Override D.C.? Looks like a chance! :MERGED

[inman]

FOXNews.com - House Will Hold Vote to Wrest Gun Control From Washington, D.C., Government - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[bigiceman]

Wow, that was introduced by democrats?

About time.

[morintp]

It's about time.

And when the crime rate drops in DC, how will the Brady Bunch try to spin it?

[MNBurl]

We will see where it goes. DC is not a state so it might work.

[ASSA9]

Thanks for the link

[sniper58]

That's great news! I just hop Pelosi and Reid don't pull their usual antics and find a way to block the vote (or attach a bunch of B.S. to the bill).

[CAJUN600]

not bad

[retsupt99]

I'll believe it when I see it...

[luvmyglock]

I had to change my underpants when I saw the word "democrat" on there. Was that a misprint?

[Ram Rod]

FOXNews.com - House Will Hold Vote to Wrest Gun Control From Washington, D.C., Government - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

WASHINGTON — House leaders have agreed to allow a vote next month on a bill that would end local handgun control in the District of Columbia.

The measure was filed last week by several conservative Democrats, and supporters say it has a good chance of passing the House. Its prospects in the Senate are unclear.

The Supreme Court struck down the city's 32-year-old handgun ban in June. Since then, D.C. lawmakers have passed emergency legislation that maintains strict regulations.

The House bill seeks to eliminate those measures.

The legislation would allow D.C. residents to own handguns without registering them with police if they meet federal requirements for firearms ownership.

The bill also would end a requirement that owners keep their handguns unloaded and disassembled in their homes and would repeal the city's ban on most semiautomatic handguns.

[sgtD]

My guess is that this will pass without much resistance and likely with a large amount of positive media coverage.

The reason for my hypothesis is that this is an election year. The antis in the Dem party know a court case to uphold these provisions will likely fail anyway, so they have nothing to lose really. However, they can spin this vote to show that they (ie their nominee for Pres, and other offices) are not the anti-gun bunch they are painted as.

It's a way to avoid another embarassing loss in the courts and to aleviate the worries of middle-of-the-road gun owners who might be willing to support their nominee for Pres. if convinced that his party supports gun ownership.

Once they have control of both branches, "reasonable gun control legislation" will likely stream forth like pyroclastic flow from Mt. St. Helens.

[farronwolf]

Lets not forget that there are some pro 2a dems, just ast there are some anti 2a repubs.

I think that if this passes which it should that will basically keep the idiots like the mayor of DC from spending many $ on future law suits that they are destin to loose.

Election year or not, I don't think this is going to be something that will be plastered on campaign signs or commercials. There are lots of issues that the voters are looking at this year, and the 2a is really not in the forefront this time for most of them.

If the dems take all both houses and the white house, I don't think that limiting the 2a will be anything that will have serious attention in the next 4 years.

I just hope this does pass and the poor folks in DC can start to live a little bit more like the rest of this country.

[jfrommbg]

I support the House efforts to do this. It will probably pass the house. The senate is another story. However, this isn't the first time they tried to do this. Other attempts died in commitee in the past. It sure would save a long costly battle on both sides of the new Heller challenge as he will more than likely prevail yet again. It is a shame after the SCOTUS ruling that DC is violating the spirit and intent of the ruling.

[sgtD]

Lets not forget that there are some pro 2a dems, just ast there are some anti 2a repubs..

Believe me, I never forget that, but the problem is that those in the leadership positions in that party are vehemently anti-gun and when in control they set the agenda.

Election year or not, I don't think this is going to be something that will be plastered on campaign signs or commercials. There are lots of issues that the voters are looking at this year, and the 2a is really not in the forefront this time for most of them.

Perhaps, and maybe they wish to keep it out of the forefront? But for those pro 2A voters who are on the fence, an act like this may be enough to aleviate fears and sway their vote in favor of the Democrats. Hence my prediction about media coverage. (I never said it would be a campaing slogan)

Afterall, all we are really doing in elections these days is weighing the lesser of two evils.

If the dems take all both houses and the white house, I don't think that limiting the 2a will be anything that will have serious attention in the next 4 years.

We'll see? They have a lot of favors to pay back to their longtime supporters like the Brady's, who have basically gotten nothing for their support and funding of politicians since '94, so that may be a driving factor that pushes the agenda in this direction. All it will take is one high profile incident to get the ball rolling.

[Phillep Harding]

Believe me, I never forget that, but the problem is that those in the leadership positions in that party are vehemently anti-gun and when in control they set the agenda.

From the behavior of the Republican Party, I'd say the leadership there is also anti-gun, they just keep their heads down better.

I doubt we've had an actual pro-2ndA President since 1900, and darn few before that.