D.C. Delegate Slams McCain for Gun Bill

[IndianaJoe]

<http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/95479-dc-delegate-slams-mccain-for-gun-bill-abandonment-of-maverick-label>

"The bill closely resembles much of the gun-related language that has been attached to the D.C. Voting Rights Act, a long sought measure to give D.C. a representational vote in Congress. On the verge of a House vote last month, the voting rights bill was scrapped at the last minute in part because of the Republican-supported gun provisions.

“McCain seems pretty desperate,” said Norton told The Hill. “He’s been pro-gun but he usually has not flaunted himself in the far regions of his own party to bring harm to another jurisdiction.”


McCain is facing one of the Senate's toughest re-election bids this year and recently disavowed the "maverick" label that he embraced in his presidential bid against President Barack Obama. Norton said she wasn't surprised to see McCain's measure, because it compliments his move away from the "maverick" label -- not strictly toting his party's line and remaining open to compromise with Democrats."

[IndianaJoe]

1. Arizona deserves McCain. n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. As it has been stated here before, Norton is not ths sharpest knife in the drawer

Her persistent anti civil rights stance comes to mind.

[IndianaJoe]

3. Maybe not. But the Maverick has tacked on a gun provision

to the D.C. Voting Rights Bill. She's totally right to criticize him for it. McCain's just trying to show the Consies in Arizona he likes guns even more than J. D. Haworth -- at D.C.'s expense.
.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. His actions alone? Not possible under the Senate rules

[elleng]

6. ???

[onehandle]

4. McCain and gun groups just want to keep a solid Democratic vote out of Congress.

They teamed up for this very purpose.

[tritsofme]

9. Advocates of the DC Voting Rights Bill can't be serious

about seeing that DC residents are represented in Congress.

There is no way the bill would stand up to constitutional scrutiny. Congress lacks the power to grant voting rights to a non-state entity like DC, absent a constitutional amendment. We didn't go through the trouble of passing the 23rd amendment just for kicks. This bill is a cop out, not a real solution, and I'm glad to see it flare out.

[Walk away]

5. If this old fart loses he is going to go down in history as the biggest....

whore in the world. Bending over for Bush and Rove, 2008 elections, Sarah Palin..... it is endless.

[spin]

8. The bottom line is D.C . should try allowing honest citizens to own firearms ...

including semi-auto handguns without having to jump through numerous hoops.

The crime rate might fall dramatically.

Why are D.C. citizens second class? In Florida I can buy a handgun at a gun store by filling out some simple paperwork, plus the dealer calling on the telephone for an NICS approval. Since I have a concealed weapons permit, I can simply pay and take the firearm with me.

I don't have to register the firearm or visit the police even one time. I can carry the firearm loaded in my car as long as it is securely encased (in a glove box or console). My carry permit is "shall issue" which means that as long as I meet the criteria, the issuing authority (the Florida Dept of Agriculture) can't arbitrarily deny it.

Is Washington DC more restrictive. Judge for yourself.

In the wake of Heller, the city set to craft regulations to comply with the ruling. The result was a labyrinthine process that would test the patience of all but the most Job-like. A Washington Post article last summer found it took “$833.69, a total of 15 hours 50 minutes, four trips to the Metropolitan Police Department, two background checks, a set of fingerprints, a five-hour class and a 20-question multiple-choice exam” to possess legally a handgun in Washington D.C.

And one must travel outside the District to purchase a gun and then pay $125 dollars to have the city's only licensed firearm dealer transport it in for you. Also, registered guns must be kept unloaded and either disassembled or locked with a trigger-lock. If this isn't an undue burden, one wonders what is.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/federal-court-upholds-dc-handgun-laws

You can read the entire story of the reporter's difficult quest at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/01/AR2009090103836_pf.html

In my opinion, the rules imposed on obtaining a firearm in the District are designed to insure that "those people" can't easily own legal firearms. (Of course the criminals can and do own illegal firearms and are free to prey on the unarmed but honest citizens).

Gun control has its roots firmly planted in racism.