Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R., Ga.), who was at the baseball field when the attack took place but survived unscathed, told a group of reporters on Wednesday that while the Capitol Police acted in a heroic way to stop the shooter, things need to change. He said if the attack had happened back in his home state of Georgia, he or his staff may have been armed and able to help stop the attack themselves.
"There are several things to look at," Rep. Loudermilk said. "If this had happened in Georgia, he wouldn't have gotten too far. I had a staff member who was in his car, maybe 20 yards behind the shooter. Back in Georgia [he] carries a nine millimeter in his car. I carry a weapon. He had a clear shot at him. But here, we're not allowed to carry any weapons here.
Several Congressmen have said that having personal weapons at the ball field could have mitigated or shortened the attack. Representative Mo Brooks from Alabama said that he could have mounted an effective defensive action. From the washingtonpost.com:
Brooks, who took cover in the first-base dugout during the shooting, said that if he had had his pistol he would have fired at the gunman “with a surprise short-range attack.”Early efforts for legislation to reform the rigid District of Columbia gun laws have morphed into calls to pass national reciprocity, including the D.C. in the reciprocity formula.
“As a consequence of none of us in that dugout having the ability to defend ourselves, that shooter was able to wound three more people,” he said.
It would be rational for such legislation to cover all territories that are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution, including federal territories such at the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands, and U.S. Samoa.
A source close to the Congressmen involved has been informed that Speaker Paul Ryan read the opinion piece by Representative Tom Massie of Kentucky
in the Wall Street Journal. Ryan is reported as saying the piece convinced him, more than ever, of the importance of national reciprocity.
Update: There are national reciprocity bills in the U.S. House and in the U.S. Senate. The bill in the House is HB 38. The bill in the Senate is S. 446. S. 446 has 37 co-sponsors. HB 38 has 200 co-sponsors, including 3 Democrats. Both bills have broad support. Neither bill currently includes the District of Columbia or the U.S. territories.
There is precedent for national legislation to override state rules to allow the exercise of Second Amendment rights between the states. The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) already overrides state law. Officers who could legally carry a gun during their career, and those who meet standards after retirement, are able to carry in all 50 states and in the Territories. There have already been several federal court rulings to uphold LEOSA.
©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
Posts
4 comments:
I just sent an email to the white house, to the president, insisting that he issue the second amendment is a federally guaranteed right the states and territories have no constitutional authority to amend the second amendment. a presidential proclamation, which he has full constitutional authority to do, declaring the second amendment is national reciprocity. with the constitutional evidence that all state weapons laws are unconstitutional. without a constitutional amendment to change the wording of the second amendment No government entity has authority to add words to the second amendment and there are plenty of USSC rulings to back it up. James Monroe made the Monroe doctrine stick. president Trump can make the Trump proclamation for national reciprocity stick.
The United State Supreme court has made one ruling after another resolving every issues in the national reciprocity issue. It ruled that legal American citizens have the right to transverse this country in any way or direction they choose to start from or where they choose to end up. The court has ruled all of our rights travel with us. the court has ruled the federal law is always superior to state law. during the time of the dust bowl in Oklahoma and Kansas the state of California passed laws to keep the sooners out, the supreme court said it was unconstitutional and that American citizens can travel any where in this country unencumbered. so what does this mean? the fact is no state can stop any one from traveling through or settling in another state, you have the right to take every thing you legally own with you including your rights and your arms. and the top issue is the states are required to honor the 26 words of the second amendment. they can stuff their local rules, laws and regulation where the sun don't shine because we have the constitutional right of self defense any where we are in this country. rights are individual rights, individuals travel freely any where and your rights travel with you. Your rights travel with you the same as your arms, legs, head and your ass that you all together need and have the right to protect. the court ruled that states can not pass laws hat conflict with the federal constitution and federal laws.
The issue in challenging a bad ruling by an activist judge is not proving the unconstitutionality of the ruling the issue is challenging the judges right to stay on the bench after violating his oath of office, an activist judges bad ruling is the basis for removing the bad judge and secondary to his illegal act. prove the illegal act remove the judge and his bad ruling is automatically reversed. simple this is how we get rid of bad judges and clean up the courts. define the issue and stick with the facts. the words actually written in the law are the only words that can be considered.
Neil Gorsuch right now seems to be the epitome of a constitutionalist judge, if we can get two more just like him appointed this country will see great changes in the application of constitutional law. Millions of state AND federal laws will be destroyed. our laws have been created for about 50 years with the concept of political correctness as the chef doctrine. there is nothing wrong with our basic constitution, how it has been twisted and applied is what has been wrong. several of the amendments to our constitution are in conflict with the basic constitution and were not acceptable when they were passed. to make change to the constitution the specific change has to be corrected properly or a conflict will exist. under our law conflicting changes are void. When dean posts changes to laws he shows the old wording properly lined through and pointed out, correctly addressed. If that does not happen correctly the new change is void. there have been arguments about the placement of commas in the original copies of the constitution and the bill of rights you can argue till hell freezes over but the placement in existence is what is law and to change that placement requires a ratified amendment. even punctuation can change the meaning and intent. opinions of where the commas belongs are not law.
Post a Comment