[wasp69]

I would personally love to see Lautenberg shot down but I don't think at least the 10th amendment will truly be restored until the 14th and 15th amendments are repealed.

[SteveH]

Unfortunately, I think the title is likely to cause a snicker by almost any lawyer. They almost never make use of the 2nd or 10th amendment in modern law practice. (I am tempted to delete "almost" in the previous sentence.)

And it cannot be blamed on the lawyers by themselves, since the federal circuit courts have played such a large part in eviscerating at least the 2nd Amendment. (Go to a law library and read the federal digests to verify.)

A better title might be something along the lines of "The Ex Post Facto Law Removal Act". I don't think there is a congresscritter around who can stand up at a town hall meeting and explain why he or she would vote against something with that name. Just my dos centavos...

[marktwain]

Yes, this is good. We need to be on the offensive. Lautenberg is widely abused, and is used as a tool by the opposite side in divorce cases. I have seen some real police state tactics used with this idiocy.

[Joe Brower]

[timestax]

bump

[TC Rider]

Mr. JONES of North Carolina

Let's here it for Walter Jones, since Jesse's retirement, the undisputed, most conservative, Carolinian in the Congress!

[caltrop]

Would I be expecting too much if I were to expect the NRA to support this?

[aristeides]

The RATs in the Senate could prevent this repeal with a filibuster. I wonder if the Lautenberg Amendment could be rendered a dead letter by stripping all funding for its enforcement out of congressional appropriations.

[aruanan]

Yes, it's author is back in office....
No.

Now it's out in the open....
Yes.

[supercat]

(7) Some of the strictest gun control laws are found in cities where the number of incidents of guns being used in violent crimes is the highest. Therefore, the Lautenberg amendment does not reduce incidents of domestic violence.

Much as I would like to see the Lautenberg Abomination repealed, the above is a non-sequitur. I think it would be better to mention that many restraining orders are reciprocal and do not involve due process, and that this abomination is more likely to disarm victims of domestic violence than perpetrators (a man doesn't need a gun to kill a woman; a woman may need a gun to defend herself from a man).

[chuknospam]

bump