DCist: Norton and Mendelson Fight Congress Over Guns

ianto94

Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:07:56 -0500

Microstamping does not work, has never been implemented and is just a gun ban by another name.

monkeyrotica

Wed, 10 Sep 2008 07:26:40 -0500

The only thing that gun in the picture needs is a big red ball stuffed in its muzzle.

timmeroo

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 23:18:32 -0500

Pretty interesting news--I'm going to try really hard not to say "told you so" at the next hearing. Mendelson is moving things in the right direction, but still could stand to work on: A. nixing microstamping requirements (super easy to defeat) B. capacity limitations C. semi-auto rifles D. concealed carry for well-trained and tested citizens E. the super-crazy long and expensive process of registering anything in the first place.

erahk0

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 22:18:44 -0500

Let's face it congress is not going to give us the keys to the car until our elected officials start acting like grownups. ...I just hope they don't expect us to be republican grownups.

monkeyrotica

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:52:35 -0500

the city isn't getting to pass its own laws. But it did pass it's own laws. It banned handguns for damn near thirty years. It took that long for the law to be deemed unconstitutional. we're not arguing constitutionality here, we're just talking about a body not elected by the residents of a locale being legislated upon without their consent. Well, until DC GETS representation, they're kinda stuck with what Congress passes and what SCOTUS deems constitutional. I want DC to get Senators and reps like any other jurisdiction, but it doesn't help their case when the Mayor and Nickles and the Council acts like a bag of uncut cocks. How is this any different from admitted cannibal necrophile and non-pornstar Marion Barry telling "the Man" where to get off, and everybody else in DC being stuck with the rep as "that town that keeps re-electing that crackhead?" It's pretty bad when Dingleberry Mendelson winds up at the top of this dungheap smelling like a rose.

Hillman

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:26:22 -0500

DC Council really screwed this one into the ground. Everybody and their dog knew this Congressional action was coming. I'm as big a fan of DC rights as anyone, but does anyone out there really think the DC gun registration rules were actually in keeping with the Supreme Court decision? At the end of the day it may be wrong, but the DC Council brought this on themselves.

Virginia is for Losers

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 18:12:17 -0500

"Damn, that is one seriously S&M looking handgun." Maybe!

IMGoph

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 17:11:06 -0500

good point, reid

Reid

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 16:57:05 -0500

"it's pretty damn clear how it's an affront to home rule. the city isn't getting to pass its own laws." Now plenty of people will be offended at the comparison, and it's not like I believe it 100%, but here goes: The federal government swatted away a ton of local control and sovereignty in the pursuit of civil rights in the 1960s. They did it because, frankly, it was the right thing to do. To say one constitutional right is more worthwhile than another is to diminish the constitution. That denying someone a pistol is the same thing as denying them the vote is the unpleasant reality following Heller. We expect the federal government to step in to protect citizens from rogue state (read: District) governments that violate the Constitution. The fact is, though, Congress doesn't really need to use its special relationship over the District to pass these laws. It could easily justify them under the commerce clause, which was expanded pretty much to the breaking point in the pursuit of progressive laws. So if its sovereignty that you're lamenting, that ship sailed a long time ago...

Reid

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 16:45:50 -0500

Damn, that is one seriously S&M looking handgun.

IMGoph

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 16:11:00 -0500

cranky: it's pretty damn clear how it's an affront to home rule. the city isn't getting to pass its own laws. we're not arguing constitutionality here, we're just talking about a body not elected by the residents of a locale being legislated upon without their consent. replace "congress" with "indiana senate" and "the city" with "chicago" and see how much sense it makes.

OldPosterKnownAsCranky

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:20:29 -0500

Not sure how it's an affront to home rule for Congress to force the city government to abide by the Constitution and the Supreme Court (I'm guessing if it was another of the pesky amendments that was being infringed upon, the pontification about home rule sanctity would be non-existent). That said, Norton's bill is utterly pointless (sorta like Congress telling DC to make sure they smile more and wish everyone a good day). But, Mendelson's bill looks relatively reasonable. Which makes me wonder what Ol' Dingleberry is up to.

Boomhauer

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:13:23 -0500

Hey Councilman Dingleberry, HOW 'BOUT FIXIN' THOSE GUN POSSESSION LAWS!