DC sticks it's thumb in the eye of USSC via it's "emergency legislation"

A

alan

New member
One supposes that those who run DC's government were less than happy with USSC's ruling in DC v. Heller, poor thing that some describe this ruling as being, ergo their enactment of "emergency legislation" above mentioned.

Interestingly, The Congress has the power and authority to repeal or toss out any legislative enactments of the district's government, which it should have done in 1976, but didn't. Seems that there is currently a proposal in The House for such action, action which Speaker Pelosi no doubt is unhappy with. Representative Mark Souder has introduced a Discharge Petition seeking to get floor action. Has your congress person signed, I understand that of 218 signatures needed, about 108 or 109 have been obtained so far.

Readers might want to contact their congressional representative re having them sign this petition. Funny thing is that while many in congress speak of their support for The Second Amendment, what they do when the need for action is at hand might well tell another story. Readers might also want to find out exactly where their congressional representatives stand on this matter, for when push comes to shove, the government of DC has essentially enacted retention of pretty much what the USSC ruled unconstitutional.
 
Heller has done something far more effective than signing a petition or calling his representative - he's filed suit against DC.
 
Contingency wrote:

I've tried several bill tracking sites and cannot find a way to track Souder's progress on getting signatures. The washington {bleep} (Liddy reference) thinks a victory by Souder is inevitable. The weeping and wailing by Eleanor Holmes is awesome

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...072902128.html

Re the following, excerpted from the Washington Post article, 30 July, Page BO4:

Since filing the petition last week, Souder has collected 109 signatures. He is confident of picking up sufficient support since 247 legislators had previously co-sponsored the gun bill, including 56 Democrats.

I wonder where all these "fair weather warriors" are now.

As to Rep. Souder's proposal, if you have a bill number, try thomas.loc.gov . Might find something there.
 
It's baffling to me that DC keeps making their own situation worse.

Heller filed against them:
Response: instead of making their laws reasonable they fought him in court... and lost
Response: instead of making their laws reasonable, they appealed to the SCOTUS.... and lost
Response: instead of making the laws reasonable, they basically re-passed the same laws... which will precipitate even more action to dilute their legal restrictions on firearm ownership.

Who are these people and what's wrong with them?
 
It's baffling to me that DC keeps making their own situation worse.
Click to expand...

Not to me because I understand liberals. They make a ton of laws to intrude into our lives, but when a law doesn't go their way, they ignore it or try to work around it.

It's too bad the republican party is a former shadow of its conservative self. Their could be much headway for the pro-gun movement if these republicans would get off their asses and take the lead. I find it interesting that the GOP seems uninterested. I guess the GOP is a different party these days... more like democrats than the party of Ronald Reagan.
 
Its because its easy to fight lawsuits spending other peoples money, and the DC hierarchy wants to place the blame on a gun for its troubles rather than on baby's momma's other baby's daddy. If this pisses you off sorry, but its true.
 
The gun rights issue is popular in Congress, and Democrats from conservative regions will probably face pressure to support the bill, especially if it reaches the floor before the November election.
Click to expand...

I sincerely hope this gets to the Senate before Nov. It will force the officials under the spotlight and microscope and possibly show their true colors.

On the flip side (assuming it doesn't make it to the Senate before Nov), they can make all their campaign promises and gerrymandering to the people and when the it comes time to vote we will see who will stay by their claims and who provide lip service for power.
 
It's actually pretty simple. They are afraid of being shot. These people have taken away a Constitutional right, promised by the founders of our government, our Constitution, and many believe are our God given rights.Liberal-facism is the proper term for such folks. They fail as liberals, and, as facists, they tell you how THEY know it's better for you to live, just as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and the ilk have done in the past. They KNOW what they have done, and, their guilt forces them to push a bad hand further, in the hope they can prevent their own demise.

While idiots, they are not totally ignorant. They are aware that failed dictators usually are either expelled or executed. That is what they have been, and, they know it, even if most others don't recognize it. All it takes is one, slightly off kilter person with a gun, and a desire for Constitutional rights, and, they fear for their lives. Congress is much more of the same. Think if you had a 9% job rating, if you would still have a job? But, not only do these people still have jobs, they are likewise pushing the positions that got them that rating, with MORE of the same...

IN great part, this is the arrogance, and brainwashing, that occurs when folks go to law school, work that hard, and, are told they are God's gifts to humanity. We then elect them to write laws that tell us how we should live our lives, and, they do.
 
Last edited:
These people have taken away a Constitutional right, promised by our government.
Click to expand...

Technically, it's a right protected under constitutional law, against infringment from the government. :D Just nit picking...
 
It's pretty sweet that two of the three branches of American federal government are now leaning on DC. We have the legislative branch and the judicial branch going, all we need is for Bush to write an executive order or something and we will have the trifecta.

Why the hell isn't Bush in on this? First he signs off on that wretched friend of the court filing and now he sits on his keister looking stupid. Terrible. His approval rating has been in the toilet for years, who is he afraid of making angry at this point?

Or is he afraid of jinxing it with his unpopular ham-fisted moves? Turning gold into lead and whatnot...
 
Just nit picking...
Click to expand...
It's not nit picking, it's a very important point, one that most liberals and a few conservatives often forget. Our rights in this country come from our Creator, and the Constitution only serves to guarantee those rights.

Glad you took the time to remind everyone what the true story is.
 
Thank you. I fixed it. I was thinking the founders when I wrote it, and, that to me means Divine intervention, but, that's just me..., isn't it???
;)

Trust me, in law it was just me...
 
Contingency:

The following might interest you, list of signers:






0014




Motion to Discharge a Committee from the Consideration of a resolution
July 24, 2008

To the Clerk of the House of Representatives:


Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XV, I, Mark E. Souder, move to discharge the Committee on Rules from the consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 1331) entitled, a resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1399) to restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia; which was referred to said committee on July 10, 2008, in support of which motion the undersigned Members of the House of Representatives affix their signatures, to wit:

Thursday, July 24, 2008
1. Mark E. Souder Indiana 03
2. John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr. New York 29
3. Lynn A. Westmoreland Georgia 03
4. Pete Sessions Texas 32
5. John Campbell California 48
6. Ron Lewis Kentucky 02
7. Kevin McCarthy California 22
8. John Sullivan Oklahoma 01
9. Tom Feeney Florida 24
10. Robert E. Latta Ohio 05
11. Mike Rogers (AL) Alabama 03
12. Thaddeus G. McCotter Michigan 11
13. Donald A. Manzullo Illinois 16
14. Dan Burton Indiana 05
15. Terry Everett Alabama 02
16. David Davis Tennessee 01
17. Jim Jordan Ohio 04
18. Cathy McMorris Rodgers Washington 05
19. Thomas M. Reynolds New York 26
20. Stevan Pearce New Mexico 02
21. Charles W. Boustany, Jr. Louisiana 07
22. Jim McCrery Louisiana 04
23. Rodney Alexander Louisiana 05
24. Henry E. Brown, Jr. South Carolina 01
25. Dennis R. Rehberg Montana 00
26. Bill Sali Idaho 01
27. John A. Boehner Ohio 08
28. Dean Heller Nevada 02
29. Joe Wilson South Carolina 02
30. Tim Walberg Michigan 07
31. Kenny Marchant Texas 24
32. John T. Doolittle California 04
33. Bob Goodlatte Virginia 06
34. Charles W. Dent Pennsylvania 15
35. John Linder Georgia 07
36. Candice S. Miller Michigan 10
37. Thelma D. Drake Virginia 02
38. Robert J. Wittman Virginia 01
39. Jeff Miller Florida 01
40. Jo Bonner Alabama 01
41. Bob Inglis South Carolina 04
42. Cliff Stearns Florida 06
43. Ed Whitfield Kentucky 01
44. Gus M. Bilirakis Florida 09
45. Tim Murphy Pennsylvania 18
46. Paul C. Broun Georgia 10
47. Nathan Deal Georgia 09
48. J. Gresham Barrett South Carolina 03
49. Joe Knollenberg Michigan 09
50. Edward R. Royce California 40
51. Jean Schmidt Ohio 02
52. Phil Gingrey Georgia 11
53. Doug Lamborn Colorado 05
54. Phil English Pennsylvania 03
55. Virgil H. Goode, Jr. Virginia 05
56. Michael T. McCaul Texas 10
57. Bill Shuster Pennsylvania 09
58. Ralph M. Hall Texas 04
59. Jon C. Porter Nevada 03
60. Patrick T. McHenry North Carolina 10
61. Steve Scalise Louisiana 00
62. Randy Neugebauer Texas 19
63. Jerry Lewis California 41
64. Marsha Blackburn Tennessee 07
65. John Kline Minnesota 02
66. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. Wisconsin 05
67. Ken Calvert California 44
68. Jeb Hensarling Texas 05
69. Mary Bono Mack California 45
70. Connie Mack Florida 14
71. Tom Latham Iowa 04
72. Kay Granger Texas 12
73. Sam Graves Missouri 06
74. Gary G. Miller California 42
75. John R. Carter Texas 31
76. Michael C. Burgess Texas 26
77. W. Todd Akin Missouri 02
78. Adrian Smith Nebraska 03
79. Jerry Moran Kansas 01
80. Trent Franks Arizona 02
81. Adam H. Putnam Florida 12
82. Louie Gohmert Texas 01
83. Mac Thornberry Texas 13
84. John Abney Culberson Texas 07
85. Harold Rogers Kentucky 05
86. Steve Chabot Ohio 01
87. Tom Cole Oklahoma 04
88. Mary Fallin Oklahoma 05
89. Tom Price Georgia 06
90. John E. Peterson Pennsylvania 05
91. John Shimkus Illinois 19
92. Sam Johnson Texas 03
93. Dave Weldon Florida 15
94. Spencer Bachus Alabama 06
95. John M. McHugh New York 23
96. David Dreier California 26
97. Todd Russell Platts Pennsylvania 19
98. Lamar Smith Texas 21
99. Wally Herger California 02
100. Zach Wamp Tennessee 03
101. Steve King Iowa 05
102. Kevin Brady Texas 08
103. John J. Duncan, Jr. Tennessee 02
104. Judy Biggert Illinois 13
105. Ted Poe Texas 02
106. Walter B. Jones North Carolina 03
107. Robin Hayes North Carolina 08
108. Greg Walden Oregon 02
109. Michele Bachmann Minnesota 06

Tuesday, July 29, 2008
110. K. Michael Conaway Texas 11
111. Virginia Foxx North Carolina 05
112. John Boozman Arkansas 03
113. Thomas E. Petri Wisconsin 06
114. Lincoln Diaz-Balart Florida 21
115. Ric Keller Florida 08
116. Paul Ryan Wisconsin 01
117. Charles W. ``Chip'' Pickering Mississippi 03
118. John B. Shadegg Arizona 03
119. Heather Wilson New Mexico 01
120. Chris Cannon Utah 03
121. Rob Bishop Utah 01
122. Eric Cantor Virginia 07
123. Frank D. Lucas Oklahoma 03
124. Todd Tiahrt Kansas 04
125. David L. Hobson Ohio 07
126. Vern Buchanan Florida 13
127. Marilyn N. Musgrave Colorado 04
128. Ron Paul Texas 14
129. Mario Diaz-Balart Florida 25

Wednesday, July 30, 2008
130. Lee Terry Nebraska 02
131. Patrick J. Tiberi Ohio 12
132. Brian P. Bilbray California 50
133. Timothy V. Johnson Illinois 15
134. Peter Hoekstra Michigan 02
135. Sue Wilkins Myrick North Carolina 09
136. Michael K. Simpson Idaho 02
137. Geoff Davis Kentucky 04
138. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen Florida 18
139. Mike Pence Indiana 06
140. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon California 25
141. Darrell E. Issa California 49
142. George Radanovich California 19
143. Duncan Hunter California 52
144. Dana Rohrabacher California 46
145. Don Young Alaska 00
146. Joe Barton Texas 06
147. Jeff Fortenberry Nebraska 01
148. Roy Blunt Missouri 07
149. Dave Camp Michigan 04
150. Howard Coble North Carolina 06
151. Steven C. LaTourette Ohio 14
152. Joseph R. Pitts Pennsylvania 16
153. Scott Garrett New Jersey 05
154. Rick Renzi Arizona 01
155. Thomas G. Tancredo Colorado 06
156. C. W. Bill Young Florida 10
157. Robert B. Aderholt Alabama 04
158. David G. Reichert Washington 08

Also the following:

HRES 1331 IH


110th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. RES. 1331
Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 1399) to restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 10, 2008
Mr. SOUDER submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


RESOLUTION
Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 1399) to restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia.


Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the House shall without intervention of any point of order consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1399) to restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia. The amendment printed in section 2 of this resolution shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader, or their designees; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Sec. 2. The amendment referred to in section 1 is as follows: Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

`SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

`This Act may be cited as the `Second Amendment Enforcement Act'.

`SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.

`Congress finds the following:

`(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

`(2) As the Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States have recognized, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.

`(3) The law-abiding citizens of the District of Columbia are deprived by local laws and by public housing leases of handguns, rifles, and shotguns that are commonly kept by law-abiding persons throughout the United States for sporting use and for lawful defense of their persons, homes, businesses, and families.

`(4) The District of Columbia has one of the highest per capita murder rates in the Nation, which may be attributed in part to local laws prohibiting possession of firearms by law-abiding persons who would otherwise be able to defend themselves and their loved ones in their own homes and businesses.

`(5) The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended by the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986, and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, provide comprehensive Federal regulations applicable in the District of Columbia as elsewhere. In addition, existing District of Columbia criminal laws punish possession and illegal use of firearms by violent criminals and felons. Consequently, there is no need for local laws which only affect and disarm law-abiding citizens.

`(6) Officials of the District of Columbia have indicated their intention to continue to unduly restrict lawful firearm possession and use by citizens of the District.

`(7) Legislation is required to correct the District of Columbia's law in order to restore the fundamental rights of its citizens under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and thereby enhance public safety.

`SEC. 3. REFORM DC 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; section 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, any governmental or regulatory authority of the District of Columbia, or any independent authority of the District government, 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 and its independent authorities shall not have authority to enact or impose laws, regulations or lease provisions that discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms.'.

`SEC. 4. REPEAL DC SEMIAUTOMATIC BAN.

`(a) In General- Section 101(10) of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (section 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 can 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.'.

`(b) Conforming Amendment to Provisions Setting Forth Criminal Penalties- Section 1(c) of the Act of July 8, 1932 (47 Stat. 651; section 22-4501(c), D.C. Official Code) is amended to read as follows:

`(c) `Machine gun', as used in this Act, has the meaning given such term in section 101(10) of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975.'.

`SEC. 5. REPEAL REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT.

`(a) Repeal of Requirement-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Section 201(a) of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (section 7-2502.01(a), D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking `any firearm, unless' and all that follows through paragraph (3) and inserting the following: `any firearm described in subsection (c).'.

`(2) DESCRIPTION OF FIREARMS REMAINING ILLEGAL- Section 201 of such Act (section 7-2502.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

`(c) A firearm described in this subsection is any of the following:

`(1) A sawed-off shotgun.

`(2) A machine gun.

`(3) A short-barreled rifle.'.

`(3) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- The heading of section 201 of such Act (section 7-2502.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking `Registration requirements' and inserting `Firearm Possession'.

`(b) Conforming Amendments to Firearms Control Regulations Act- The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 is amended as follows:

`(1) Sections 202 through 211 (section 7-2502.02 through 7-2502.11, D.C. Official Code) are repealed.

`(2) Section 101 (section 7-2501.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking paragraph (13).

`(3) Section 401 (section 7-2504.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended--

`(A) in subsection (a), by striking `the District;' and all that follows and inserting the following: `the District, except that a person may engage in hand loading, reloading, or custom loading of ammunition for non-commercial use.'; and

`(B) in subsection (b), by striking `which are unregisterable under section 202' and inserting `which are prohibited under section 201'.

`(4) Section 402 (section 7-2504.02, D.C. Official Code) is amended--

`(A) in subsection (a), by striking `Any person eligible to register a firearm' and all that follows through `such business,' and inserting the following: `Any person not otherwise prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal or District law, or from being licensed under section 923 of title 18, United States Code,'; and

`(B) in subsection (b), by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:

`(1) The applicant's name;'.

`(5) Section 403(b) (section 7-2504.03(b), D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking `registration certificate' and inserting `dealer's license'.

`(6) Section 404(a)(3) (section 7-2504.04(a)(3), D.C. Official Code) is amended--

`(A) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking `registration certificate number (if any) of the firearm,';

`(B) in subparagraph (B)(iv), by striking `holding the registration certificate' and inserting `from whom it was received for repair';

`(C) in subparagraph (C)(i), by striking `and registration certificate number (if any) of the firearm';

`(D) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by striking `registration certificate number or';

`(E) by striking subparagraphs (D) and (E).

`(7) Section 406(c) (section 7-2504.06(c), D.C. Official Code) is amended to read as follows:

See continuation
 
Contingency, if interested, please continue from here:

`(c) Within 45 days of a decision becoming effective which is unfavorable to a licensee or to an applicant for a dealer's license, the licensee or application shall--

`(1) lawfully remove from the District all destructive devices in his inventory, or peaceably surrender to the Chief all destructive devices in his inventory in the manner provided in section 705; and

`(2) lawfully dispose, to himself or to another, any firearms and ammunition in his inventory.'.

`(8) Section 407(b) (section 7-2504.07(b), D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking `would not be eligible' and all that follows and inserting `is prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal or District law.'.

`(9) Section 502 (section 7-2505.02, D.C. Official Code) is amended--

`(A) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:

`(a) Any person or organization not prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal or District law may sell or otherwise transfer ammunition or any firearm, except those which are prohibited under section 201, to a licensed dealer.';

`(B) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:

`(c) Any licensed dealer may sell or otherwise transfer a firearm to any person or organization not otherwise prohibited from possessing or receiving such firearm under Federal or District law.';

`(C) in subsection (d), by striking paragraphs (2) and (3); and

`(D) by striking subsection (e).

`(10) Section 704 (section 7-2507.04, D.C. Official Code) is amended--

`(A) in subsection (a), by striking `any registration certificate or' and inserting `a'; and

`(B) in subsection (b), by striking `registration certificate,'.

`(c) Other Conforming Amendments- Section 2(4) of the Illegal Firearm Sale and Distribution Strict Liability Act of 1992 (section 7-2531.01(2)(4), D.C. Official Code) is amended--

`(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking `or ignoring proof of the purchaser's residence in the District of Columbia'; and

`(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking `registration and'.

`SEC. 6. REPEAL HANDGUN AMMUNITION BAN.

`(a) Definition of Restricted Pistol Bullet- Section 101(13a) of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (section 7-2501.01(13a)) is amended to read as follows:

`(13)(A) `Restricted pistol bullet' means--

`(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or

`(ii) a full-jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.

`(B) The term `restricted pistol bullet' does not include shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed for target shooting, a projectile which the Attorney General of the United States (pursuant to section 921(a)(17) of title 18, United States Code) finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any other projectile or projectile core which the Attorney General finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an oil and gas well perforating device.'.

`(b) Repeal of Ban- Section 601 of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (section 7-2506.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended--

`(1) by striking `ammunition' each place it appears (other than paragraph (4)) and inserting `restricted pistol bullets'; and

`(2) by striking paragraphs (3) and (4).

`SEC. 7. RESTORE RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE IN THE HOME.

`Section 702 of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (section 7-2507.02, D.C. Official Code) is repealed.

`SEC. 8. REMOVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR POSSESSION OF UNREGISTERED FIREARMS.

`(a) In General- Section 706 of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (section 7-2507.06, D.C. Official Code) is amended--

`(1) by striking `that:' and all that follows through `(1) A' and inserting `that a'; and

`(2) by striking paragraph (2).

`(b) Effective Date- The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to violations occurring after the 60-day period which begins on the date of the enactment of this Act.

`SEC. 9. REMOVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR CARRYING A FIREARM IN ONE'S DWELLING OR OTHER PREMISES.

`(a) In General- Section 4(a) of the Act of July 8, 1932 (47 Stat. 651; section 22-4504(a), D.C. Official Code) is amended--

`(1) in the matter before paragraph (1), by striking `a pistol,' and inserting the following: `except in his dwelling house or place of business or on other land possessed by that person, whether loaded or unloaded, a firearm,'; and

`(2) by striking `except that:' and all that follows through `(2) If the violation' and inserting `except that if the violation'.

`(b) Treatment of Certain Exceptions- Section 5(a) of such Act (47 Stat. 651; section 22-4505(a), D.C. Official Code) is amended--

`(1) by striking `pistol' each place it appears and inserting `firearm'; and

`(2) by striking the period at the end and inserting the following: `, or to any person while carrying or transporting a firearm used in connection with an organized military activity, a target shoot, formal or informal target practice, sport shooting event, hunting, a firearms or hunter safety class, trapping, or a dog obedience training class or show, or the moving by a bona fide gun collector of part or all of the collector's gun collection from place to place for public or private exhibition while the person is engaged in, on the way to, or returning from that activity if each firearm is unloaded and carried in an enclosed case or an enclosed holster, or to any person carrying or transporting a firearm in compliance with sections 926A, 926B, or 926C of title 18, United States Code.'.

`(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to violations occurring after the 60-day period which begins on the date of the enactment of this Act.

`SEC. 10. REPEALING STRICT LIABILITY FOR MANUFACTURERS.

`Section 7-2551, D.C. Official Code, is repealed.'.
END

The following might also be of interest:
You can track the progress of this resolution at this link - http://clerk.house.gov/legislative/legvotes.html - and you may want to pass along this information.
 
more on DC v USSC

All:

Understand, based on a phone conversation I had with a staffer at my congressman’s DC office this afternoon the following. My congressman is, btw, Jason Altmire. In any event I got the following from this staffer.

Congressman Altmire, along with Congressman Dingell and others have introduced H.R. 6691, possibly not yet available at thomas.loc.gov, a proposal that would do away with D.C.'s gun law, including their "emergency legislation", which the USSC ruling in DC v. Heller gave rise to.

Supposedly, the sponsors of HR 6691, "had been promised by house leadership", that their proposal would be brought up in September, conveniently The House has adjourned for a while. Whether or not this "promise" is kept is in my view, a very open question. Beside that, The Senate would have to act on any such legislation also, and frankly I doubt that ANYTHING along these lines will be seen from The Congress (House and Senate) prior to, or post the elections.

Strikes me, as others have mentioned, that any real action will come from The Judiciary, which I would love to see jump up and down upon the government of D.C.. Whether or not this is something that might or will happen is another open question.

I do understand, correct me if I'm wrong, that Heller has already gone to court re D.C.'s refusal of his registration application for a BOTTOM LOADING SEMI-AUTOMATIC PISTOL, possibly a 1911 type, based on the specious claim that such handguns are MACHINE GUNS. We shall see what happens with that. The following might also prove interesting to view, that being to what extent The Federal Judiciary will allow local government in a federal enclave (Washington D.C) to go respecting this local governments essentially sticking it's thumb in the eye of the federal judiciary, in this case, The USSC.

A moment ago, I again checked thomas.loc.gov re the above mentiioned (H.R. 6691), the text of the bill is still not available from GPO. I received the following message.

The text of H.R. 6691 has not yet been received from GPO
Bills are generally sent to the Library of Congress from the Government Printing Office a day or two after they are introduced on the floor of the House or Senate. Delays can occur when there are a large number of bills to prepare or when a very large bill has to be printed.

Anyone interested might try checking during the weekend, though I would think next week would be a better bet.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top