Guns and Votes
 |
James Joyner | Friday, March 23, 2007 |
Reason’s David Weigel summarizes a controversial exchange in the House of Representatives yesterday wherein the Democrats took a bill that would have given D.C. a voting representative in the House off the table in exchange for the Republicans agreeing to do the same with an amendment to remove D.C. gun restrictions:
To recap - a measure to give D.C. a vote, which opponents claim would violate the Constitution, is killed after Republicans demand that D.C. not violate the Constitution.
About right.
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- None Found
- OTB Latenight - Sarah McLachlan
- OTB Caption JamTM
- ‘New’ Europe Outworks ‘Old’
- Palin More Popular Than Obama and McCain
- Country First: A Fascist Idea?
- John McCain’s Acceptance Speech
- OTB Latenight - Madness
- Caption Contest Winners
- Rich Work More than the ‘Working Class’
- Why Don’t Politicians Write Their Own Speeches?
It is a very sad thing, but both parties seem to be much more effective as minority parties than majority parties.
What is odd is that fact that there has not been a SCOTUS case that test the constitutionality of local hand gun bans. If there has I don't recall it and it would mean that the constitutionality was upheld making Weigle's summary untrue.
You're confusing me, Rick. The Parker ruling by the Court of Appeals held that the ban was unconstitutional. How does that get changed into "the constitutionality was upheld?"
Comments are Closed
