House: Military should be exempt from DC’s gun laws
Emily Miller, our favorite 2d Amendment reporter at the Washington Times reports that this afternoon Congress voted unanimously to pass a resolution that expressed their opinion that folks in the military should be able to carry guns in the District of Columbia in spite of DC’s restrictive gun laws;
“Our servicemen and women are highly-trained, highly-skilled, and the most professional fighting force in the world,” Gingrey said after the vote about those cases. “That this could happen to our veterans is a travesty. I will continue fighting to protect our Second Amendment rights.”
The resolution says that the 40,000 active duty servicemen and women in Washington deserve a waiver from the city’s “onerous and highly restrictive laws on the possession of firearms.”
Of course, their vote doesn’t mean anything, except that when there’s nothing on the line, Congress supports the troops gun rights. Somehow, I think, if it was actual legislation, the vote might have turned out quite differently.
They had the same vote last year and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton – a perfect example of the type of politician the district would send to Congress if they ever got an actual representative and Senators – kind of freaked at the first vote;
“We will fight every attack on our rights as a local government, particularly when we are singled out for unique treatment.”
Yeah, their rights as a government supersede those rights of the people who defend that government, I guess.
Category: None
The rights to which she refers are the rights of The People. No government at any level has Rights. She should be reminded most strongly that the power of any government flows from the people and can be rescinded. This hair brained spawn of the socialist left needs a basic civics lesson and then a good horse whipping. This is what happens when stupid people get to vote.
How does a government have “rights?” By what provenance were those “rights” imparted?
Fuck that.
Constitutional rights should apply to all.
lol @ “highly trained” too. The most dangerous areas in Iraq and Afghanistan are when POG’s are near the clearing barrel.
Hey aren’t these the same people that keep sending Marion “bitch set me up” Barry to city council to make laws?
…sounds remarkably like something said in 1860…
Phil Gingrey is my Congressman, and I’m sure there’s a very specific reason he’s making noise with this resolution. He’s running for the US Senate seat soon to be vacated by Saxby Chambliss, and made the mistake of stepping on his own crank during the December 2012/ early 2013 gun-grabber feeding frenzy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/01/11/a-small-crack-in-wall-of-gop-opposition-to-gun-reform/
Ever since, he’s been on a tear trying to repair his 2nd Amendment bonafides.
“We will fight every attack on our rights as a local government…” Yeah, that’s the problem. When a government fights, it usually begins by striking with its legal fists and then, depending upon the targets, uses audits and other nasty tools against its enemy. Ultimately, if need be, it uses brute force. I’m no conspiracy guy, just a realist who knows a thing or two about US and world history.
Actually, governments do have rights – the Tenth Amendment guarantees States rights, and I’m guessing that’s what Norton was referring to.
Jonn – arguable. The 10th has been desribed as saying whatever duties and responsibilities that are not specifically spelled out in the Constitution shall not be assumed by the Federal government. The States were already limiting themselves through their own constitutions.
The mindset in the 1780s was to ensure we didn’t get another dictator-for-life, but were strong enough to fend off the predations of the European and Muslim empires.
For many decades, the 10th Amendment was regarded as empty law. After all, the thinking went, since all that Congress does must derive from one or more of its enumerated powers, then of course those things that do not are within a state’s purview. But, nevertheless, there have been a few instances (relatively recently) in which the Federal government action did not trace to one of those powers (e.g., state refusal to run Federal record checks). For my money, it’s all academic and has been ever since the Interstate Commerce Clause (not to mention the insane “tax” basis that supports the constitutionality of obamacare) effectively turned the Constitution on its head and then inside out. For many decades now, we have been a Constitutional Republic in name only. We are actually ruled by a black-robed gang known as the Supreme Court and, of course, lesser bodies collectively called the US Courts of Appeals. And the most frightening thing about what I am saying is that 99% of the American public has no clue what the hell I am talking about.