. I don't think it has any mention of the citizens meeting for muster or drill or keeping like arms.

But that IS a good suggestion.

[slackmaster]

12. That's up to you

You can be well-regulated if you wish.

[baldguy]

17. So, the answer is "no" - right?

Who'd a thunk it - a RW mob like the NRA claims to LOOOOOVE! the Constitution, but really only loves some parts of it & wants to destroy all the other parts. The parts that have to do with civic responsibility & respect for their fellow citizens, anyway.

[X_Digger]

19. Which part of the constitution has the NRA campaigned to be repealed, eh? n/t

[baldguy]

22. Oh, the NRA doesn't want to repeal any of it. That would be a PR nightmare for them.

The RW needs to maintain the illusion that they love the Constitution. Otherwise the rubes they need to con to keep their power might get wise to the con and figure out the RW actually hates America & wants to destroy it. Better to promote themselves as Super Patriots publicly & work behind the scenes weaken parts of it that are inconvenient to them and just ignore others they don't like - such as the individual right to vote (as in FL 2000, OH 2004 & DC 2010), or the collective responsibility to defend the country (as with the 2nd Amendment).

[X_Digger]

24. Those goal posts must be heavy..

I said the NRA.. not the RW.

"..wants to destroy all the other parts" -- which parts?

[baldguy]

31. The NRA *IS* RW.

Or haven't you figured that out yet?

[X_Digger]

33. Which parts does the NRA want to "destroy"?

Eh?

You'd better tell Howard Dean, Bill Richardson, and Harry Reid that the NRA is RW, they proudly tout their high ratings.

*snort*

The NRA is a one issue, non-partisan org. They'll support anyone on the correct side of the issue.

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=297424#298433 for 2008 NRA endorsements of democrats over repugs in TX alone.

[friendly_iconoclast]

64. It's all explained in "The Protocols Of The Elders Of The NRA"

You know, the evil plan some claim exists but somehow never quite have examples of to show us...

[X_Digger]

65. Could be..

Personally, I think the spittle-flying hyperbole got away from him, and now he can't back down without looking silly.

[shadowrider]

66. Actually,

It's in a hermetically sealed mayonnaise jar on Funk and Wagnells back porch, but no one can find the house.

[gorfle]

56. It is not.

The NRA *IS* RW. Or haven't you figured that out yet?

The NRA is apolitical.

I agree with you that they attract mostly right-wing people because, sadly, the right to keep and bear arms is more endeared on the right than on the left.

But I vote Democratic and I am a member of the NRA.

In my last election, the NRA gave high marks to my Democratic candidates.

If every Democrat embraced the right to keep and bear arms today by tomorrow the NRA would be the most leftist organization you could imagine.

[paulsby]

47. provide evidence the NRA wants to destroy all other parts

i've seen no evidence of that.

they CONCENTRATE on the 2nd, but that's no different from NARAL

[slackmaster]

54. How about you showing a little respect for your fellow citizens?

I'll agree to keep and use my guns responsibly, you agree to mind your own business.

[armueller2001]

13. Actually just for historical accuracy's sake

the phrase "well regulated" during the founders time did not mean restricted or controlled as one might think... it meant "well functioning" as a clock that keeps accurate time is well regulated.

But I'm sure you already knew that!

[wtmusic]

15. And "militia" didn't mean a group who took up arms against the government

but defended the country on behalf of the government. Like the 3/5 compromise, irrelevant to modern society. But you knew that, too!

"The reason for such a requirement was that without a regular army and police force (which was not established until 1829), it was the duty of certain men to keep watch and ward at night to capture and confront suspicious persons."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[one-eyed fat man]

39. Who were those guys?

The ones at Lexington and Concord? No, not those 'government guys' with the redcoats, oh yeah, the Minutemen. Those pesky militia guys and their catchy names.

The governor of Massachusetts sent troops to confiscate guns.

The answer he got is on a marker there on Lexington Green.

"Stand your ground; don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here."

[wtmusic]

41. The Minutemen didn't consider themselves subjects of the king

and that was oh, 16 years before A2 even existed. It's good to know your history.

[one-eyed fat man]

49. The colonists and the Crown

The colonists, even the Minutemen, considered themselves subjects of the King. They also felt, that they were being abused by that King and his Parliament. If you recall, they spent a lot of ink and travel trying present their grievances and to secure what they felt were THEIR rights as Englishmen.

You are right, you should remember your history. Those self same colonists that Major Pitcairn's 3 companies of the 4th of Foot engaged were still British subjects. You might recall the battle took place on April 19, 1775. The colonies did not declare their independence until more than a year AFTER this confrontation. (July 4, 1776? Indpendence Day? Ring a bell?)

Right up to the end, the Colonists considered themselves Englishmen as evidenced by their words in the Declaration of Independence:

"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity."

Oh, and the Bill of Rights, it doesn't 'grant" rights! The purpose of the Bill of Rights was and is explicitly to limit the power of government. It enumerates rights the authors' of the Constitution took for granted as natural rights.

[gorfle]

57. Incorrect.

And "militia" didn't mean a group who took up arms against the government but defended the country on behalf of the government.

Incorrect. The militias were intended to defend the nation against threats from without and within.

Why do you suppose the founders set up the military as a decentralized system not under direct control of the central federal government?

[bluestateguy]

7. You can count me as a co-sponsor

If private citizens were allowed to co-sponsor legislation, as I think they should.

[X_Digger]

8. k&r n/t

[onehandle]

11. 'NRA remains committed to denying a vote to D.C. and imposing their will on the inhabitants'

Just like Republicans in Red States do with Blue States. Funny that.

'It is worth noting that the bill is co-sponsored by both an R and a Blue Dog.'

[slackmaster]

14. What's your problem with giving the people of DC more choices?

More choices is always better than fewer choices.

[wtmusic]

16. Good, I want the choice of more gun control.

America is great! :patriot:

[armueller2001]

20. Unfortunately your oppresive "choice"

restricts the rights of others. I'm sure there's plenty of people who would love the "choice" to have laws against who someone can and cannot have intimate relations with.. but likewise, that choice would restrict the rights and freedoms of others.

[wtmusic]

25. Well guess what:

Every choice you make restricts the rights of others. It's called "society", it's not "living by yourself on a desert island".

Get used to it. :eyes:

[cowman]

29. And gun control

as a political issue is dead.
Get used to it.

[wtmusic]

30. Your guns are controlled right now.

Get used to it.

[cowman]

32. Controlled?

By who? The county I live in here in NV doesn't require us to register our guns and we can freely open carry them. So, pray tell, how are they controlled?
Wait a minute, they are controlled, by me. I control them when I go shooting.

[wtmusic]

34. Yes, controlled.

Can you shoot them anywhere/anytime you want? Can you point them at someone? What kind of guns can you own?

Now that we've eliminated the ridiculous notion that A2 is an absolute right, it's a question of how much control. I favor more.

[cowman]

37. And 73%

of americans disagree with you.
And yes, I can point them at someone if my life is in danger.
Once again, gun control as a political issue is dead. Get used to it

[wtmusic]

40. OK now that you admit they're already controlled

it follows that gun control is not dead. And since many laws in fact do control the rights of gun owners, and laws are made by politicians, gun control is a political issue.

Whether you say so, or not.

[Euromutt]

46. You're playing semantics

Yes, okay, everybody supports some degree of gun control. However, what you'll find is that there's isn't a lot of support for more gun control than we have now, in the sense of of new, added restrictions on private firearms ownership (as opposed to more vigorous enforcement of existing laws). Gun control is dead in the sense that's there very little support for more of it, and quite a lot of support for repealing a number of existing restrictions.

[paulsby]

48. no, it doesn't. if i choose to eat a salty meal or not eat one

that doesn't restrict ANYBODY else's rights or choices

if the govt (as some have proposed) bans the serving of certain salty foods in restaurants, THAT limits choice

if i choose to carry a gun, that restricts NOBODY else's rights

[jazzhound]

23. And you'll mindlessly push for that even at the expense of the Democratic

Party. Good for you!!!

[wtmusic]

26. The Dems are paying me?

About time!!!

[slackmaster]

53. You already have the right to ban guns completely

From your home.

[spin]

70. Currently you can pick the state you live in ...

and if you chose you can live in a gun friendly state or one that is very unfriendly toward RKBA.

I chose to live in Florida because the laws seem very fair to me.

I don't have to register my firearms. I can carry a loaded firearm in my car without a license as long as it is "securely encased" for example in a closed glove box or console.

I can have a loaded firearm in my house but have to store it safely in a gun box, safe or by using a gun lock if a minor could gain access.

I can shoot an intruder in my home:

Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law had three important effects on existing law. First, it expanded the justification of force in the home under the Castle Doctrine. Whereas as previously, defenders had to prove they were in danger of their lives to justify deadly force, under the new law deadly force is justified against anyone who illegally enters the home, whether they are a physical threat or not. Second, the definition of "castle" was expanded from just the home to include boats and cars, which a person is expected to defend rather than retreat. Third, it provided the right to counter deadly force with deadly force, in proportion, anywhere and everywhere independent of the Castle Doctrine.
http://www.ehow.com/about_4577787_florida-selfdefense-laws.html

I was able to obtain a "shall issue" concealed weapons permit for a very reasonable fee that is valid for seven years and allows me not only to carry firearms concealed but also other weapons such as knives (including switchblades, dirks and daggers) and metallic knuckles, slungshot, billie, tear gas gun or a chemical weapon or device.

With that concealed weapons permit I can leave a firearm in my locked car in an employers parking lot.

I can "stand my ground" with a concealed weapons permit if I'm somewhere I have a right to be. I have no duty to retreat and I can meet force with force including lethal force. I don't even have to fear a civil law suit if I acted legally by Florida standards.

The Florida law is not a gun law. Period. It contains zero references to guns or shooting, unless you feel propagandistically compelled to count one of those ubiquitous legislative “Whereases” that references the Florida Constitution’s “right of the people to bear arms…”

The Florida law is a self-defense, self-protection law. It has four key components:
# It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder.

# In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

# In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.

# If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/florida-self-defense-law.htm

Many other states are far stricter than Florida. Some are less strict and allow open carry which Florida doesn't. To me Florida is just right, not too hot and not too cold.

I support reasonable gun laws. To me Florida is a good example of a state that has fair and reasonable firearms law.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GreenStormCloud]

28. Blue Dogs are still Democrats.

They are just Democrats that you disagree with on some issues.

[jazzhound]

35. +1,000

It's gotta be about unity.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

51. A majority of DC's inhabitants are minorities...

it's not surprising that people like you want to keep gun ownership out of DC.
Look around, you are the only one advocating less rights for others.

[onehandle]

52. Gun groups killed their chance of a vote in Congress.

This is not surprising at all.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

60. By what mechanism did guns kill thier vote in congress?

There was a bill which would have afforded Voting Rights to DC.
It also afforded more rights to keep & beear arms.
That's expansion of two enumerated rights in bill!

On Apr 20, Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) has the bill pulled from the floor. Perhaps she was afraid it would pass.
Evidently, she likes her constitutnts disarmed moreso than than she wants thier voices heard.
I guess if I were a typical politician, I'd want my minions submissive as well. :shrug:

[shadowrider]

62. I truly hope

You're not expecting an answer.

[bluestateguy]

67. Gun grabbers want only the police and military to have guns

and we should all find that prospect very scary.

[spin]

69. When only the police and the military own firearms ...

the citizens live in a police state.

[HALO141]

61. No, the NRA remains committed to protecting the 2A rights of those ind DC.

You should probably be asking others why they hate the 2A more than they like self governance.

[RandomHero]

36. Good should come of this

DC is well known to be a dangerous city. Also having very
strict gun control laws. Maybe with some of the good guys
being armed some of the bad guys will start thinking twice
about things. 

Just as an overview of the discussion and the board as a
whole, this being my first post, I see alot of misdirected
hostility and verbal assaults but actual discussion seems to
be at a minimum. Polotics is obviously a very polarizing
subject but intelligent debate and discussion whould be
preferable to insults and name calling I would think. Just my
opinion.

RH

[jazzhound]

38. Welcome, RH

But I must say, if you're seeing an equivalency between the manner in which the pro-control and pro-rights side argue their respective cases, I'd respectfully suggest you look closer.

[RandomHero]

59. No

It was more a reference to the overall contrasting political
debate between those on the left and right. My opinion is that
socially speaking the left right thing is very distinct, but
politically speaking it is very muttled ecspecially the higher
up a person looks in the political food chain. 

[jazzhound]

63. Thanks for the explanation, RH

I have a friend who is a staunch liberal and gun hater. He knows that I own firearms, and I don't bother to talk to him about the gun rights issue even though he's exactly the type of Dem that needs to be exposed to the facts about gun control. One of the reasons he's my friend is that he bases his decisions on who to befriend based solely on the character of the person in question. And I respect him for that, among many other good qualities. His approach to choosing his friends is affirmed by what we see here in this discussion forum --- which is that Dems/Progs can be every bit as dishonest, bigoted, intellectually lazy and mean spirited as those they rail against.

[wtmusic]

42. DC is a lot less dangerous than it used to be

Crime stats citywide, year to date

Robbery, no gun: Down 23 percent
Robbery, with gun: Down 34 percent
Theft from auto: Down 36 percent

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/D_C_-halts-plans-to-expand-police-force-88858657.html

And with strict gun control laws...maybe there's a correlation.

[jazzhound]

43. And maybe there's a correlation between the fact that the pro-control

proponents argue their case with "maybes" and the fact the support for gun control is crashing and burning while gun rights laws are becoming more liberal.

Who can say?

[wtmusic]

44. Come again? Crashing and burning?

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll 04/08/09:

Americans who favor stricter gun laws - 39%

Want no change in the current law - 46%

Want gun laws that are less strict - 15%

Who can say? :D

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/08/gun.control.poll/index.html

[X_Digger]

50. And what is the trend for those rates?

Which one is doing down, and which ones are going up?

stricter - 49% -> 39%
same - 41% -> 46%
less - 8% -> 15%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117361/recent-shootings-gun-control-support-fading.aspx

[Euromutt]

45. "Maybe there's a correlation" if you blatantly cherry-pick your data

From 1976 to 2008, DC's gun laws were more stringent than they are now, but the DC homicide and robbery rates peaked in the early 1990s, fifteen years after the de facto handgun ban was introduced. You can't honestly attribute a drop in crime to gun laws that were adopted over thirty years previously. And even though violent crime rates have dropped significantly since 1991, in 2008, DC still has a violent crime rate that was three times the national average. Correlate that.

[RandomHero]

55. Yes but

As I recall, and I could be wrong because I might be thinking
about an entirely different city/state, certain crimes have
been redefined as have what is considered a
felony/misdemeanor, for reporting purposes specifically to
support the gun ban. 

IF that looks confusing I'll try and clear it up. Basicly
(again as I recall) in the d.c. area the reporting procedures
for crimes involving a gun and what various crimes are
considered (felony/misdemeanor) have been redefined to support
the gun ban. 

I havent been to D.C. since late 2006 so I cant speak from
first hand knowledge as things are now, but from what I saw
then I gotta be honest I doubt it has improved much since.

[gorfle]

58. It would be nice.

I agree with this legislation, but it is a shame that the citizens of the District of Columbia have no representation in Congress to speak for themselves.