Updated Forecast: In Excess of 8" of Snow, Plus Wind
And Now, 10-20 Inches
Federal Govt. Closed Tuesday
Snowmaggedon 1.0 in Time Lapse
We first heard yesterday afternoon that today's vote on the D.C. Voting Rights Act in the House had been pulled from the schedule, and this morning more details have emerged on why it happened. The Hill reports that word got around the Capitol yesterday that the National Rifle Association was planning to turn a procedural vote related to the bill into one of its infamous "test votes," which means House members would be scored by the NRA on their friendliness toward pro-gun legislation just by deciding to bring the current D.C. voting bill to the floor. Yesterday's 5 p.m. House Rules Committee hearing on the measure was indeed canceled shortly before it was set to begin. Politico and the Post also have stories.
It now looks like a vote on the bill has been postponed for at least a week while Democratic leaders attempt to negotiate their way out of trouble. Democrats from conservative districts are worried about voting for the bill without the gun amendment attached, risking the ire of the NRA, while Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told reporters yesterday that he's concerned if the gun language is included, the bill itself might fail since many Republicans would vote against it anyway and Democrats from liberal districts would be forced to vote against it as well—to say nothing of the victory it could potentially hand to the NRA.
The whole story puts into perspective how powerful the NRA really is in Congress. Their lobbyist wouldn't even confirm on the record yesterday whether they were going to score the procedural vote, but just the rumor that they might has stopped this legislation from moving forward.
Where will the bill go from here? Negotiations are said to be ongoing, but as of now, there's no indication that it will be brought to a vote by a certain date.
For their part, the D.C. Council signed a unanimous resolution yesterday condemning the Senate's gun amendment.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I'm afraid of the NRA too, so I can relate.
Not only does it appear that the NRA infiltrated the Democrats, but Starbucks as well!
Well, I'm waiting for an NRA representative to contact me directly regarding the message I just sent them. I wanted to know their position on the Starbucks barrista who shot his pants in light of the current DC Voting rights legislation.
I think I read somewhere that "the ire of the NRA" includes Limbaugh and his new BFF Steele, in a tag team duo wearing wrestling masks, they will come to your neighborhood and shoot your barista's leg off... so watch out my friend, watch out!
Me, I am hiding in a hole until this whole thing blows over and the NRA forgets I am here.
Why would the NRA care about an illegal gun carried illegally? The NRA is about Law abiding citizens having their second amendment rights, not about protecting criminals.
It's only "an illegal gun carried illegally" because of laws that the NRA opposes.
See, this is EXACTLY why DC needs to overhaul it's gun laws: so DC residents can have their turn at waving a bunch of guns around, making demands, and sending politicians scurrying. Also, we need more chain employees to bravely step up to the plate and shoot themselves in the leg. Only then can we be rid of the twin scourges of multinational franchises and sloppy service.
we need more chain employees to bravely step up to the plate and shoot themselves in the leg
Thats abosulte cockamamy! How else could I possibly get coffee if someone doesn't overcharge me for something over-hyped and under-good?!?! Make it myself(and in the process save myself 5 bucks and 600 calories)? Last time I checked that is not the American way.
Also Lapierre (in the same speech): "...the Founding Fathers understood that the guys with the guns make the rules."
Ah yes, I think that was the British. You, know the ones with the guns.
But that's just how they rolled, those foundin' fathers... bunch of insurgent thugs that they were.
Errr...the people with the Guns were both the British AND the Colonists who were able to use them against the tyrannical British regime. No Guns for the Colonists = no Revolution = your current spelling would contain a lot of superfluous "U"s. Or did you think the Revolutionary WAR was a Ghandi led sit-in?
Way to parrot John Stewart, by the way. Just out of curiosity, are you able to think things through yourself or are you content with just getting your talking points for the day handed to you?
I am usually thrilled to have my talking points handed to me, seeing as how that is usually how I get things- er, handed to me. This time I actually came up with that stupidity myself! Nice to know that you keep track of the pundits enough to know when someone online runs parallel, I will have to check the Daily Show out (I have no cable, just lots of guns) to make myself feel smarter though! Thanks.
The whole "guns are power thing" made me smile, irony and all, since most of the people who take that attitude to it's fruition are the "insurgents" we are always so worried about. But as you point out, it has always been a pesky concept. And in real world sense, I am pretty sure it is the people with the aircraft carriers and tanks who have the power, meanwhile the people with the guns are just soft little speed bumps (see Baghdad 03'). Perhaps Lapierre should have said "the founding fathers knew that those with IEDs have the power? Or those with Raptor drones have the power?"
But let's not let this devolve into a discussion about gun control, let's keep it at the "we are all terrified of the NRA bitch slapping us" level please.
"people with the aircraft carriers and tanks who have the power, meanwhile the people with the guns are just soft little speed bumps (see Baghdad 03')"
How is it you can mention Iraq, then ignore "Baghdad 04-08". Clearly an armed ragtag insurgency, if it has the will, can more than hold its own against a 600 Billion+ military.
I would love to reply, but that could start an insane troll war. So unless Sommer is feeling desperate enough to start a 2nd Amm. post, or Iraq Occupation post... ok, that would be really bad. I will just leave it at: My fault for bringing it up.
Ok, I can't help but add: I think it is more like "causing perpetual unrest" than "holding it's own", and that can only happen because somehow peace is a goal... not annihilation. There is some guise of making that poor broken country just like Sedona Arizona at some point. If it were a matter of holding it's own, we would be suffering casualties in the hundreds of thousands if not millions (about half our population would be gone lets say), and there would be Iraqi aircraft carriers bobbing off Myrtle beach lobbing rockets into the east coast (thanks be to all gods that is not the case).
I salute your restraint. We will agree to disagree and I bid you good day.
This is the first for the internet right?
I think it happened on a listserve back in 97', but as that is just a rumor- kudos to us!
You sure take up a lot of type to make little or no sense. But I must bear in mind you live in or near the Republic of D.C.
So someone tell me why a gun issue has to interfere with the voting rights bill? Why can't they debate the darn things separately, as separate bills?
Because this is Congress, where the minority party gets to f**k with the majority party's $h!t sos they can score points with their constituencies. Also, DC being the political football it is, and the Dems being the shortsighted ones they are, they didnt foresee the Repubs having the votes to pull this $h!t off. And with the clock ticking for them to get some REAL legislation passed, this helps eat up more billable hours. Maybe next time they'll take my flurry of expletive-laden crayon drawn faxes seriously.
Because assault weapons are one in the same with voting rights, all rights in fact, and freedom. Assault weapons = freedom. Or another formula: Voting -minus- the most loosely interpreted view of the 2nd Amendment freedom = Fascism.
Sheesh, obviously you missed that NRA memo.
Now hide quick! before they find you.
So says the delegate from VIRGINIA
Look, if SCOTUS can rule that making hundreds of millions in corporate campaign contributions is a protected form of "free speech," it seems completely logical that shooting Starbucks employees in the leg is a completely valid form of petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances. Their coffee sucks. We all know it. Only now are employees starting to DO something about it. And I for one welcome our self-inflicted gunshot wound to the leg overlords. I'm certain that Starbucks Phase Two Repurposing as cafe/shooting gallery will be almost as successful as their recent acquisition of the Soylent Corporation, Ltd. Them breakfast sammitches are a might tasty! I rilly lahk em with them frenchfried potaters and potted meat product, mmmm, hmmmm. Mostly snouts and peckers, mmmm hmmmm.
I think it is obvious now, that the Starbucks Leg Shooter (SLS), was making the almost-ultimate sacrifice for us all! He obviously was making a political statement that Voting Rights without Assault Weapons are no Rights at all! And it seems to have worked. Cheers to the SLS!
I blame the Dems (of which I am one). Stop being a bunch of pussies. If you are pro-gun control, then vote that way. If you want to loosen DC's draconian regs, then vote for it. Stop hiding behind this. Either your constituents would support you or go against you. How about asking them?
The irony here is that, although I hate to admit it, Congresses authority over giving us the vote faces some constitutional challenges. The gun amendment, as distasteful as it may seem to some is perfectly legal.
The problem is black-and-white thinking. Any bill that relaxes gun restrictions in any way is simply labeled "pro-gun" and endorsed by the NRA and the "gun rights" lobby. Any bill that tightens them in any way is aimply labeled "anti-gun" and endorsed by gun control groups.
How about looking at what the particular bill actually says? This isn't about "loosening DC's draconian regs" -- the amendment repeals DC gun laws and strips the council of authority to pass any more. It's not about obeying a Supreme Court ruling but about increasing congressional control over DC. This isn't a gun issue -- it's about local autonomy. And those who favor democracy in DC should be opposing the amendment, regardless of their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
Agree with the first part. I am not an NRA member (they support too many republicans for my taste) but an often labeled an "NRA apologist" just because I think DC's gun rules are unconstitutional and too strict.
Second, the amendment does not mean that all gun regs in DC will go away..just the ones that exceed federal restrictions. Don't by into the brady hype of it "giving guns to children." It is just not true. You won't be able to conceal carry guns on the street (starbuck employees excepted) and you will have to pass the same federal background checks that everyone else does.
DC just flips out at any Congressional oversight (re: taxi meters). Is it fair? no. But Congress could pass an act saying we need to be nice to puppies and people would complain.
HCE, note the difference between "exceeding federal regulations" and "violating constitutional rights". Also, what is the difference between having no local gun laws and only having local gun laws that don't exceed the federal ones? If the local gun laws have no effect (because they aren't any different from the federal ones), then it makes no difference whether they exist or not.
And yes, I oppose congressional overriding of laws made by our local elected officials, regardless of whether I agree with the particular thing Congress is trying to do, just as I would oppose Obama declaring himself king even if it he was doing it just to make sure we were nice to puppies.
I recognize that Congress has the power under the Constitution to stomp on us. Hell, they could take home rule away entirely again. The fact that it's constitutional doesn't mean it's moral or a good idea, and it certainly doesn't mean I'd have to support such a move.
How very miopic of you..which is why we don't yet have the vote. Hey, I have idea. Why doesn't the house vote over whether this amendment can be introduced? Oh, that's right, the NRA has hired Jack Bauer to hold the children of Congressmen hostage. I forgot they have no free will.
Oh, and don't believe the Hoyer red herring about it not passing with the amendment. It would pass with about the same margins as in the House, with support of about 40% of the voting Democrats.
If I refuse a bowl of soup because someone has put sewage in it, that doesn't mean I don't want soup. I'll just have to figure out a way to get sewage-free soup.
The Ensign amendment doesn't just override one decision made by our local elected officials. It actually permanently takes away part of our home rule. That is a completely unacceptable price to pay, taking two steps back to take a step forward.
I have an idea: If the new DC gun laws are so obviously unconstitutional, then it shouldn't be hard to get an immediate court order suspending them. Then in the unlikely event that the DC government refuses to comply, call in the National Guard. That's how it works everywhere else, and that's how it should work here, for anyone who has any respect for the idea of self-government.
Fine. then LET THEM VOTE ON IT!!
"I blame the Dems (of which I am one)."
Your comments during the election seem to indicate otherwise. How do you explain that disconnect?
Politburo, meet www.bugmenot.com
Bugmenot.com, meet Politburo.
anarchy. it's time.
Once they pull together, and the updated NRA-Vote bill (H.R. 9MM) gets passed, and we can finally be armed to the teeth in this fair city-- Then it is time! Patience my friend.
Personally I think we should hold out for S. 50CAL. I think it packs a bit more punch than the House version.
Whatever the Congress makes legal on the streets of DC they should also make legal in and around the Capitol. If the right to self-protection shouldn't be infringed in Trinidad or Burleith, it shouldn't be infriged in the Cannon Building or the Senate gallery either. The NRA tells us that guns make us safer, don't they? Don't we want people at the Capitol to be ultra-safe? Let them be ultra-armed!
Or if there are legitimate reasons to disarm people entering the Capitol complex, then maybe there are legitimate reasons to make and enforce gun laws elsewhere in the District. I dunno, somebody help me out here and explain why the District as a whole and the Capitol should be treated differently.
Not the same thing. Public buildings, like the Capitol are protected by metal detectors, so you can keep the bad guys out.
And lets remember, no one is talking about concealed carry in DC (yet). This whole debate is about the right to have piece in your home.
If Congress can use its power to give DC a voting member of the House, then surely it can use that same power to legislate DC's gun laws, as both arise from Congress' authority under the District clause to do whatever the hell it damn well wants with and to DC. Voting rights supporters can't have it both ways. I'm sure there's a pithy aphorism to sum up this situation. Double-edged sword or playing with fire, maybe?
No one is saying Congress can't legislate DC's gun laws -- we're saying it shouldn't, and anyone who supports democracy for DC shouldn't want it to do so. Congress can do lots of things, many of which are not good ideas and some of which, like this, are just plain wrong.
So you are willing to give up the right for voting representation over this? That is what I don't get. If DC does, then we will never get it.
Yes, if the bill has this amendment in it, which is in direct opposition to what the bill is supposed to be about, then it should be voted down. It makes no sense to sacrifice home rule for one vote in Congress.
I don't understand your scenario. This amendment is way to kill the bill, since it will not pass the House with it -- Republicans will still vote against it, along with those Democrats who aren't cowed by the NRA and think the gun amendment is insane. So we won't get representation by giving in on this anyway.
We need these on every street corner, in front of every Starbucks, and a couple in every federal building:
(look at the Emergency Assault Weapon...)
This is the final solution! End of debate!
grrr...
http://www.brookhalvorson.com/recent
Silly NRA! What the NRA clearly didn't realize was that it can't judge the Representative of the DC unless the bill passes and she gets to vote! They have to wait until the next gun vote to test all the representatives.
"Landru destroys evil, but Landru is evil"
Besides..didn't DC give up guns for Lent?
You sure take up a lot of type to make little or no sense. But I must bear in mind you live in or near the Republic of D.C.
I just want no taxes and a 9mm. sigh
has there been any research showing a decrease/increase in gun-related crimes since guns were made legal here in DC? Because it wasn't like having them outlawed made a difference. Man up dems, just get us the damn vote already!
Exactly. I have yet to hear about a SAIS grad or GAO employee deciding to shoot up Whole Foods over who got the last carton of grass-fed milk. I thought we would all be less safe now that your neighbor's blood-thirsty tendencies can be exercised with a legally-purchased death machine blaster.
Pass the ammo and pass the vote. We can consider removing Congress's power over DC another day.
Wow - never saw this one coming ....