Pelosi is suggesting some kind of compromise will be found on “assault weapons”:
During an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Pelosi said that the Congress will work to find some middle ground between the previous ban, which expired in 2004, and the precedent laid by the Supreme Court in a ruling enumerating more concrete gunowners’ rights last term.
There is no middle ground. The first ban was useless. Any “compromise” legislation is going to be even more useless. We’re not going to go away happy you only half screwed us. Pass anything and watch what happens in 2010. We won’t show any mercy to your blue dogs who cross us.
“Right now, we have the debate in Congress over the District of Columbia wanting a vote on the floor of the House, something we all want. That’s a civil rights issue,” she said, pledging to find “middle ground” on the issue. “And, yet, they want to put a gun…bill, attach that to that. I don’t — I don’t think that that should be the price to pay to have a vote on the floor of the House.”
The gun issue is a civil rights issue too, Madam Speaker, no matter how much you wish it weren’t so. If you wish to remain Speaker, you’ll learn to accept that. Your predecessor, Tom Foley, didn’t think it was a civil rights issue either, and I doubt very much he expected to pass the gavel to Newt Gingrich in short order. Don’t make the same mistake he did.
UPDATE: I should point this out too:
Pelosi indicated that new regulations might entail registration and prohibitions on transporting some firearms across state lines.
This will make it impossible for competitors to attend Camp Perry, unless they live in Ohio. It will end high power competition in this country. If you are represented by a blue dog Democrat, I would highly advise contacting them, and mention you are very unhappy about the Speakers remarks, and are skeptical your Congressman will support your gun rights as a member of the same party. The only way we’re going to put Pelosi back in her pen is to get the blue dogs upset with her.
UPDATE: This should give Pelosi some pause.
Your predecessor, Tom Foley, didn’t think it was a civil rights issue either, and I doubt very much he expected to pass the gavel to Newt Gingrich in short order.
Except he didn’t actually get to pass the gavel since he was ousted that same year. Ouch! :)
Dear Speaker Pelosi:
In the wake of the recent and atrocious murders by mentally deranged people, there may be a renewed call for gun control. This call may include serious proposals based on data and evidence, but it’s also likely include frantic yet nonsensical for “something”, if not “ANYTHING!” to be done.
Recently, you have made comments regarding potential “compromises” on various schemes to restrict or ban semiautomatic firearms (termed “assault weapons” by the non-technical).
I believe pursuing such restrictions would represent a grave error, for several reasons:
1) According to CDC, DoJ, and others, the 1994 “Feinstein” or “Clinton” ban did not accomplish the goals upon which it was justified. As a result, it was sensibly allowed to expire. Given that, how can you propose a “compromised” ban, which is guaranteed to work even less-effectively than before?
2) There are some 280 million firearms in the US. Like it or not, they are here. Being hardware, they don’t wear out. The American people and our 4th amendment will not allow confiscation. So how can even “minor restrictions” have an even remote chance of reducing the criminal misuse of arms? It’s like digging a hole in the ocean? It’s a fool’s game, and unlike 1994, people know that. Truly, we must look elsewhere for the solution to reducing criminal behavior.
3) The Heller ruling made perfectly clear what 75-80% of Americans already knew … they have a fundamental and individual right to own guns for any and all lawful purposes. Moreover, the opinion stated that protected guns are those that are common, and in common use. Semiauto guns (like the ones targeted in 1994) are based on technology over 100 years old, and have been in common use by Americans since then. They became overwhelmingly common in the wake of the 1994 ban. In other words, that ban had an effect opposite of what was hoped … it popularized and mainstreamed an already common firearm type (magazine fed semiautos). According to history and established law, Congress cannot simply ban, infringe, or restrict them. It is not an option.
4) And regarding a hypothetical ban, numerous studies document massive non-compliance, in both the US and other countries. Effectively, banning such weapons would merely create a huge class of citizens that would become criminals for non-compliance … for simply doing what they’ve done for years, which is lawfully owning firearms. Surely you also worry about unintended consequences. When the vast majority of the public truly believe they have a robust, constitutionally-guaranteed right to something, and then the government moves to infringe that right, they naturally become upset and defiant. Why on earth wouldn’t they? Given this and in addition to being unconstitutional and unpopular, banning firearms like this would be very divisive, if not outright dangerous. Remember, the intent is to reduce violence, not increase it.
Speaker Pelosi, I know from your history in California that you favor strict gun control. That’s a given and widely understood. But you are now Speaker of the US House of Representatives. You are one of the most powerful individuals in the free world. Our nation depends on your insightful and wise actions and pursuits, as does the future of the Democrat party. The American people simply will not abide “compromise” on their rights, because without fail, each such compromise restricts their rights, like the movement of a ratchet. They know that there can be no compromise when it comes to inalienable rights. I trust that you know that, too. They know that now, perhaps even if they didn’t in 1994. I truly believe that if the current administration moves on gun control legislation, you will not be holding that gavel for very long at all. The Democrat party will lose power in a big way. This much is for sure. As some “tool” to combat crime, I urge you to consider gun control a non-option. There are plenty of others that are not divisive, and that are constitutional.
Thank you for your time,
Sincerely,
The thing that is even better is that a number of Democrats (as you have noted) have come out against ANY AWB. Any back-tracking on the issue can be used against them later if they dare to waver. I dare them to try and get this legislation passed……..LOL!
Compromise? Ha! We all know what that means. We give up something. They give up nothing. They just wait a while, and try to take more later on.
I thought the Compromise was no full auto assault weapons. Or, is it no imported assault weapons? Or is it no ammo above .50 caliber?
Seriously though, you can’t buy advertising this good. Every time she opens her yap about the AWB, I sell more rifle barrels. What’s not to like about that?
Wait. Only 8% of people want to have less gun laws? Wow. Wow.
The Brady Campaign claims that the Gallup polls are misleading.
http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2009/04/brady-campaign-vs-gallup.html
At least she’s consistant. Both the “assault” rifle bam and the D.C. voting stance are a slap in the face to the U.S. Constitution. The one she swore to uphold and defend.
…“assault†rifle ban
should be “ban”
I’ll bet these rats get a Hi-cap Mag ban. I doubt they’ll get an all-out ban on AWs. Either way it’s bullshit that must be fought tooth and nail. Neither will do shit except cause people to snap and piss off gun owners.
JD:
I beg your pardon? What’s a “Hi-cap” mag? What’s an “AW?”
There is no such thing as a “Hi-cap” mag. There are mags of standard capacity, as designed, and then there are reduced capacity mags. If “AW” means assault weapon, those were strictly regulated in 1934 and banned in 1986.
So … they already have their “AW” ban.
The bright line is drawn before they attempt to regulate mere and commonly owned semiautos.
“WE MUST ARM! …Of course we shall do it in the end. We shall surely do it. But how much harder our toil for every day’s delay.” – Winston Churchill, warning his nation that there is no appeasing or “compromising” with a dictator, and that armed conflict was inevitable. Fellows, I am starting to think maybe we had better not delay. I worry it may soon be too late. Hope I am wrong…but hoping does no good.
I notice that graph in the update doesn’t go to 100% it stops at 80%. that is a sneaky trick to make the numbers look bigger than they are. It bugs the hell out of me.
The irony of the Foley analogy is that Foley actually voted against the ban, and was ousted anyway. Pelosi won’t have that problem, of course, so at least she’ll be around to pass the gavel.
Carl in Chicago Said,
April 8th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
JD:
I beg your pardon? What’s a “Hi-cap†mag? What’s an “AW?â€
Carl, I’m not an idiot and neither are you. You know what I meant.
I’m fully aware an AW is a select-fire, Full-auto weapon. You and I know what a HC mag is as well.
Sorry I pissed you off, I’ll try not to do it again. From now on I’ll call them what they really are, semi-auto rifles and standard cap mags. Or as we in ND usually call them, Rifles and clips.
We have learned also, so no compromise and DC should not get voting rights and get the DC gun bill in the DC appropiations bill instead. I would vote against this bill for that reason.
I would not violate the Constitution for DC gun rights, even though I want them as that violate principal. This is resisting evil temptation. I think most gun rights advocates should resist this as hard as it may be.
Pelosi and DC will understand eventually that DC will get gun rights and every bill should have that amendment attached to harass them until they get the message.
So there is no middle ground. Heller has filed 2 more cases and they will win and force DC sooner or later.
Guns rights are on the rise and more Ct decsions will break our way now that Heller was decided.
Dave, the #4 post had it exactly right. The only ‘compromise’ the anti-gunnners have in mind is that they will only take away from us half as much as they desire. I know this is literally true.
Back in 2002 I got into an interesting discussion with a very successful writer about gun-control. He proposed what he himself called “a compromise.” And what was it? Why he generously offered to guarantee that manually operated rifles would always be protected, since in his opinion that was all that the 2nd Amendment was originally intended to protect, while we had to agree to any regulation they wanted on any other firearm. Some compromise.
Ah, here is that ‘compromise’ written up in much greater detail.
http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2007/01/brin-classics-jefferson-rifle.html
Nice Compromise.
You give up guns we dislike, register, license, and lock them up.
And we promise never to use the registry.
A nice example of an intelligent man saying stupid things.
“This will make it impossible for competitors to attend Camp Perry……. It will end high power competition in this country.”
Like that isn’t already on the agenda.
From some of the range talk and gun case stickers at the HP shoots I attend, and some of the talk on nationalmatch.org forums, I think I can safely say that people that can hit a head sized target at 600+ yards consistantly are not a segment of the population you want angry with you.
After all, the shooting of paper is really just practicing field craft, isn’t it?