Bi-Partisan Bill Introduced to Restore the Second Amendment Rights of D.C. Residents

Fairfax, VA -- Today, in a bi-partisan effort, Congressmen Travis Childers, John Dingell, John Tanner, Mike Ross and Mark Souder, along with 47 of their colleagues, introduced the Second Amendment Enforcement Act (H.R. 6691). This critical legislation overturns D.C.'s recently enacted emergency laws that continue to defy the recent Supreme Court ruling by continuing to restrict District of Columbia residents' right to self-defense. This National Rifle Association-backed bill is needed to enforce the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller.

On June 26, the U. S. Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller that "the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense." The Supreme Court clearly stated that handguns are constitutionally-protected arms because they are commonly used, are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, are considered by the American people to be the quintessential self-defense weapon, are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home and are the most preferred firearm in the nation to keep and use for protection of home and family.

The Second Amendment Enforcement Act will:

Repeal the District's ban on semi-automatic handguns. Semi-automatic pistols have been the most commonly purchased handguns in the United States over the last 20 years, and therefore a ban on those firearms is unconstitutional as decided by Heller;

Restore the right of self-defense by repealing the requirement that firearms be disassembled or secured with a trigger lock in the home;

Repeal the current D.C. registration system that requires multiple visits to police headquarters; ballistics testing; passing a written test on D.C. gun laws; fingerprinting; and limiting registration to one handgun per 90 days. The current system is unduly burdensome and serves as a vehicle for even more onerous restrictions; and

Create a limited exemption to the federal ban on interstate handgun sales by allowing D.C. residents to purchase handguns in Virginia and Maryland. Currently there are no firearms dealers in the District of Columbia, and the federal ban prohibits residents from purchasing handguns outside of the District; therefore, District residents have no means of purchasing handguns.

Well, since SCOTUS has overturned the gun ban, making the DC laws invalid, why not get about 1000 citizens to carry their pieces on down to the court house? See what happens when the DC police try to lock them all up.
There are certainly plenty of trial lawyers to take the cases.

When is this nonsense going to stop? Our law makers are breaking the law, constantly! The time has come, IMHO, that the police have to make a decision as to who’s side they are on. Once we know that we’ll all know exactly where we stand.

It was kind of a rhetorical comment. I think we all have known, for quite some time, where we stand. Civil disobedience is happening all over the place. I’d bet there’s going to be some in DC over this.

I know this is off topic, but it’s sort of like Pelosi ordering the Hill police to shut down the house chambers at 4:30 yesterday. She has no authority to pull a stunt like that. And, for the police to follow her, so called, orders should show everyone just how tyrannical our public officials have become.

Let Coburn and McCain sponsor this baby in the Senate. Then the GOP can run a campaign for the Congress on the Second Amendment, energy independence, taxes and national security.

Cheers for Dr. ‘No’ (Senator Tom Coburn!)

Reparations Rising

Al Gore's Curiously Cost-Free Plan to Re-Power America

In major change, Obama says he'll support offshore drilling

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.

Why just for DC? That still leaves Chicagoans with no rights (and San Franciscans, as if there are more than a handful who care).

Also, why only a “limited exception” to the interstate regulations? What exactly does forcing people to buy in state and have guns transferred to those with expensive and hard to get FFL licenses accomplish, besides making it that much more difficult and expensive to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights?

Finally, what happens when DC responds with insane targeted fees, ammo limits & taxation, making full capacity magazines illegal, and any of a thousand other measures to de facto deprive people of their rights?

We need broad general wording that reaffirms the actual 2nd Amendment:
“Every individual citizen has a right to defend himself at home and in public with the tools he deems appropriate without permission from of harassment by any government entity. Barring past violent felonies or mental instability, he may not be subjected to restrictions, licensing, taxes, or fees. The onus will be on the state to prove that a given tool has no legitimate defensive or recreational function—the possibility of misuse is not sufficient, but rather the state must show that its use will necessarily infringe upon others’ rights before restrictions on it may be considered.”

Thanks, neverdem.

You know, given the Heller ruling, it should be an easy step to sue the living bejibbers out of each and every member of the D.C. city council for their attempted re-write of the regs.

Qualified immunity is a bar to suit, not just to damages; but it is broken when the actor(s) engage in behaviour which deprives the plaintiff of their Constitutional rights, when the right in question has been clearly established as such at the time of the action.

And Heller sure establishes such a right with respect to guns.

Billybob, that's my take as a general pain in the ass know it all. Do you concur as a lawyer?

Cheers!

*** Why just for DC? That still leaves Chicagoans with no rights ***

Haven't you heard?

'Da Mare', aka Mayor Richie Daley (King), said that the US Constitution, Bill of Rights and any SCOTUS decision (he doesn't like) doesn't pertain to Chicago because it's a city, not "a state". I'm 'series'.

He said that in press conference after Heller came down. Or maybe it was after Morton Grove dropped their handgun ban. (search Chi Tribune archives)

He also blathered on about a lot of other STOO-PID^™ stuff as he usually does when he's caught with his legal teat in the wringer.

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.