• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Gun ban fires up lawmakers on House committee, Dem demands show of hands on who's not packing

Reptile

NES Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
28,003
Likes
20,273
Feedback: 123 / 0 / 0

Natural Resources Committee Republicans voted down an amendment that would have explicitly prohibited lawmakers from carrying concealed firearms into hearing and committee rooms​


Lawmakers on the House Natural Resources Committee got into a contentious debate Wednesday over an attempt by Democrats to reinstate a rule banning guns from the committee room.

Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., proposed an amendment that would explicitly prohibit members from carrying firearms within the hearing rooms and conference rooms of the committee. He said the amendment was "sadly necessary" after the Republican-controlled Rules Committee stripped a provision from the Natural Resources Committee rules that Democrats had adopted for the previous two years prohibiting firearms after that Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

The Republican majority voted the amendment down 14-25, but not before several minutes of heated back-and-forth between committee members, including one moment where Huffman called for a show of hands to see who was not carrying a firearm right then and there.

Continues...
 
"Huffman called for a show of hands to see"

il_794xN.2479322847_3gt7.jpg
 
Not a comment about how this debate happened in particular, but isn't this a federal building? How are those who are carrying, carrying? Can I carry there too? Not that I have any interest. I'd sooner take a job as a drug mule for a Mexican cartel than work in politics. But just curious how that works.
 
Not a comment about how this debate happened in particular, but isn't this a federal building? How are those who are carrying, carrying? Can I carry there too? Not that I have any interest. I'd sooner take a job as a drug mule for a Mexican cartel than work in politics. But just curious how that works.

I think maybe it's prohibited (or maybe just frowned upon), but "lawmakers" are exempt from security screening.
 
the only appropriate response to him would be "If someone had wanted to inflict bodily harm on you what makes you think they would need a gun to do so?"
 
Back
Top Bottom