Posted on 03/04/2009 6:40:30 PM PST by neverdem
Democrats may be running the House, but the National Rifle Association (NRA) can still stop a bill in its tracks.
House Democratic leaders on Tuesday pulled legislation from the floor that seemingly had nothing to do with guns because the NRA disliked it.
The bill in question would give the District of Columbia a voting member of Congress. The gun-rights lobby prefers a Senate version, which includes language amending the District’s gun policies, and some suggest the NRA could make life difficult for conservative Democrats if that language is not included in the House version.
There was no official call to arms, nothing on the NRA website, no alerts floating around. Just speculation among Democrats and Republicans that the NRA would make a procedural vote on legislation that would give the District of Columbia a voting member of Congress a “test vote.”
That means that if centrist Democrats voted with their leadership, they could lose their prized “A-ratings” from the NRA, which many consider essential to keeping their jobs in rural, Southern and Western districts. So the D.C. Voting Rights Act was pulled from consideration for Wednesday. Aides stressed that negotiations are continuing and it could be brought back soon.
The reluctance to bring the vote to the floor highlights the continuing clout of the NRA, as well as the difficulty faced by Democrats, whose majority comes from an increasing number of members elected in Republican districts.
Still, the NRA has aroused the ire of some gun-rights Democrats by appearing to tell House leaders that an amendment has to be considered. Some Blue Dogs say that amounts to telling the House how to run its business.
“The D.C. vote bill needs to pass,” said Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.), a Blue Dog gun-rights supporter who sits on the House Rules Committee. “I would have concerns about any group who would tell us how to run our House.”
The NRA’s clout was evident last week when the amendment — removing D.C.’s ban on semiautomatic weapons, its registration requirement and trigger-lock rule — was adopted by the Senate, 62-36.
Also, Democratic leaders like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) were quick to shoot down the administration’s trial balloon on bringing back the assault-weapons ban.
Supporters of the District’s voting-rights legislation predicted that a similar amendment could be kept off the House bill. As long as it were in only one version, Democratic leaders could strip it out in conference. Conference reports can’t be amended, just voted up or down, so the conference report would pass without the gun bill.
But that got complicated when word spread in the House that the NRA would “score” the procedural vote (called a “rule”) used to bring up the Voting Rights Act if it didn’t allow for a vote on the gun language. That means that voting to bring the bill to the floor would be considered a vote against gun rights.
NRA officials wouldn’t comment on whether they were scoring the bill. But Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.), also a Blue Dog gun-rights supporter, said he’d “heard it mentioned they might do that. Anytime you do that, it makes it tougher.”
D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), the House’s most passionate supporter of District voting rights, said there was no doubt in her mind why the bill was being pulled.
“Members are reacting in knee-jerk fashion to the NRA,” Norton said. “This is Democratic members doing something to kill a basic civil rights bill.”
Democratic leaders, led by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), were put in a bind. If they allow the gun language on the bill, they would not only give the NRA a victory, they might lose the bill. Since many Republicans would vote against voting rights for the District even with gun language in the legislation, the leaders might lose enough Democrats that the whole bill would be defeated.
“If the rule passes, we might not be able to pass the bill,” Hoyer said.
He added that since Congress has given D.C. home rule, it should not be dictating its gun laws.
“That’s for them to do,” Hoyer said of D.C. officials. “On principle, this is not appropriate.”
But there are clearly Democrats who want to change D.C.’s gun policies, considered the strictest in the nation before the Supreme Court last year tossed out the city’s handgun ban.
“They want to be like the rest of America. One of the things Americans do is pay attention to Supreme Court rulings,” said Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.), a member of the House Second Amendment Task Force.
Republicans protested pulling the voting-rights legislation, saying it shows the length that Democrats will go to in order to prevent gun legislation from passing.
“By maneuvering to deny Second Amendment rights to residents of our nation’s capital, Democratic leaders have made it clear that ‘regular order’ and the will of the American people will be respected only when it serves their interests,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio).
Democrats fought similar battles in the last Congress. The D.C. gun vote was pulled in the House when Republicans tried to send the bill back to committee to add the gun language. Then the NRA and Republicans tried an election-year squeeze on Blue Dogs to get the D.C. gun language to the floor using a discharge petition. But Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) and Blue Dog leaders negotiated a compromise.
Opps!
My mistake, but my statement stands!
WINNER! Keep a close eye on the other hand.
They knocked out the 30 & 60 day restrictions from McCain-Feingold.
Did you notice that they moved the EFCA along today? Look at the shiney coin whilst I take your watch off.
There was another Freeper who lost all his reloading equipment in a boating accident.
Democrats Pull D.C. Voting Rights Act
I don't have a problem with the NRA doing the right thing. Pelosi blinked.
Listen you POS: It's our House! The People own the House, the Senate, the White House, the Supreme Court building and any other government buildings. You only get to do that which the People have authorized you to do. Read the Constitution for details. Specifically in this case, Article I, Section 2.
It did sound like a set up, but it’s not so far fetched that it’s obviously a joke. I can’t decide whether she’s well intentioned idiot or an evil genius.
ND you’d only win a battle in a bigger war. I am so pro gun it would make your head spin. But this f’d up bill isn’t anything near a bill we should support. Its the libs slippin in so much lib crab while you get hot and bothered over a minor gun rights victory. Like I said. We are getting played.
See comment# 43. Unconstitutional provisions can be challenged later. What would someone need to have standing?
These types of freeper losses are happening all too frequently lately.
If this trend continues, soon there won’t be a need for more gun control laws as the evil guns and ammo will all be gone.
sadly
Yup Smoke and mirrors.
With entire investments & savings stocks gone to the crapper the last thing they need is the gunowners and the NRA breathing down their necks.
They should remember that they had their collective a$$es handed to them after the 1st Gun Ban during the Clinton years and this time around they country is angrier for 0Bama war on the working class, investors and businesses!
Remember their favorite ploy is to say that the Constitution is a LIVING DOCUMENT and therefore they use that angle to spin it to say whatever they want it to mean, mostly 180 degrees opposing from what the wording reads.
I’m a proud new Life Member.
Hey! Hey! NRA! Together we have WON the day!
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.