Posted on 07/29/2008 6:30:37 PM PDT by neverdem
Democratic lawmakers and leaders are hoping to work out a compromise as early as this week with the National Rifle Association (NRA) on legislation to further loosen gun laws in the District of Columbia.
Reps. John Tanner (D-Tenn.) and John Dingell (D-Mich.) are working with the gun-lobbying group to head off a discharge petition filed last week that would bypass committee to bring a D.C. gun bill directly to the floor.
“Dingell and Tanner are going to negotiate a compromise with the NRA and then show it to the leadership,” said a Democratic aide.
The NRA has threatened to make the signing the petition a “key vote.” That means that Democrats in favor of gun rights who don’t buck leadership to sign it could see their NRA rating suffer.
Some Republicans are angered that the NRA, considered one of the most powerful and effective lobbying operations in Washington, is negotiating with Democrats rather than holding their feet to the fire. One aide called the strategy “naïve.”
But the NRA has reason to bargain, too. The group wants a victory to follow up on the Supreme Court ruling rejecting the District’s ban on handguns. But it is running out of time on the legislative calendar. There is only one day, Sept. 22, left on which a discharge bill can be forced to the floor, and Democrats could sidestep it procedurally by canceling votes that day.
In addition, if Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is elected president, conservative Democrats such as the members of the Blue Dog Coalition are one of the few legislative bulwarks against Democratic attempts to further regulate guns.
Spokesmen for the NRA and Tanner did not return messages seeking comment. Dingell’s office said there was no change from a statement last week that called the situation “very fluid.”
Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) filed the discharge petition last Thursday to bring a bill by Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), a Blue Dog leader, to the floor. The bill, drafted before the June court ruling, would erase some of the district’s remaining gun laws.
One hundred and nine GOP members have signed the petition. Ross’s bill has 247 co-sponsors, including 56 Democrats.
But even if Souder gets the 218 signatures needed to force the bill to the floor, it will be difficult to get a vote. After the threshold is met, Souder must wait seven legislative days. Then, rules say discharges can only be done on the second and fourth Mondays of the month. That leaves only Sept. 22 for a vote on the gun bill. But the majority can avoid a vote by not going into session on that Monday.
Signing a discharge petition is considered a slap at party leaders. But if Democrats knew there wouldn’t be a floor vote, they might be able to sign the discharge petition with impunity.
Which leaves negotiations. One possible element of a compromise would include allowing District residents to buy guns in Virginia and Maryland and transport them home. Currently, there are no licensed gun dealers in the District, so there is no legal way for residents to get a gun to their home.
you can dance with the Devil but the Devil never changes. - you do.
Any compromise other than a vote on the full restoration of the rights of the people of the district is unacceptable.
The traditional wording of my favored compromise is: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
I’m not sure there’s a great deal of room for compromise - the Supreme Court ruled very specifically and now the gun grabbers are trying to see how far they can go in disobedience. It’s shameful behavior for legislators but perfectly normal.
Right, compromising with democrats mean we give up more rights. NRA, give no ground!!!
There are very legitimate reasons for this compromise, for example, not only would it nullify DC’s firearms laws, it would remove the ball out of DC’s court, meaning that Heller would be the law of the land de facto.
If such a bill is not passed, then DC will be able to claim they complied with Heller, and the possibility exists that there ignoring Heller would be upheld.
To make it short, this would cement Heller.
I don’t actually see that it doesn’t free the city to pass any further legislation it wishes afterward, however. It’s entirely possible I missed that somewhere, though. BTT.
The article is not very specific on what is being proposed.
Par for the course...
L
Wasn't The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 a compromise between the NRA and Washington DC?
We can see now that it disarmed honest citizens to the point they could not defend themselves even at home. Of course most of us now have 20/20 hindsight.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Time to join GOA.
How would this affect the gun laws in other locales, say Chicago?
its disgusting how the Peoples' business gets compromised with vague language and secrecy, in the face of the Constitution's plain wording and brand spanking new SCOTUS decision...
power-control-money...nra-dnc-rino-o-p...
SSDD...
LFOD...
And they'll tell us it was for our own good.
Then they'll send the fundraising letters warning us about Dingell yet again.
The NRA has spent way too much time on K Street....
L
No one knows Satin Doll, that is why (IMO) they are trying to take DC out of the picture and preserve the Heller Decision.
“if” Heller remains unchanged, then all of those lawsuits in IL will have a chance to move forward, if Heller sues for relief a lower court can cut the legs out of Heller’s newly commented on RTKBA.
I believe that the DC Circuit Court of Appeals is unlikely to reverse it's Heller decision anytime soon. I also believe that the Supreme Court is unlikely to review a DC Circuit Court ruling in favor of Heller.
Thus, it is likely that the DC Circuit Court is going to call the shots with respect to what DC will have for gun laws.
Chicago is not part of the DC Circuit, so such decisions can provide guidance but they are not binding. Chicago will face whatever decisions their own Circuit Court makes. The home run will be if the Supreme Court agrees to hear an appeal from Chicago regarding "incorporation". Such a decision would permit the Supreme Court to dictate to the states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by ANY government.
I was surprised when the Supreme Court agreed to hear Heller. I didn't think I would see this in my lifetime. Similarly, I didn't think I would see an "incorporation" case at the Supreme Court. I hope to be pleasantly surprised yet again. It should be obvious that Kennedy doesn't believe that our Founders intended for the states to be able to disarm people living on the frontier.
And the “unlikely” part is what this legislative deal is all about, the NRA IMO wishes to remove that doubt and leave Heller standing in DC.
Now that is risky, perhaps he DC Circuit will get “uppity” again and slap down the DC Council’s “emergency” rules that violate Scalia’s majority opinion, or they may not.
I would suggest the following would be a good compromise: if the people in the D.C. government who have been pushing for the ban all resign tomorrow and forfeit any pension or other claims, they will be allowed to escape prosecution for the denial of people’s civil rights.
That seem like a fair compromise?
The Heller decision stands regardless of anything done by Congress or by DC. Heller personally can seek court relief if EITHER of them violate his rights.
To some extent, action by a significant majority of Congress might well send a message to places like Chicago and San Francisco that the days of limitless gun control have passed.
It's really not going to be practical to take every case to the Supreme Court. Lower courts have an obligation to take action to enforce the Constitution and Congress has an obligation not to infringe the right to keep and bear arms.
I think it is generally helpful for governments to read and understand Heller and conform their laws to the Second Amendment. Congress might prevent a good slap-down of DC but that really is their job. It would be too bad,though, to miss seeing the DC Circuit Court appoint a master to register ALL arms in DC at DC's expense.
The DC Circuit Court's "uppitiness" has already resulted in the Heller decision. The DC Circuit Court must now obey the decision of the Supreme Court. They have no latitude to do otherwise. It's too late to change their minds.
I’d Tango with the devil.
And I’d find a way to win.
Absolutely correct!!!
So how many times have legislators fooled us?
What’s the bill number? I need to know whether it is a good compromise that gains freedom or a bad compromise that loses it? I also need to know if this effects the latest lawsuit.
I'm a life member, but the NRA won't get more money from me. Not after what Alan Gura said about them, or their 2006 endorsement decisions, like Joe Schwarz with an A-. A-? Maybe D-, and that's if I'm being generous.
From Bridge to Troubled Water (Sen. Ted Stevens should resign.)
Where’s the Bounce? (For Barack Obama after his great trip overseas)
D.C. Is Sued Again Over Handgun Rules
From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Compromise?
How about the way US Grant compromised at Fort Donelson?
How about like Harry Truman compromised with Emperor Hirohito?
Sure, let’s compromise.
I agree...this is poor strategy by the NRA.
Thanks for the ping!
Where are you? Come tell us how this is a “good thing”...
I don't have a clue. You'll have to hunt at Thomas. I'm busy now.
The GOA is AWOL as usual.
You would be throwing your money away.
I’ll wait until I see the results before I make a decision.
You’re worried about that fireman with that axe in his hand while your house burns to the ground.
Just what does the NRA have to do with the SCOTUS case?
As I understand it, the case was the brainchiild of Robert Levy, a wealthy entrepreneur affiliated with the Cato Institute, not the NRA. Levy developed, strategized and funded the case personally... so now NRA comes in for the bows? oh, and fundraising?
NRA compromises with theses guys, my donations and membership go elsewhere.
The DC Circuit upheld Heller’s position. It was the DC government that challenged the DC Circuit Court of Appeals decision and brought it to the SCOTUS.
That's correct. The Circuit Court even mandated that "strict scrutiny" was the proper standard to use, as I recall.
One potential problem is that Circuit Courts are made up of many judges (perhaps one or two dozen?) and the panel that made the remarkably good decision was only three judges, one of whom was a dissenter with the decision.
That means that a different panel from the DC Circuit could become involved in challenging DC's contemptible behavior. Those judges may not be on board. I don't know if there is a mechanism which ensures that the original panel is the one who hears follow-up cases.
But as long as the original panel constituting the Supreme Court stays in place, we should expect 5-4 affirming decisions. If the DC Circuit does its job, there will be no need for the Supreme Court to grant cert to any future DC appeal.
Robert Levy did bring the case to court. Based on the decision, the NRA has five lawsuits against cities which have gun bans.
Are you suggesting the NRA do nothing and let Robert levy sue those cities?
By the way, Robert Levy mentioned in an article that he and the NRA have a good working relationship.
this is why I hesitate to give more money to the NRA.....
NO ... I am suggesting that the NRA is a typical Washington lobbying group that takes no chances itself, but piggybacks on the success of others’ (Levy) bold efforts to raise funds for itself. If you don’t understand that, you don’t know how DC works.
Levy has also said that he’s never owned a gun in his life and, as I recall, never belonged to the NRA ... his interest as a libertarian was only in the Constitutional issues. I admire him as a principled individual more than every lobbyist in DC put together.
The DC Circuit has 13 judges, 8 or 9 of whom were appointed by Republican presidents ... so chances of a 2:1 panel decision, especially in light of the SCOTUS decision, are fairly decent.
http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf/content/judges
The NRA has five lawsuits going on. Exactly who are they piggybacking on for those suits?
Levy should be admired for his success but he also had absolutely nothing to lose. He never owned a gun in his life which are your words. The NRA had reason to be concerned because they knew it was going to be closer than others thought.
NRA is piggybacking on the success of the Heller suit. Are you claiming they’re not? The yeoman’s work (legal precedent) upon which all five NRA suits will rest was done in Heller.
The suit wasn’t about OWNING a gun; it was about an American citizen’s RIGHT to own a gun under the Second Amendment.
Clearly you’ve never litigated to say Levy “had absolutely nothing to lose.” Do you have a single clue about the cost of time, money, abd energy it takes to get a suit to the SCOTUS?
Maybe, just maybe, Levy holds the Constitution itself in higher regard than those who merely lobby Congress but are afraid to take on the major Constitutional issue cited in their logo because they were concerned the vote might be close. That’s real courage.
To think NRA is any better or any worse than any other large lobbying organization is delusional.
It’s more accurate to say that Levy piggybacked on the work done by the NRA and the other gun groups for the last forty years.
ok, so cite me the cases that the NRA brought that Heller depended upon.
Your “firemen” is setting fires... Not exactly the smartest course of action.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.