House Democrats trying to rescue gun rights in D.C.

Seems like the logical response to the DC response to Heller (change the letter of the laws but not the spirit)

What happens when a State though does the same and Congress doesn't get direct oversight as they do in DC?
 
The House Dems aren't trying to save DC gun rights, they're trying to save their own jobs from a pro-gun challenger. I guess it accomplishes the same thing this time, but I don't think they actually care if DC residents ever get their 2A rights. This quote is telling:
If the legislation fails, Altmire said, "at least we, as people who are accountable to our constituents, can go back home and talk about what we did on the issue."
Click to expand...
About all they're good for is "talk."

If it fails, you better tell them you failed to do your job. Good thinking, turbo.
 
I would rather have gun laws, stay in local government control instead of being controlled federally.
 
I hate to say this, but having gun laws be controlled by local government could be very bad. Think of how bad things would be in liberal cities like Seattle or Portland compared to how they are now. Of course this is just my gut reaction and not based on any research at all.
 
It's really bad, either way. That's why I want NO gun laws.

D.C. is under congress jurisdiction, so, they can, and should, oversee the mess that is D.C. It's their job. D.C. is in Federal law already, so there is no 'local' government, except by permission of Congress. No local court system, either, right to Federal Court.

My local police chief hasn't given out a CCW in something like 30 years. How would you like that for your local law?

If any of you you actually go to that link, you will find that many such city laws are falling, and, people are actually complying with Heller and it's spirit. I think the SCOTUS ruling was the straw needed to push the camel. For a long time, many have known that gun control hasn't given the results they are after. The biggest crime areas are the ones with the strictest gun laws. Detroit, Chicago, Oakland, Richmond, Orlando, Washington D.C., all have high crime, and laws that prevent good citizens from protecting themselves. Now, in short order, many cities are rushing to comply. Sure they want to keep their jobs.

That's a good thing...
 
S832 said:
I would rather have gun laws, stay in local government control instead of being controlled federally.
Click to expand...
In the context of this thread, local control is the Federal GOvernment (Congress, to be specific).

Outside of this context, I give you NYC, Chicago, LA, SF, etc., etc.
S832 said:
But pro gun cities would be far more relaxed.
Click to expand...
All for some and none for all?
 
To be honest, I would be fine if local governments controlled all gun laws, pro-gun areas would have guns, anti-gun areas wouldn't but ultimately I think its up to the people to decide.

Gun laws that work well in Chicago shouldn't necessarily be destroyed but they also shouldn't be forced onto my town which doesn't need them.

Let the locals decide.
 
It was an example, I am not saying they work/don't work only that the federal government shouldn't be pushing laws on this issue, on either side.

There should be no federal MG ban, it should be up to the locals to decide what they want, not the federal government.
 
To be honest, I would be fine if local governments controlled all gun laws, pro-gun areas would have guns, anti-gun areas wouldn't but ultimately I think its up to the people to decide.
Click to expand...

So you don't think the Constitution should apply nationally, just to places that want it?

Do you think it would also ok for Washington DC to ban free speech and religion, in addition to handguns?

Do you think it would be OK for Georgia and Alabama to reinstate slavery?

I believe in local control for many issues, but there are certain things that should be certain rights that have federal protection. It is sort of the whole point of the Constitution.
 
All local issues, states can decide for themselves what their constitution stands for and what laws they want.
 
Well ultimatly it doesn't matter anymore as no one respects the line between the federal government and states.

I didn't want to destroy it any further but its pretty much already been destroyed. So I guess you might as well use it to your advantage, even if ideally you shouldn't be able to.
 
Gun rights should be protected by federal government. States shouldn't be allowed to create restrictive gun measures.

In the constitution of the United States you have the right to bear arms.

If your state doesn't like that then leave the country.
 
The irony is that the Constitution, 2nd A, was intended to limit the Federal government, and, then extended to the states through the 14th, or, that was the plan before the SCotus screwed it up with the Slaughterhouse cases.

So, to do it correctly, niether the states, OR the Federal government should have ANY limitations on the amendments, and, that includes the 2A...
 
I agree with Socrates. Any rights that are spelled out in the Bill of Rights should be protected by BOTH the Feds and the states. In addition, there are some or many rights which are not listed, (see the 9th amendment) which should also be protected by BOTH the states and the Feds. The USSC needs to do a better job of this instead of being just an arm of the federal government. While true they are part of the federal government, they are supposed to be an indepent arm which checks the power of the federal government and the states when it comes to our inalienable rights. That's the way the founders envisioned it and there's no real reason for it to be any different today than it was back then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top