Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 11:21 pm

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 3 posts ] 
 Victory (temporary?) in DC 
Author Message
 Post subject: Victory (temporary?) in DC
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:36 pm 
Wise Elder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm
Posts: 2782
Location: St. Paul
From NRA-ILA.

Quote:
Fairfax, Va. – The United States Senate has voted, with overwhelming bipartisan support, to adopt an amendment offered by Senator John Ensign (R-NV) that seeks to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens in the District of Columbia. The amendment, attached to S.160, the D.C. Voting Rights Act, will repeal restrictive gun control laws passed by the District of Columbia’s (D.C.) city council after the landmark D.C. v. Heller Supreme Court decision. The vote margin was 62-36.

“Today’s vote brings us one step closer to restoring the Second Amendment freedom of law-abiding D.C. residents,” said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. “It’s ludicrous that good people in our nation’s capital continue to be harassed as they try to defend themselves and their loved ones in their own homes. This vote reinforces the historic Heller ruling.”

After the Heller ruling, the D.C. city council passed a law requiring would-be gun owners to pay a registration fee, pass a 20-question multiple choice test, take a five-hour training course, undergo an invasive background check every six years, re-register any firearm every three years, and finally, submit all handguns for ballistics testing. Current D.C. law also bans an overwhelming majority of firearms commonly used for self-defense. This Ensign Amendment would also remedy that unjust practice.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:50 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:22 pm
Posts: 339
Location: Suburban Twin Cities, MN
I don't think having the Senate repeat what the S. Ct. has already said, that you can have guns in DC, is worth the price of pissing on the constitution by allowing a non-state representative to vote in Congress.

Quote:
Article I, Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.

No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.


Remember, we had to AMEND THE CONSTITUTION to let the residents of the District vote in the presidential election.

Quote:
Amendment XXIII

Section 1. The District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a state, but in no event more than the least populous state; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the states, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a state; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.


Clearly the District is NOT a state. The 23rd Amdt. wouldn't have hypothesize IF it were a state.
If passed into law, S.160 would be clearly unconstitutional in my opinion.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:43 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 2:20 pm
Posts: 117
Location: Fairmont, Minnesota
However...is the amendment worded such that it would stand even if the extra representative is struck down?

_________________
Jay Maynard, the Tron Guy


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 3 posts ] 

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group