DCist: Pelosi May Fold on D.C. Gun Law Legislation

DCGuy2

Fri, 15 Aug 2008 13:57:19 -0500

Just in case anyone is still reading this thread, this is the deal on ballistics testings. I at first thought this was a fine idea, but after some research, realized that I was to influenced by the Law & Order scenario. This is how it typically goes on L&W. Briscoe and Curtis find a woman shot up. The red headed morgue chick pulls out a .357 slug. While interviewing the vic's ex-husband, Briscoe "accidently" trips, knocks over the suspects dresser, and finds an S&W .357 revolver in his underwear drawer. The gun and bullet go to ballistics and, its a match!! This only works because after the perp shot the vic, we (rightly) assume that he did not next go to his local gun range and shoot another 50 rounds because he was "in the zone." If he did, Jack McCoy would have had a lot less evidence to work with. Ballistics is never 100% (in fact, the FBI was caught in 2004 overestimating its accuracy) and after some amount of shooting (don't know how much), it becomes useless. Maryland:information collected on 43000 handguns at a cost of $2.5M. Number of investigations the database aided? zero. New York: 3X the cost, same results. California: this is why they chose not to implement it. It only took me a few min. to find the WaPo article on Md. and Cali. study. The ONLY logical conclusion to draw is that the Council tossed this in there as another roadblock. Note that there are no time frames set for the police to test the gun. Lanier herself said it could take "weeks or months". If it worked, I'd be for it. But it doesn't Oh, and in the last 5 min of L&W we found out that it was actually the DAUGHTER who committed the murder.

timmeroo

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:58:50 -0500

DZ: Fair enough, I'm just a grad student with a light summer workload. I'll leave it at this: I only hope that the DC Council will objectively evaluate such proposals and take in all arguments before implementing them on DC residents. I did find this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19876-2005Apr1.html but I still think the cost/benefit ratio makes ballistic imaging unattractive and financially unfeasible.

downtown rez

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:11:10 -0500

T: Interesting question. I don't really know what the states you mention did, or why they did it. I'm just a neighborhood guy, and don't follow this issue for a living, or even as a serious hobby. :) But, if I had to, I'd guess lobbying had something to do with them dropping it. Why else would they scrap a program that attaches unique a ballistics fingerprint to each gun that has, at some point or another in its life, been legally registered in that jurisdiction? DC seems pretty lobby-proof on this.

timmeroo

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 16:45:10 -0500

DZ: Could you help me with one or two ways how the ballistic registry (assuming it works, is affordable, etc) would provide a valuable linkage in information? I'm still stuck on why MD scrapped the program, NY is on the verge of it and CA studied then avoided adopting it. I'm all for whatever works (within reason) and will yield better results (less crime, increased safety, no loss of liberty) vs. alternative options.

downtown rez

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 16:31:22 -0500

T: In any number of ways. Basically it comes down to linkages in information.

Disco Stu

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:16:35 -0500

I see your point, I'm all about the free cops. But I'm just saying.

timmeroo

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 13:04:08 -0500

DZ: Those seem like pretty fair assumptions, but I'm not too sure about the conclusions. It's very possible some guns will be stolen from those who don't lock them up when they're not home (I'd vote for a small gun safe). How many legal guns would be stolen and their impact vs. all the illegal guns currently used is debatable. Also, it's too bad trained citizens couldn't carry a weapon around outdoors as that's when they're most likely to be mugged, car-jacked, etc. So, I don't mean to sound dense, but how would the ballistics technology help catch the criminal? I could see them getting extra time for linking them to a stolen gun, but I'm more concerned with the armed robbery/murder-type crimes than the burglary. If a gun is stolen, report it to ATF who have a national stolen gun registry based on serial numbers. Also, the statistics may end up showing greater crime use than self-defense, but do those statistics include the much greater prevalence of handguns being "used" for self-defense as a deterrent, such as saying "Stop or I'll shoot" without ever pulling the trigger? This has been a major criticism of previous statistics as it under reports self-defense by a very significant amount. Disco Stu: I agree that irrational fear is what lead us to fun stuff like the Patriot Act, water-boarding, etc. But, there is a difference between hiding under your covers with a shotgun and reacting to reality. Does having a smoke alarm in your house mean you're overly afraid of fire? No, but it does provide some protection against an unlikely but possibly deadly threat.

Disco Stu

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 08:48:54 -0500

It's interesting about that fear of crime. I know, I know. It's real in DC. However, more residents will die from the donuts in their hands then the guns in another's. Just sayin. http://www.nypost.com/seven/07132008/postopinion/postopbooks/the_science_of_fear_119679.htm

monkeyrotica

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 08:04:36 -0500

Meh. Ballistic fingerprinting is so quaintly 20th Century. Bullet nanotags is where it's at. As endorsed by Doc Savage and the Fabulous Five.

downtown rez

Wed, 06 Aug 2008 22:55:51 -0500

T: "If it's still hazy of false, please let me know" No problem, I can do that. :) The only assumptions I really need to make are that legally registered guns will be stolen from the homes of their at-the-time-away owners. It's actually a pretty safe bet on my part, too, given that 1) the vast majority of burglaries occur while the home owners are away or at work and 2) whatever gun laws DC ends up with will very likely not allow people to carry them around. If I'm correct in both (and I'm confident), and if ballistics testing is implemented (seems like a fine idea to me), than we'll start seeing data showing stolen handguns are used murders in DC at a higher rate than they are used in legal self defense. They rate at which stolen guns are used in homicides might even exceed that of the rate they are used in suicides and/or domestic violence.

timmeroo

Wed, 06 Aug 2008 21:10:30 -0500

Not a bad idea at all. The DC Council would probably be shocked to see that some of their constituents actually support the Supreme Court's ruling and won't put up with more of the Council's half-measures.

ianto94

Wed, 06 Aug 2008 11:56:33 -0500

For those of you who are interested to know, some of us have formed Capital Gun Owners. Our news release just went out today. Here is a copy: DC group to press for gun rights Washington, D.C. A group of DC residents, workers and college students have organized to press Congress and the Council to fully implement the right of District of Columbia residents to keep and bear arms as confirmed by the Supreme Court’s recent Heller decision. Capital Gun Owner’s (CGO) President Amy McVey, said that the group supports recent bills introduced in Congress to protect the second amendment rights of District residents. “If the Council will not obey the Constitution,” she said “then Congress has an obligation to step in to protect the rights of persons living, working, attending college and visiting the District.” CGO Board Member Joe Brown, said, “The District has failed to make a good faith attempt to comply with the Supreme Court’s holding in Heller. Its continued ban on semi-automatic hand guns and rifles is directly contrary to Heller’s holding that ordinary every day weapons are Constitutionally protected. Also, the District’s trigger lock requirement continues to prevent effective use of a firearm for self-defense.” McVey, who was the first person to register a hand gun following the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the District’s 32 year old hand gun ban, said the group’s goal is to overturn District’s continued ban on semi-automatic firearms and to streamline or eliminate the registration process. “In addition,” she said, “District residents should have the right enjoyed by residents of virtually every other state in the nation to carry firearms for their protection, either openly or concealed.” CGO Board Member George Lyon, one of the original plaintiffs in the Heller case, said, “Our purpose is three fold, first to convince the city to fix its gun laws to comply with the Constitution, second to serve as a resource for gun owners to exercise their rights responsibly and safely, and third to educate the public concerning firearms issues.” Another of the original Heller plaintiffs, Gillian St. Lawrence, also a board member, said the group plans to meet with each of the Council members to explain what changes are needed in the District’s gun laws to accommodate the self-defense needs of District citizens.

monkeyrotica

Wed, 06 Aug 2008 08:12:23 -0500

You think handgun registration is bad. Wait until District residents try and register their dynamite monkeys. The ballistic feces test alone is more arduous than a Princeton Review LSAT prep course. Joe Bloggs wouldn't stand a chance. Neither would his poo.

timmeroo

Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:13:55 -0500

Yes, in my reasonable fiefdom they would: -Allow semi-autos -Allow standard capacity magazines (more than 12) -Drop ballistics testing (useless) -Allow concealed carry with serious training/testing (10 hrs +), it's like free cops -Drop registration altogether, use ATF like the rest of the country for traces -Drop trigger lock requirements but encourage safe storage (perhaps subsidize gun safes?) -Require a background check to sell to someone within DC (similar to closing gun show loophole) -Allow reasonable travel (to range and back) -Allow DCists to buy in VA/MD -Oh yeah, allow semi-auto rifles "in common use" such as the scary looking AR-15 (as the rest of the country does), which works for home defense, target-shooting, and can be used to harvest organic, free-range meat. Chances of all this happening? Not so hot. I really don't want to move to Virginia and have to travel 40 min to meet DC friends for a drink.

DCGuy2

Tue, 05 Aug 2008 16:03:26 -0500

To sum up the requirements to buy a new gun, I count 5 trips to the MPD 2 trips to the gun dealer 1 trip for to the FFL holder in DC (who does not yet exist). No timetables for the police or appeals process. Seriously, trigger locks and semis aside if they could just drop that stupid ballistics thing (proven useless in NY and Maryland), and allowed DC residents to buy in VA and MD, I would be okay with the rest of the process. Oh yeah, even tho I got background checked, fingerprinted, etc. for my shotty, I need to do it ALL AGAIN. Come on, they need 2 sets of fingerprints?

timmeroo

Tue, 05 Aug 2008 12:27:54 -0500

That example you cite from the Post is a woman who already owned a gun and brought it in. Most people don't own a gun in another state and would want to buy one. To do that you have to: 1. Go to MPD to get a Firearms Application (not available online.) 2. Go out of state to buy a gun, get dealer to fill out portion of Application, leaving the gun with the dealer. 3. Go back to MPD with application, passport photos, fingerprints, take a test, additional FBI background check (in duplicate over NICS check at gun store). 4. Wait for notice in the mail saying reqiurements are met. 5. Arrange for out of state gun to be shipped in (paying for shipping, with overnight usually required) to a DC licensed dealer (who doesn't exist currently, making this impossible). 6. Go back to the MPD, picking up the sealed Firearms Registration application. 7. Go to the DC dealer, pay him whatever fee he charges (usually $20-$50 for FFL transfers) and pick up the weapon. 8. Go back yet again to the MPD to deliver the gun for ballistics testing. Pay this fee. If there's no backlog, they could test then and there. If not, it would require another trip back to pick up your gun after testing is done. http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/frames.asp?doc=/mpdc/lib/mpdc/info/pdf/finalpistolregis_071608.pdf So...you tell me. Fair? Efficient? Reasonable? Or a total mess that needs gutting? Here's what the rest of the country does. Oddly enough, even with all of these hoops, we're the ones with the gun crime problem. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/interactives/gunlaws/

JonboyDC

Tue, 05 Aug 2008 11:38:12 -0500

The only person in that Post article that actually registered a gun was the woman who walked in, filled out some paperwork, took a test, and walked out after her gun had been test-fired. That doesn't sound particularly onerous. (The other rules about keeping your gun unloaded and locked, which I think are suspect, have nothing to do with registration.) The problem with the bill currently in Congress (other than the fact that it's an exercise of pure tyranny because we have no vote in the passage of that law) is that it doesn't just make it legal to have a loaded gun in your home -- it gets rid of any and all registration rules. No particular method may be perfect, but reasonable steps that are designed to tell us who owns which gun seem unobjectionable to me, and registration sure looks like such a reasonable step. "destructive devices (grenades, RPGs, etc)" D&D never killed nobody.

timmeroo

Tue, 05 Aug 2008 10:29:52 -0500

Admittedly, it's not a perfect analogy, but I think it's pretty close. I'm not sure if I recall in other places of the Constitution where a "primary purpose" test is used. I'd think that in more rural areas, the primary purpose of guns is to hunt for food or for farm pest control. In urban areas, it's likely self-defense. Does this make it less protected as a right? In repealing Prohibition, is the primary purpose of drinking alcohol "positive"? Even though they aren't explicitly protected in the Constitution as arms are, should bows and arrows be required to be registered as their primary purpose is to kill? Swords? Poison-dart blowguns? Some creepy knives? In the case of Class III stuff, there's destructive devices (grenades, RPGs, etc) and there's Class III guns (full-auto machine guns and silencers). I certainly agree they deserve a higher standard (as they currently have) for regulation due to the fact they are "dangerous and unusual" weapons. I'm absolutely fine with making sure background checks are done for all sales to keep guns out of the wrong hands, I just don't think for the variety of reasons mentioned previously, that registration is a wise or effective policy for guns.

monkeyrotica

Tue, 05 Aug 2008 08:27:00 -0500

The problem is that, unlike guns, the primary purpose of a computer isn't to kill people. Sure, you can use it to encourage people to kill eachother, or to distribute hate speech, or bombmaking instructions. But unless you're bludgeoning your Facebook penpal or your Nigerian business partner, the analogy isn't the same. Guns merit a slightly higher standard of regulation, like Class III destructive devices or XXXL Lime Green Stretchpants. Similarly, you can't really use a gun to exercise your First Amendment rights. But don't think I haven't been tempted. I can't go twenty minutes without wanting to shoot someone in the face for poor use of the subjunctive, or sloppy dependent clauses, or buying crap at the grocery store with pennies.

timmeroo

Tue, 05 Aug 2008 01:07:26 -0500

DR: I guess my point with that premise was that to believe registration + ballistics will help solve crimes you have to make a number of difficult assumptions: A. criminals register guns, B. bullets found are able to be identified with the weapon shot (it's very difficult to match if the gun is shot between registration and crime or a different ammunition is used in the crime) C. that the number of possible matches would allow a judge to issue warrants to search all these people's homes for the weapon D. that the time and money spent couldn't be more effective preventing crime with intervention programs or more cops. If that's still hazy or "false," please let me know. Monkeyerotica gets it exactly right JonboyDC. I'll add that I'm not so sure I'm an extremist for questioning "basic registration." I'm not sure if you've been outside DC in a while, but only DC and Hawaii have registration of all firearms, and 6 other states for some types of guns. Interestingly enough, nine states have laws forbidding registration. That makes 43 states that either don't have the interest to pass such a law or actively oppose it, which hardly makes me an extremist. The Brady Campaign doesn't even include registration on their state law scorecards. http://www.lcav.org/content/registration_firearms.pdf http://www.stategunlaws.org/xshare/pdf/scorecard/2007/2007_state_scorecard.pdf I don't think that registration alone is likely unconstitutional, but I do think it's bad policy. Given other constitutional rights (speech, press, assembly), can you imagine the uproar if President Bush said "We need all bloggers to register their computers with their state in order to track them down in case they end up using their computers to support terrorism." We'd probably feel like we live in China, which is the point. We'd sure feel safe, but we'd lose part of our freedom.

Ian

Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:41:06 -0500

Our group totally left Nancy's name out when discussing who could pick up the role of Joker for the second Bat-sequel. But that head shot puts her right up there with Benicio del Toro and Emile Hirsh.

OldPosterKnownAsCranky

Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:40:49 -0500

I leave for vacation and am suddenly no longer a Zimbabwean millionaire! Outrage! This is worse than Hitler!

monkeyrotica

Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:15:01 -0500

Well, there are reasonable registration processes, like getting your car registered, where you pretty much walk in with ID and proof of residency and you walk out with a registration. And there's no Constitutional right to own a car. Then there's ridiculously onerous processes like the gun registration, where you have to jump through all these hoops and make multiple visits and if you bring a semiauto to register it'll be confiscated as a "machinegun." And you still can't buy a legal gun in DC because they're not licensing any dealers. This entire process serves the same function as a poll tax: to discourage people from exercising a right they already have. And DC residents get to foot the bill for this halfassed bag-o-dicks legislation to be litigated and ultimately thrown out by a higher court. Bra. Vo.

JonboyDC

Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:02:02 -0500

You may not like the idea of registration or licensing, but I fail to see how either is an infringement on your right to bear arms. (Of course, some licensing or registration requirements might be so onerous that they amounted to an infringement, but I haven't seen anything in D.C.'s registration rules that impose a real burden.) A mere suspicion that the government might mis-use the registration information in the future is hardly grounds to find the registration requirement unconstitutional. Which isn't to say that there aren't problems with D.C.'s new rules, but you make yourself look like an extremist when you argue against basic registration.

Politburo

Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:46:07 -0500

OldPoster - You may want to reconsider that. The government re-valuated the currency on Friday: "All monetary valuations have been re-denominated by a factor of 1:10,000,000,000 which effectively means the removal of ten (10) zeros from all monetary value"

Disco Stu

Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:30:34 -0500

Morlocks are good when armed and properly trained.

OldPosterKnownAsCranky

Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:27:01 -0500

Following IMGoph's lead, I throw in my 1 million Zimbabwean dollars: Pelosi is making a smart move. DC gov't is making a bad move with the gun regulations. Morlocks are bad.

downtown rez

Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:26:40 -0500

DR: "You're neglecting to mention the part of the registration process where each legal gun is test fired and ballistics data is kept on file." T: "I wasn't so much neglecting it as assuming it would not be effective (cost or performance-wise) as Maryland recently found: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16475-2005Jan17.html" DR: Still doesn't really explain the false premise here: T: "How could this data be used? Let's say someone gets shot on the street. The police determine that there are 200 people with registered guns in the same caliber of the weapon in the neighborhood. Would that be probable cause to go knocking on doors, searching houses of those gun owners? It's certainly not going to lead officers to the illegal gun which was never registered/licensed."

Politburo

Mon, 04 Aug 2008 09:51:56 -0500

I don't have a problem with this specific vote, but I just don't buy the assertion that Dems would get credit for anything when it comes to gun control issues. Anyone who is passionate about this issue (aside from DC residents) probably isn't going to vote Democrat.

Disco Stu

Mon, 04 Aug 2008 09:33:07 -0500

...and furthermore! If she's "folding" she's folding some origame. I don't even like Pelosi all that much but I give her credit in this case. Come on, folding makes this post sound like a complaint of a band like Coldplay "selling out". Yeah, that's how you hear about them in the first place.

Disco Stu

Mon, 04 Aug 2008 09:30:32 -0500

Um, that's actually a savvy move on Pelosi's part. Think of it, it's a gimmy situation. As Martin says, no one thinks the current "solution" put forth by the city complies with the wording of the SCOTUS decision. If self-defense in the home, then reasonably usable should apply. SO, if that's the case, why not have the Democrats get the credit for the proposal, strike a compromise with the NRA (yes, even them :P), AND save some seats in November. No, no, no? Yes, yes, yes! This fall has the possiblity of a Democrat in the White House and 60 Democrats in the Senate. Why not work towards a workable solution for DC residents at the time?

MikeB

Sun, 03 Aug 2008 22:07:42 -0500

Say it ain't so MikeB. You don't think there would be enough votes to avoid filibuster when the bill is coming from Democrats? I'm just guessing, since I haven't seen either the Blue Dogs bill or Souter's to see how different they are. There are definitely Dems in the Senate who might support it, but there are also some Republicans I suspect would oppose it (Collins and Snowe of Maine come to mind). Plus, to my knowledge, there is no companion bill in the Senate. They would still need to go through the committee process, I suspect. And, as we've seen with Sen. Coburn's tactics, it's very easy for one senator to block a bill. My point is, even if the bill passes the House, there still is a ways to go. That said, I understand why opponents of the legislation are concerned. And why home rule isn't always home rule, sadly.

IMGoph

Sun, 03 Aug 2008 15:08:24 -0500

blah de blah (just felt i should get my 2¢ in)

regentrifydcnow

Sun, 03 Aug 2008 13:37:44 -0500

This is a simple recognition by Pelosi and fellow Dems that the majority of the American people support protection of their Second Amendment rights. These is nothing nefarious here; she and her fellow House members are ELECTED to REPRESENT the people - who support Second Amendment rights. The Supreme Court has ruled that DC residents also have Second Amendment rights. The mayor and council are trying to thwart the court and to trample on DC residents Second Amendment RIGHTS. "A right delayed is a right denied." Marin Luther King, Jr.

timmeroo

Sun, 03 Aug 2008 12:48:29 -0500

It's tough to say. The Portland owner could say "Yeah, that gun was lost/stolen." If it turned out that the guy keeps "losing" guns that show up in DC criminals' hands, then you could look into him for illegal trafficking. Downtown rez, I wasn't so much neglecting it as assuming it would not be effective (cost or performance-wise) as Maryland recently found: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16475-2005Jan17.html This article doesn't mention how the markings of a gun shot on the day of registration will change after shooting it, further decreasing the chances of a match. This was a reason why California decided against ballistic imaging: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/pdf/03-013_report.pdf And again, we're talking about legal guns. It's safe to say that nearly every crime where a handgun was used in DC recently was with an illegal gun, which this system wouldn't know about. Given the $2.5M the program cost Maryland, I think the money would be more effective being spent on more youth programs or officers on the street rather than clerks behind a desk at headquarters.

downtown rez

Sun, 03 Aug 2008 11:33:35 -0500

"ow could this data be used? Let's say someone gets shot on the street. The police determine that there are 200 people with registered guns in the same caliber of the weapon in the neighborhood." You're neglecting to mention the part of the registration process where each legal gun is test fired and ballistics data is kept on file.

monkeyrotica

Sun, 03 Aug 2008 09:43:41 -0500

Would that be probable cause to go knocking on doors, searching houses of those gun owners? It's certainly not going to lead officers to the illegal gun which was never registered/licensed. I think in an ideal world, a gun registered in an ATF database, reported stolen in Portland, and that was retrieved from a crimescene in DC would create a liability situation for the Portland owner who left their gun on top of their tv set next to the penguin. Notice I said "in an ideal world," one where penguins would be stamped "PROPERTY OF THE ZOO" when they're small.

timmeroo

Sat, 02 Aug 2008 23:10:52 -0500

DCster, People (myself included) would find licensing just as annoying as registering, as they both basically serve the same purpose: tell the Police/local gov where the legally obtained guns are. Licensing tells you who is able to buy guns, registration says which guns are owned by who. How could this data be used? Let's say someone gets shot on the street. The police determine that there are 200 people with registered guns in the same caliber of the weapon in the neighborhood. Would that be probable cause to go knocking on doors, searching houses of those gun owners? It's certainly not going to lead officers to the illegal gun which was never registered/licensed. Let's say a gun is found on a criminal. If the criminal didn't already scratch the serial numbers off the gun, those numbers can be run by ATF who can tell police the gun store who sold the gun, then get the original seller/trafficker from the gun store. But that happens without registration. So what does registration/licensing do? Basically, and I promise you, I'm not a paranoid person, it has been used many times in this country (Hurricane Katrina) and others (UK ban, Australia ban, WWII Germany ban on Jews owning) to confiscate guns when politically possible. Personally, I think the very real cons outweigh the potential pros.

SpeakSoftlyCarryABigStick

Sat, 02 Aug 2008 23:08:57 -0500

If a bill is passed by Congress on the matter, the DC government should respond with a borrowed and modified quote from Andrew Jackson: Congress has made its decision, now let them enforce it!

DCster

Sat, 02 Aug 2008 16:29:48 -0500

Senators couldn't even pass cloture for the energy bills, something that actually impacts their constituents. So I don't think this legislation has a high enough profile to worry those moderate Senators or be used as leverage, most of them aren't up for reelection this year anyway. Wouldn't people find licensing just as annoying as registering, timmeroo? What's the difference between the two? There should be some provision to allow the tracing of firearms, in the chance (however small) they end up being used in crimes.

monkeyrotica

Sat, 02 Aug 2008 14:47:18 -0500

This is what happens when you settle for a half-assed "home rule" charter that has all the responsibilities of independent governance but none of the benefits. And it's not as if we can look to the mayor, who can't be bothered to walk across the room to a Websters and look up the definition of the words "shall", "not", "be", "infringed" without breaking his foot. Then there's the Council that's soiling itself spectacularly trying to find a way to ban fois gras and the illegal trade in nicotine suppositories. Can't we just set fire to the Reichstag, blame it on Borf, and have Senator Jar Jar vote emergency powers to the Chancellor so he can deploy a clone army to fight the separatist gangsta g's in Trinidad? That would pretty much take care of 90% of DC's violent crime.

leaf

Sat, 02 Aug 2008 11:21:40 -0500

There are damn close to 60 votes for this in the Senate. Reid, Pryor, Lincoln, McCaskill, Tester, Baucus, Casey, Landrieu, etc. are Dem. moderates that represent large rural areas where pro-gun sentiment runs high. However, I suspect Harry Reid would use this legislation as a carrot to force Republicans into votes on energy and tax legislation that they don't care for.

timmeroo

Sat, 02 Aug 2008 10:58:35 -0500

Say it ain't so MikeB. You don't think there would be enough votes to avoid filibuster when the bill is coming from Democrats? If she really wants to defuse the NRA's plan to tar Obama and other Congressmen in November, she could take the wind out of their sails by discouraging Democrats to filibuster in the Senate and actually allowing the bill to pass. If I were her, I'd trade gutting DC's unconstitutional laws to ensure having enough seats in Congress to pass Obama's more challenging ideas such as universal healthcare or raising taxes on those making $250K+.

MikeB

Fri, 01 Aug 2008 21:24:32 -0500

No big deal. Look, here's what's gonna happen. The Dems will get to bring their bill to the floor, it may even pass. They get to avoid the issue in the elections. But it's not going to get 60 votes to avoid a filibuster in the Senate before the end of the year. Exactly what happened in 2004. Pelosi needs to do this to help keep the Democrats in line, and to protect some House seats. Then it falls off the radar for a while. Certainly won't be a priority issue early next year, for either McCain or Obama, I suspect, or what is likely to be a larger Democratic majority in Congress.

MS

Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:41:10 -0500

I hit that!

monkeyrotica

Fri, 01 Aug 2008 19:35:21 -0500

hold on. you mean politicians in a political town made a political decision based on politics? what a shame that local pols have been doing the exact same in failing to abide by the heller decision. i certainly hope the feds show the same fortitude when the voting rights bill comes up. oh snap! thats what they've been doing for the past 37 years! totally didnt see this one coming.

timmeroo

Fri, 01 Aug 2008 19:21:09 -0500

DCster, what's the trouble with semi-autos? They've only been in common use for about a hundred years. The registration requirements are nothing more than an annoyance for honest people. Criminals still can't go to VA and legally buy guns (NICS check) and they wouldn't have registered their guns in the first place. I expect DC to react with gun "licensing" where you have to have a license to own a gun, but don't have to register your guns. I wonder if this would have any effect on the ban on semi-auto rifles too...

DCster

Fri, 01 Aug 2008 18:58:56 -0500

Sad news. It's perhaps understandable to mess with the legislation's trigger lock provisions, but "trash the registration requirement for all guns," which under this bill would include semi-automatic weapons! Come on Blue Dogs, throw us a bone!

dcist20009

Fri, 01 Aug 2008 18:42:05 -0500

C'mon -- there isn't anyone who thinks that having a gun but only being able to assemble and load it when there is an imminent threat makes sense. Where are you getting that statement from? Did I miss a poll other than DCist? The reality is that the Democrats would not control the House if it wasn't for the Blue Dogs. Hard as it is to believe, a Ted Kennedy liberal could NOT take Heath Schuler's district or that of other Blue Dogs. Thankfully Nancy knows this.

alewis

Fri, 01 Aug 2008 18:41:52 -0500

I totally agree with timmeroo: Call it the "District of Columbia Equal Rights Act" and allow citizens of D.C. to own guns and vote! Novel idea.

timmeroo

Fri, 01 Aug 2008 18:33:24 -0500

As much as I hate the idea of stepping all over Home Rule, I'm glad Democrats are going to get the credit for intervening in the DC Council's blatant defiance of the Heller ruling. Pretty slick move by Pelosi. Maybe she can attach an amendment to the bill giving us representation? Rights all around!

3 toed Sloth

Fri, 01 Aug 2008 17:33:53 -0500

More like a Bannana Republic.

IMGoph

Fri, 01 Aug 2008 17:15:54 -0500

so much for home rule.

fisherdm

Fri, 01 Aug 2008 17:10:09 -0500

Bike-thieving crackheads beware.

EdTheRed

Fri, 01 Aug 2008 17:06:57 -0500

Burn it down. You heard me, Cheney.