U.S. House Approves Gun Rights Bill

By: Declan McCullagh
Topics: Social Issues

(AP)

This afternoon's pro-gun vote in the U.S. House of Representatives wasn't supposed to happen.

Ever since it looked like a Democrat had a good shot at the White House, gun rights groups have been loading for bear. One example: Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman published a book last year titled These Dogs Don't Hunt: The Democrats' War On Guns, which wondered if it's "something Democrats drink that causes them to climb aboard the Gun Control Express."

Candidate Barack Obama's record on the Second Amendment was anything but supportive; he appears to have once endorsed a complete ban on handgun possession, though aides claimed someone else filled out the survey. Other prominent Democrats, including Sen. Chuck Schumer, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Rep. Henry Waxman, and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, seemed equally enthusiastic about new restrictions targeting law-abiding gun owners.

So what persuaded a sizable majority of the House and Senate to vote for a bill lauding the "the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens?" (Part of the credit card-related legislation that the House approved today by a 249-147 vote repeals a ban on carrying weapons on federal lands.)

Perhaps the most important reason is that Democrats strengthened their grip on Congress by enlisting more pro-gun members from western and rural districts who have been far more sympathetic to firearm ownership.

This reflects broader public sentiment. A CNN poll last month found that only 39 percent of Americans want stricter gun laws, down from 50 percent in 2000. Meanwhile, support for relaxing gun laws, some of which are extremely strict, is up.

No wonder that 65 "Blue Dog" House Democrats wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder in March saying they were "strong supporters of the Second Amendment" and would "actively oppose any effort to reinstate" a ban on the sale of semi-automatic rifles with features such as a folding stock or pistol grip. And no wonder that House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer -- who has an "F" rating from the National Rifle Association -- yesterday seemed to concede temporary defeat on firearms-related legislation.

David Kopel, research director at the Colorado-based Independence Institute and author of a number of books supporting gun rights, believes that gun politics have shifted along with public sentiment. "If you take away the Blue Dogs, they're back in the minority," David Kopel, told CBSNews.com in a recent interview, referring to Democrats. "There's nothing they can do to endanger Blue Dogs like making gun control a major national topic like it was in the early '90s in the Clinton administration."

Today's vote gave Second Amendment groups something to crow about. Gun Owners of America told supporters that their activism "has finally broken through." Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms called it a "victory for gun rights and common sense," and the National Rifle Association said it was a "major repudiation of the gun control community's anti self-defense agenda."

The Brady Campaign, for its part, called the legislation "dangerous" and noted that: "By attaching this language to an unrelated bill designed to protect credit card users, those pushing more guns in more places have insulated themselves from any possible chance of a veto by President Obama."

That's one thing, at least, that both sides can agree on. Another example is a proposal to grant Washington, D.C. a voting representative in the U.S. Congress -- a measure that cleared the Senate but has stalled in the House.

The reason? Pro-gun Democrats joined pro-gun Republicans in inserting language that would repeal significant portions of Washington, D.C.'s gun control law -- which the U.S. Supreme Court deemed so Draconian it partially overruled last year. But city officials have been fighting a rearguard battle ever since, including insisting that standard semiautomatic pistols qualify as "machine guns," which has led to a second federal lawsuit.

As a side note, today's vote doesn't mean that anyone can carry a gun on all federal lands. Assuming Mr. Obama signs the measure, it would reinstate regulations from the outgoing Bush administration, which say that the federal government may not prohibit someone from possessing a firearm on public lands as long as it's permitted under state law.

Not much would change in states like California that are reluctant to grant concealed carry permits, or that don't grant them at all. The bigger difference would be in states that are more willing to grant permits, or which require no advance permission.

And the biggest difference may be that, at least given the current membership of the U.S. Congress, supporters of gun rights appear to have reason to be optimistic for the first time in many, many years.

Declan McCullagh is the chief political correspondent for CNET. Declan previously was a reporter for Time and the Washington bureau chief for Wired and wrote the Taking Liberties section and Other People's Money column for CBS News' Web site.
Follow on Twitter »

79 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

See all 79 Comments


by CraigBerkeley June 9, 2009 3:40 PM EDT: See what Gun Controller California and a lying California attorney, Gun Controller Steven T. Schoonover, and flip flopper James K. Olson did here to a Nevada citizen?s right to have a gun to protect herself after James K. Olson had broken into this Nevada citizen?s home! Gun Controllers Among Us, Marin County California Courts

Most liberal Gun Controller Marin County California has repeatedly thumbed their nose at the US Constitution, then imposed their illegal Gun Controller actions onto a Nevada citizen. What's next?

Lying California attorney, Steven T. Schoonover had the Nevada citizen served at 7:30 Thursday evening in Nevada for a 9 am the following Monday court in California and the California incompetent Gun Controller judge allowed that 1 day notice although illegal as have to be served more than 10 days before a hearing and furthermore it was to a Nevada citizen!

Three strikes you?re out lying California attorney, Gun Controller Steven T. Schoonover

http://reno.broowaha.com/article.php?id=3749
http://www.babelation.com/?q=node/1833
http://reno.broowaha.com/article.php?id=3630; Reply to this comment


by JAGERMAN1965 May 22, 2009 8:05 AM EDT: You have some very strong opinions in your post. Where are your facts. DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT A FIREARM HAS NEVER BEEN USED TO DEFEND A PRIVATE CITIZEN FROM A CRIMINAL ACT? That all firearm owners want to kill someone or something.
What do you base these statements on?; Reply to this comment


by JAGERMAN1965 May 22, 2009 7:43 AM EDT: Do you have a spare tire in your car?

Do you keep a fire extinguisher in your house?

Do you wear your seat belt?

Do you lock your doors at night?

Are any of these things an unreasonable response to a possible hazard?

Crime does happen.

Inocent people are killed during criminal acts.

Is so hard to grasp that some responsible, rational, reasonable citizen choose to provide another level of protection for themselves and thier family?

I am not a criminal, I am not mentally unstable and I have never killed anything with a firearm. Unless you think that paper targets are alive.

I hope I never have a house fire or really need my seat belt
or have someone try to take my life. But if I it does happen I am prepared. I do this because I am not afraid. I am prepared.; Reply to this comment


by lucasnico May 22, 2009 12:57 AM EDT: you'd like to kill me because I want to take away your gun, so you want to kill me.
Posted by at 7:51 AM \

If you or anyone else broke into my house and attempted to steal my property, yes, there will be serious problems.
Posted by gunownerdan at 7:55 AM :

gunownerdan......not that you need to be urged to post again, but you sidestepped the question. No one said they were breaking into your home. you want to kill people who are for gun control, is that correct? if so, you are one incredibly simple minded idiot.; Reply to this comment


by tjlovato May 21, 2009 4:00 PM EDT: I dont think anyone here has clarified this argument as well as Lightfoot1953.
Thanxz for the intelligent response.
TJ; Reply to this comment


by Lightfoot1953 May 21, 2009 3:24 PM EDT: Ricmarc:

Not only are you pissed, but you are STUPID!!!!!! none of the "Rights" you claim to have are rights they are privileges. Kinda like your "Right" to be a sanctimonious, arrogant self-righteous ASS.

Before you make any further posts I suggest you get a dictionary, then find someone who is at least semi literate to help you with the big words, and learn to give the words you use their common meaning.; Reply to this comment


by Lightfoot1953 May 21, 2009 3:13 PM EDT: I do not know why I persist in entering into discussions with people who do not think, but rather persist in supporting their position with emotion or the world as they would like for it to be, but here we go again.
I'm not sure which to start with: Dan is crazy because he fears the police or the words of the Second Amendment are out dated.

Perhaps we can combine the two arguments. The only reason we have a Bil of Rights is because the founding Fathers and the people they represented feared the government.
Its true that at the time the Second Amendment was drafted bloodletting and witch burning were common place, but so too were writs of retainer and warrant less searches, along with interrogation tactics the left would classify as torture techniques, and people were still hung and even drawn and quartered upon conviction of certian crimes.

But since we live in a kinder, gentler, more civilized world none of those thing could ever happen; thus we no longer need the 4th, 5th or 8th Amendments because neither the police or any government agency would ever do anything wrong of violate any individuals basic human rights. And we certainly don't need the 1st Amendment either because everyone knows we no longer imprison people for speaking against the sovereign.
So lets be reasonable and abolish the entire Bill of Rights... its all obsolete.
And as far as fearing the Police and military of course we have no reason to fear them; Rodney King was all Hollywood Special Effects, Ruby Ridge was a hoax, Waco never happened.

Turning to the assertion that maybe if we had stricter gun control, Dan would not have needed to protect his himself, because the criminals would not have had access to weapons, thus they would not have attempted the crime.
Let me think about that for say 3 1/2 seconds. There is absolutely no empirical evidence to support that proposition. However we do know that Washington D.C had the strictest gun control in the country (until it was ruled unconstitutional) yet at the same time they had one of the highest, if not the highest violent crime rate in the country. But on the other hand in every single political subdivision in the country that has relaxed its gun control laws the violent crime rate has gone done. Imagine that!!!
So is it possible that stricter gun control might reduce crime somewhere??? Yes. But it is also possible that I might win the mega millions lottery and become an instant multi-millionaire.; Reply to this comment


by tjlovato May 21, 2009 2:40 PM EDT: Ya know, omega39-2009, blood-letting still would work some of the time and witch burning is still a good idea.
Are you a witch ?
*******************************************
Dan, around the time those quotes were made, blood letting and witch burning seemed like a good idea too.; Reply to this comment


by omega39-2009 May 21, 2009 1:58 PM EDT: Are you saying the Bill Of Rights is outdated?
How seriously ignorant can you get?
Posted by gunownerdan

I'm saying that some of the ideas of the 17th and 18 century weren't all that great.; Reply to this comment


by gunownerdan May 21, 2009 12:56 PM EDT: Dan, around the time those quotes were made, blood letting and witch burning seemed like a good idea too.
Posted by omega39-2009

Are you saying the Bill Of Rights is outdated?
How seriously ignorant can you get?; Reply to this comment