So DC only gets the vote if they allow unlimited unregistered automatic weapons

[Robbien]

Attaching a gun amendment which would limit the District's authority to restrict firearms, repeal the D.C. semiautomatic gun ban and remove gun-registration requirements is immoral.

Only allowing people the right to a vote if and only if guns are crammed down their throats?

The District has spoken loudly that they do not want more guns.

So a very well funded interest group is throwing a ton of money around to our low-life congresscritters and is holding the District's right to vote hostage unless the interest group gets their way.

[EraOfResponsibility]

1. god damn those motherfuckers

we've got to DO something about this!!!! :mad:

[-..__...]

11. God bless the NRA.

If not for their efforts... we'd be in the same boat as the sheeple of Europe, Canada, Japan, etc.

"Attaching a gun amendment which would limit the District's authority to restrict firearms, repeal the D.C. semiautomatic gun ban and remove gun-registration requirements is immoral.

Not as immoral as denying the law abiding citizens of DC to arm themselves... be it for sporting purposes, personal protection, or simply because they have a right to. The SCOTUS/Heller decision has made this quite clear.

"Only allowing people the right to a vote if and only if guns are crammed down their throats?".

I'd question any communities right to vote if it also included their "right" to deny the Constitutional rights of others.

"The District has spoken loudly that they do not want more guns".

Ohhh... boo... hoo... hoo. They have no say in the matter.

They no more have the right to restrict or deny a right than Californians (or any other state does), do to deny the marriage rights of
others.

"So a very well funded interest group is throwing a ton of money around to our low-life congresscritters and is holding the District's right to vote hostage unless the interest group gets their way".

If Mayor Fenty and the city council had made even a marginal effort to comply with the SCOTUS decision, none of this would have been necessary. But no... instead they had to act like a bunch of sore losers/children/stubborn assholes and do everything they could to skirt the decision.

Fuck'em... they should be held accountable and held in contempt for their defiance.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

22. VOTE YES, GUNS NO

[rockymountaindem]

2. Automatic weapons are highly regulated under existing federal law dating to 1934 n/t

[Robbien]

4. Not if this amendment gets its way

They are trying to push the issue.

And the District residents have already voted overwhelmingly, over and over again, against any automatic weapons. Regulated or unregulated.

[X_Digger]

16. Here's the change..

NFA rules would still apply, so no full auto guns, silly.

SEC. X03. REFORM D.C. COUNCIL'S AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT FIREARMS.

Section 4 of the Act entitled ``An Act to prohibit the killing of wild birds and wild animals in the District of Columbia'', approved June 30, 1906 (34 Stat. 809; sec. 1-303.43, D.C. Official Code) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``Nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall authorize, or shall be construed to permit, the Council, the Mayor, or any governmental or regulatory authority of the District of Columbia to prohibit, constructively prohibit, or unduly burden the ability of persons not prohibited from possessing firearms under Federal law from acquiring, possessing in their homes or businesses, or using for sporting, self-protection or other lawful purposes, any firearm neither prohibited by Federal law nor subject to the National Firearms Act. The District of Columbia shall not have authority to enact laws or regulations that discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms. Nothing in the previous two sentences shall be construed to prohibit the District of Columbia from regulating or prohibiting the carrying of firearms by a person, either concealed or openly, other than at the person's dwelling place, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person.''.

SEC. X04. REPEAL D.C. SEMIAUTOMATIC BAN.

(a) In General.--Section 101(10) of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2501.01(10), D.C. Official Code) is amended to read as follows:

``(10) `Machine gun' means any firearm which shoots, is designed to shoot, or may be readily restored to shoot automatically, more than 1 shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger, and includes the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.''.

Before, the law read something like

I.Prohibited Firearms.
Firearms ineligible for registration include:
1. Sawed-off shotguns (barrel less than 20 inches). (D.C. Code 7-2501.01 (15) (2007 Ed.)
2. Short-barreled rifles (barrel less than 16 inches and has an overall length of less than 26 inches.
3. Machine guns. (Defined as any firearm which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to shoot:automatically, more than 1 shot by a sin
function of the trigger; or semi-automatically, more than 12 shots without manual reloading.)
4. Semi-Automatic Handguns.

(from http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/frames.asp?doc=/mpdc/lib/mpdc/info/pdf/firearms_registraton_req.pdf)

[ThomWV]

25. You know what your problem is? You do not know what an "automatic" weapon is.

So let me make it easy for you. An automatic weapon, when talking about either rifles or pistols (which are different from revolvers), is one which fires when the trigger is depressed and continues to fire until either it runs out of bullets or the trigger is released. You would probably call this a machine gun. By contrast the guns that are often called 'automatics' are not that at all. They are semiautomatic. What that means is that they will fire and reload themselves every time the trigger is pulled but they will not continue to fire until the trigger is pulled again. See the difference? Automatic=pull and fire forever, Semiautomatic, one shot per trigger pull.

Automatic weapons are strictly regulated - it is harder to get a license for one than it is to get into Med school. Semiautomatic weapons, with some restrictions as to cartridge capacity, are available in every state in this country and in fact are the standard handgun for just about every police department in the country.

[Robbien]

26. I know what a vote is

and no one's vote should be dependent upon guns.

All this talk about specific type of guns is just smoke screen. Who gives a care.

The District's right to vote is being held hostage by gun manufacturer profit.

[ThomWV]

28. I'm sorry - I thought you'd like something factual to sink your teeth into

At least its refreshing to know that you and your vote really don't matter. You see that's the thing about "Rights", you can't take them away from others so what with the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution and rulings supporting it your opinion really doesn't matter.

[Statistical]

31. If DC had a law allowing the owning of another person....

or the establishment of a state religion or the govt control of the press or making it illegal to hold peaceful assembly you wouldn't say a vote is a vote.

You would be all outraged that civil rights are being trampled. You would demand that DC uphold the Constitution before being given the vote.

This is no different. Despite a 7 year court battle and a clear Supreme Court ruling to date DC has acted like a tyrant and willfully stripped Constitutionally protected rights from its citizens.

DC should be required to abide by the Constitution and ruling from the Supreme Court just as any other state, city, or town in the United States does.

[Fresh_Start]

3. I'm okay with the gun amendment

as long as COngress is willing to lift the ban on guns by visitors entering the Capitol as well.

[Robbien]

6. So DC has to be forced to allow guns if they want to be granted the vote?

No guns, no right to a vote.

That's okay with you?

[Fresh_Start]

7. no, I'm okay with Congress being non-hypocritical

you know that they would not even consider eliminating the gun ban if they had to live with it in their neighborhood (i.e., the Capitol)

[benEzra]

24. ALL voting Senators and Congresspeople live where civilian semiautos are 100% legal.

Only the D.C. reps don't.

[Mojorabbit]

21. They can follow the supreme courts

verdict and they can protect their citizens second amendment rights. I am fine with it.

[KingFlorez]

5. I don't see how one fits with the other

This has nothing to do with guns, it's about taxation without representation and there should be absolutely no bargaining about it.

[1]

8. bull fucking shit. "unlimited unregistered automatic weapons"???

knee-jerk a bit, friend? ha, ha, ha!

you are deranged. stop this.

[Retired AF Dem]

9. repeal the D.C. semiautomatic gun ban and remove gun-registration requirements is immoral

Make up your mind is it semi auto or full auto?

[Robbien]

12. What does

either matter?

The District is being denied the right to a vote unless they allow more guns into their gun filled district. They don't want more guns.

So they don't deserve the right to a vote?

[Pavulon]

15. No they need to allow legal

ownership. People who dont follow laws already have their guns. They also elected a guy who was caught on tape with a whore smoking crack. Mob rule does not always work.

[Robbien]

17. And since they don't

they don't get a right to a vote?

[benEzra]

34. If D.C. wants to be treated like a state, it should probably act more like a state

instead of acting as if they are above the decisions of the United States Supreme Court, or that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to it. (And every other city in the USA gets told what to do by Congress, the courts, and state governments all the time.)

I do get the lack of voting representation. But the way the D.C. government reacted to the Supreme Court decision makes them look more like Blagojevich-style bunglers, and that certainly doesn't help your cause.

[-..__...]

18. Should they be allowed to vote in favor of...

Restrictions/bans on abortion?...

Restrictions/bans on same sex marriage?...

Unfair labor practices?...

Restrictions/bans on what publications and/or gatherings can take place?

Whom has a right to vote and whom does not?

A right denied is a right denied regardless of what the mob mentality is.

[X_Digger]

10. One part of the amendment

(the one about 'machineguns') removes the 'definition' of a machinegun as being a _semi-automatic_ handgun that holds more than 12 rounds. (DC shoehorned in a definition change that shouldn't have been in there to begin with- if you want to ban handguns, do so, but don't call them 'machineguns' just to pump up the hysteria.)

[1]

14. all "assault weapons" laws are just hysteria. woo, woo..

woo, woo...

these "assault weapons" can have "bayonet mounts".

yes it it true. death by bayonet is a very real threat in america today.

except, its not.

:rofl:

but feel free to freak out, you anti-gun nuts. your hysteria is hysterical...

[X_Digger]

19. This "machinegun" thing is even sillier..

My 1911 that can hold 8+1 rounds normally is a 'machinegun' because it can accept an oversized cheap magazine that holds 20 rounds. Yah.. machinegun indeed.

[Pavulon]

13. Like OMG, can I get the belt fed weapon

I always wanted. Wow, this it a really stupid post. How can people still not be aware that fully automatic weapons are not legalized.

I mean there are is no crime in DC now that that guns are banned.

[Robbien]

20. You can have your vote stripped from you

if you live in DC, no matter what type of gun you desire.

[benEzra]

23. "Semiautomatic" is NON-AUTOMATIC.

Possession of an unregistered machinegun in ANY state is an automatic 10-year Federal felony, unless you are police or military, or one of their suppliers.

All automatic weapons have been super tightly controlled since 1934 and new production for licensed collectors was completely banned in 1986.

The fact that the existing D.C. law idiotically defines a non-automatic Smith & Wesson pistol with an 8-round magazine as a "machinegun" doesn't mean that repealing that law would legalize machineguns.

You tell me, is this a machinegun?



Because that's what changing the law would allow D.C. residents with clean records to lawfully keep inside their own homes, if they jump through enough red tape. (D.C. criminals, of course, already own whatever they want.)

[Robbien]

27. Whatever you want to call it

The District's right to have their vote counted has nothing to do with any type of gun.

[Statistical]

30. What about the districts inability to follow rule of law....

Heller vs DC required DC to allow registration and ownership of firearms specifically handguns.

DC statute classifies any semi auto with the ABILITY to accept more than 12 rounds a MACHINE-GUN.

This effectively makes every pistol ever made illegal in DC.

DC is in non-compliance with the Supreme Court.

They "allow" registering firearms but make all pistols a machinegun which can't be registered.

All this does is "force" DC to comply with rule of law and not strip Constitutional Rights from its citizens.

Sad that even after Heller DC is even trying this stupidity and that it takes big brother Congress to keep DC inline.

[benEzra]

32. But it certainly has nothing to do with allowing "unlimited unregistered automatic weapons," either.

And if D.C. wants to be treated like a state, it will have to obey the decisions of the United States Supreme Court (and Congress, BTW), just like states do.

[fascisthunter]

29. fucking sick

[benEzra]

33. The OP was wrong. (n/t)

[NoPasaran]

35. Will DC residents be required to purchase weapons before voting?

If they cannot afford a gun, can a cheese sandwich be substituted?

[aikoaiko]

36. You misrepresent better than the NRA.

If I were you, I'd beg to have this thread locked and let it sink out of embarrassment.