Senate Votes To Uphold 2nd Amendment

[GSG]

Is this the same one that has the gun show loophole closing language in it?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SP575:

TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S2490-2491, and read the last two pages of the amendment (2499 and 2500) TITLE II--GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE CLOSING ACT OF 2009.

And the NRA is singing its praises.

As far as I can see, this is just re-affirming the duty to report more than two handgun purchases in a one week period.

I get the feeling I might be missing something though, since I'm tired and it's late.

 

[clinotus]

Nice to see this happen and with a bit of irony thrown in...



The NRA had pushed for this legislation before and had it passed, the Heller case would have been cast aside and not taken up by the SCOTUS.

They lead us like lambs to the slaughter.

 

[Metalhead]

My e-mail to Jack Reed of RI (nay)

I find your voting nay on S.Amdt. 575 to S. 160 (District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009) to be contrary to the directives of the U.S. Constitution and the interests of the American people as a whole. I will do everything I can to support anyone running against you so that you can be removed from an office which you do not deserve to hold. I apologize if this has taken away any time from your blind support of and being a yes man to President Obama and the doling out of earmarks and pork spending relabeled as "stimulus". I await your vapid automated reply that was pre-written by some serf that has the misfortune of working for your office.

Got my response today.

"Thank you for contacting me regarding gun laws in the District of Columbia. I appreciate learning of your thoughts on this matter.

As you may know, on June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court delivered its opinion on District of Columbia v. Heller. In a five to four decision, the Court upheld a ruling by the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that the District’s gun laws were unconstitutional. The Court held that the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm and to use that firearm for lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home. This ruling struck a sensitive balance between protecting Second Amendment rights, while recognizing the validity of, and need for, common-sense gun safety legislation.

Despite prompt action taken by the District to bring its gun laws into accordance with the Court's ruling, Senator Ensign offered S. Amdt. 575 to S. 160, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act. This amendment would repeal the District’s ban on semi-automatic weapons and its current registration system, and create a limited exemption to the federal ban on interstate handgun sales by allowing the District’s residents to purchase handguns in Virginia and Maryland. The Senate approved this amendment on February 26, 2009, by a vote of 62 to 36. The underlying bill also passed the Senate the same day.

I voted against this amendment because I believe it infringes upon the District’s Constitutional right to enact common-sense gun safety laws as affirmed by the majority opinion in Heller. Indeed, in that opinion the majority clarified that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited” and that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." Moreover, it goes on to state that “the Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating [the problem of handgun violence], including some measures regulating handguns.”

Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have proposed and supported sensible gun safety measures which I believe are consistent with the Court's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. Such legislation is not directed at law abiding citizens but rather aims to reduce gun-related crimes by preventing potentially dangerous people, such as convicted felons or individuals with a history of mental instability, from buying or otherwise obtaining firearms. For example, during the 110th Congress Senator Lautenberg and I introduced S. 2577, the Gun Show Background Check Act. This legislation sought to close the loophole in federal gun laws that allow criminals to buy firearms at gun shows, which would be defined as any public event where 50 or more firearms are offered for sale.

Your thoughts are valuable to me, and you can be assured that I will keep them in mind should further legislation regarding gun safety be debated by the Senate.

Again, thank you for contacting me, and do not hesitate to write, call, or visit my website, www.reed.senate.gov, in the future for information regarding this or any other matter."

Sincerely,

Jack Reed
United States Senator
http://reed.senate.gov

If you'd like to send another message, please do so at http://reed.senate.gov/contact/ . Thank you.


Look at the sentence I bolded and underlined. He is worried about DC's constitutional rights????!!! What about the people living there. Doesn't it go "By the people, FOR the people" not "for the District of Columbia".

 

[Blitz1]

Got my response today.

"Thank you for contacting me regarding gun laws in the District of Columbia. I appreciate learning of your thoughts on this matter.

As you may know, on June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court delivered its opinion on District of Columbia v. Heller. In a five to four decision, the Court upheld a ruling by the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that the District’s gun laws were unconstitutional. The Court held that the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm and to use that firearm for lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home. This ruling struck a sensitive balance between protecting Second Amendment rights, while recognizing the validity of, and need for, common-sense gun safety legislation.

Despite prompt action taken by the District to bring its gun laws into accordance with the Court's ruling, Senator Ensign offered S. Amdt. 575 to S. 160, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act. This amendment would repeal the District’s ban on semi-automatic weapons and its current registration system, and create a limited exemption to the federal ban on interstate handgun sales by allowing the District’s residents to purchase handguns in Virginia and Maryland. The Senate approved this amendment on February 26, 2009, by a vote of 62 to 36. The underlying bill also passed the Senate the same day.

I voted against this amendment because I believe it infringes upon the District’s Constitutional right to enact common-sense gun safety laws as affirmed by the majority opinion in Heller. Indeed, in that opinion the majority clarified that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited” and that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." Moreover, it goes on to state that “the Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating [the problem of handgun violence], including some measures regulating handguns.”

Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have proposed and supported sensible gun safety measures which I believe are consistent with the Court's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. Such legislation is not directed at law abiding citizens but rather aims to reduce gun-related crimes by preventing potentially dangerous people, such as convicted felons or individuals with a history of mental instability, from buying or otherwise obtaining firearms. For example, during the 110th Congress Senator Lautenberg and I introduced S. 2577, the Gun Show Background Check Act. This legislation sought to close the loophole in federal gun laws that allow criminals to buy firearms at gun shows, which would be defined as any public event where 50 or more firearms are offered for sale.

Your thoughts are valuable to me, and you can be assured that I will keep them in mind should further legislation regarding gun safety be debated by the Senate.

Again, thank you for contacting me, and do not hesitate to write, call, or visit my website, www.reed.senate.gov, in the future for information regarding this or any other matter."

Sincerely,

Jack Reed
United States Senator
http://reed.senate.gov

If you'd like to send another message, please do so at http://reed.senate.gov/contact/ . Thank you.


Look at the sentence I bolded and underlined. He is worried about DC's constitutional rights????!!! What about the people living there. Doesn't it go "By the people, FOR the people" not "for the District of Columbia".

Wow!! What a total POS, he values the Constitutional Rights of Government over those that they are supposed to serve?

Time to flush the toilet on this floater.

 

[theGringo]

Got my response today.

"Thank you for contacting me regarding gun laws in the District of Columbia. I appreciate learning of your thoughts on this matter.

<snip>

Sincerely,

Jack Reed
United States Senator
http://reed.senate.gov

If you'd like to send another message, please do so at http://reed.senate.gov/contact/ . Thank you.


Look at the sentence I bolded and underlined. He is worried about DC's constitutional rights????!!! What about the people living there. Doesn't it go "By the people, FOR the people" not "for the District of Columbia".

I knew I'd seen this guy before. Bastard.

 

[x-frog-22]

United States Senator Jack Reed is a Tory,who beleves the U.S. army should have red coats and we should bow to the Queen.