February 26th, 2009 09:41 PM
Poll to vote on re: the recent bill allowing more 2A freedom to DC
The options on this poll made me a bit angry
Local, District of Columbia, Washington Poll | Twiigs
Let's rock this vote, although, take a second to read the options because it threw me off for a second too - I think its designed to.
Original story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews
For those of you who get the RSS feed from NRA-ILA, that's where I got it from.
Although I have to say, I'm sort of conflicted. I'm not sure its appropriate that DC gets a vote (it does seem unconstitutional), and honestly, not sure if I would want them to either (I know, I know, who am I to say that, etc).
February 26th, 2009 09:51 PM
You don't "vote" on Constitutional RIGHTS... they are a given, no matter what the hell the majority thinks of it. That's why it was set up that way, and the way it should remain. Period !
February 26th, 2009 09:53 PM
To my way of thinking DC can't get a vote without a change to the constitution. So, much as I like the idea of including the gun rights stuff as an addition to the DC vote, I don't think the legislation is "kosher." What next? A vote for Guam? They are citizens too. How about Puerto Rico? They are citizens too.
I've no objection to folks getting voting representation, I just don't think it can be done without changing the constitution. I also think it will be challenged immediately and the Supremes will knock it down. This is a pointless exercise by Congress.
February 26th, 2009 10:17 PM
IT is definitely a double-edged bill, and it seems to me that they'll end up stripping the gun portion out anyway, in which case I would have completely oppose this bill. But as it is, I pretty much oppose it anyway. We need to follow the document that this country is founded on.
February 26th, 2009 10:21 PM
Actually Hopyard, if you go to the US House of Representative website you will see they do have Representatives. Not sure if they are voting members, but they are represented in congress. They do not have Senators.
Member Search by State - United States House of Representatives, 111th Congress, 1st Session
Pierluisi, Pedro R.; Puerto Rico,
Bordallo, Madeleine Z.; Guam
Norton, Eleanor Holmes; District of Columbia
Sablan, Gregorio; Northern Mariana Islands
Christensen, Donna M.; Virgin Islands
Last edited by archer51; February 26th, 2009 at 10:33 PM.
Reason: added thought
February 26th, 2009 10:31 PM
You don't violate one aspect of the Constitution as a trade-off for another. The Supreme Court made the decision and the legislators shouldn't have to be bribed into abide by the decision.
February 26th, 2009 10:35 PM
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -Thomas Jefferson
"Liberalism is a Mental Disorder." -Michael Savage
GOOD Gun Control is being able to hit your target! -Myself
February 27th, 2009 01:10 AM
as per usual, congress is wasting time on garbage that is not constitutional.
DC has no vote. nothing they vote on will change that.
I like the bill that has been sitting forever that requires congress to site the line in the constitution that authorizes them to pass any bill. that will never see the light of day with this admin.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." -1792, James Madison
There are always too many Democratic, Republican and never enough U.S. congressmen.
February 27th, 2009 01:28 AM
The District of Columbia is described very specifically in the US Constitution as not being a state. Unless the Constitution is amended, it should NOT receive representation in the US Congress. Yes, their gun laws are unconstitutional because they are in direct conflict with the Second Amendment, but that is truly not the issue here.
RIP, Jeff Dorr: 1964 - July 17, 2009. You will be missed.
Defensive Carry Search Tips
- Choose a subforum on right side under "Search in Forum(s)"
- Type general topic of interest in "Search by Keyword" textbox.
- Read results and refine/repeat as necessary.
February 27th, 2009 11:24 AM
Looks like Gillibrand is also showing her true colors. She opposes the Ensign Amendment. Well, so much for the hope of a logical NY senator. It would've been one thing to oppose it based on the unconstitutional portion, but to specifically oppose the Ensign Amendment is most unfortunate.
Also, it would appear that Feinstein promised on Thursday to reintroduce a bill for the AWB.
The battle begins now.
February 27th, 2009 11:36 AM
Does anyone here ever question why the legislators think they are above the law?
The constitution defines who gets representation... I almost forgot... they don't read the Bills they pass, why should I believe they read the constitution.
If they want to change that they should be submitting an amendment to the constitution. If this law passes it will be headed straight to the US Supreme court only to be knocked down.
Congress is the root of our problems. Big changes are needed in 2010.
February 27th, 2009 12:47 PM
I used the phrase "voting representation"
I used the phrase "voting representation." Of course they presently have representatives--but without votes.
Originally Posted by archer51
What is being discussed in the present legislation is voting representation, unless I completely misunderstand the bill's purpose.
It is voting representation which I believe would be entirely unconstitutional under the present law. An amendment is perhaps in order. Or, these entities could be admitted as new states and get Senate representation and voting rights as well. Certainly with the pacific islands; they could maybe be joined to Hawaii for political purposes. Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands could perhaps comprise one new state.
DC is a whole other issue because it was originally deliberately designed to not be a state. There may be creative and constitutional means for giving DC voting representation, but the present bill doesn't appear to be one such.
February 27th, 2009 01:05 PM
As others have said, I would have to oppose this bill based on the fact that congress does not have the authority to go against the constitution. Only "States" have representatives in Congress and Senators, and DC is not a state. Despite the fact that there is a pro-gun addition to this bill, the law "granting" DC a voting representative in Congress is unconstitutional. Besides, as soon as that is allowed, does anyone doubt that two Senators from DC would be the next step?
February 27th, 2009 03:07 PM
Our country has a long history of saying one thing and doing another. Sad.
All men are created equal (except slaves)
No taxation without representation (except D.C.)
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed (except by a bunch of laws and all the states)
I say we have a new constitutional convention and get to work. Either we all substantially agree or we divide the nation into two Super States. Uhaul reaps the rewards. Let the chips fall where they may.
"Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18
Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
Paramedics With Guns Scare People!
February 27th, 2009 03:51 PM
Yeah, but if we do that California, Washington State and Oregon have to move to East of the Mississippi
Originally Posted by paramedic70002
21 years and 21 days, United States Marine Corps & NRA Life Member since 1972
"The trouble is with the increasingly widespread problem of idiots prancing around out there confusing their opinions with actual facts." peckman28
By Charliee in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: May 14th, 2010, 05:19 PM
By GunnyBunny in forum General Firearm Discussion
Last Post: November 8th, 2009, 11:39 AM
By JOHNSMITH in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: January 18th, 2009, 11:48 AM
By tabsr in forum General Firearm Discussion
Last Post: May 14th, 2008, 08:36 AM
By Rob99VMI04 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: March 11th, 2007, 08:49 AM
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors