In this morning's paper:

D.C. GUN LAW:


Members voted, 259-161, to bar funding for a District of Columbia law requiring firearms at home to be unloaded and locked at the trigger or disassembled. The ban was added to a fiscal 2006 spending bil (HR3058). A yes vote was to nullify a D.C. law on guns at home.

Of the 8 US Representatives for Arizona, all 6 Republicans voted for the ban, while (naturally) the 2 Democrats voted against it.

Incrimental steps, but one more blow to anti-gun lobbists.

From the title I though the entire area may have sank below sea level.

Ding nabbit!
Thought maybe the Department of Health and Human Services had discovered and was announcing that a new form of lock jaw was reaching pandemic preportions amoungst liberals, Democrats and elected officials at all levels of government.
Jim

My tools are always maintained in the state of ready....(if you need em, you need em NOW. Not 3 minutes from now.) My Kids all know how to shoot. They ALL OWN SEVERAL sporting arms. Out here, we don't bother to call 911. Same goes for my neighbors. Oh...crime is about nonexistant. SD....I love this place.

they voted to "bar funding for a law"? What the heck is that? The law exists but they won't agree to pay for it? How does that kind of law require any funding?

Kart29,
You have to pass a funding bill to pay for enforcement, administration and so on. They pass the law to look tough on crime and safe on guns, then pass a ban on funding to not upset the NRA membership and keep their dollars flowing in. That is your Republican Party. The Clinton Assault Weapon Ban of 1984 was the same thing. You could still go out and purchase an AR jut without the bayonet lug if it had a pistol grip. Over symplifying things I know. But it looked good to the anti-gun crowd and still allowed gun sales to increase yearly, so the campagn contributions kept flowing in to both parties.

It is the exact same thing as when Mr. Bush worked with Sen. Kennedy to pass the No Child Left Behind Act. Then Bush and the Republicans in congress refused to fund it anywhere near the levels they said they needed to to make it work. That is the genesis of the term, "Unfunded Mandate".

Dishonesty even though adhered to unwaveringly is still dishonesty.

Irresponsible, dirty, lying politicians. Either party, all are guilty, as are the people who keep electing them.

Dishonesty even though adhered to unwaveringly is still dishonesty.

Irresponsible, dirty, lying politicians. Either party, all are guilty, as are the people who keep electing them.

You sure said a mouthful there partner!

I do take exception to the use of the words "either party" as if there were only two; there are more. I would urge everyone to consider all options, not just the popular ones.


I still don't understand the need to vote on funding for a criminal law. It seems to me it's up to the local DA and Sheriff to decide which laws they have the funds to enforce. If they passed the law making an activity illegal, it seems the DA would have the option to prosecute the law. Heck, they could just make the penalty for the crime paying a fine and the law would pay for itself.