Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

AOC Displays Her Stunning Ignorance of Federal Firearms Laws

Journal by Runaway1956

AOC Displays Her Stunning Ignorance of Federal Firearms Laws…Again…Still

By Larry Keane

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s ignorance is showing again. Her latest gaffe is proclaiming “guns are not allowed in the District of Columbia…” in a CNN interview with Chris Cuomo, brother, of course, to Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, also no stranger to gun control causes.

That might come as a shock to those gun owners living in the District of Columbia. It might also come as a shock to the only federal firearms licensee – DC Security Associates. For that matter, someone might want to explain that to the police department itself, which became the sole licensee for a brief period of time.

If You’re a Lawmaker, Know the Laws
Still, that confusion doesn’t make Rep. Ocasio-Cortez correct, not by a long shot. The District of Columbia’s attempt to deny guns inside the District failed miserably. That resulted in the landmark Heller decision, which affirmed the Second Amendment is an individual right and local authorities cannot ban entire classes of commonly-owned firearms.

Before the case, Washington, D.C. had banned the possession of handguns. In subsequent litigation, the federal courts have ordered that the District must issue licenses to carry firearms to qualified, law-abiding citizens.

That put an end to DC’s ban on handguns. In fact, more than 4,000 people have obtained concealed carry permits from the D.C. police department, which requires hours of classroom instruction and range certification. Over half of those in the last fiscal year were for residents who live outside the District, according to a Washington Post report.

That might end the discussion on whether it’s lawful to exercise fundamental rights in the federal enclave where the nation’s elected representatives meet. It didn’t put an end to Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s ignorance of the law, however.

Clutching Pearls
The congresswoman was making her wildly incorrect remark when she was explaining why she didn’t attend President Joe Biden’s inauguration. She said she didn’t feel safe since fellow members of Congress were asserting their right to keep and bear arms. This is where she might have been confused.

Firearm possession within the Capitol Hill complex is forbidden for everyone except Members of Congress and law enforcement. While Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is throwing up metal detectors and having U.S. Representatives get wanded down every time they go into the House chamber to cast their votes, this notion that Members of Congress can’t have guns in the Capitol is bunk.

The last time this came up was in 2015, when Congressman Ken Buck (R-Colo.) took all appropriate steps to hang an American-flag themed Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR) in his Capitol Hill office. It was unloaded, the bolt removed and disabled with a trigger lock. Gun control politicians clutched their pearls and shrieked that such an abomination couldn’t be tolerated. Except that it can.

“Members of Congress may maintain firearms within the confines of their office,” explained Kimberly Schneider, a spokesperson for Capitol Hill police, “and they and any employee or agent of any member of Congress may transport within the Capitol Grounds firearms unloaded and securely wrapped.”

The same rule also explains that no one “shall carry any firearm inside the chamber or on the floor of either House, in any lobby or cloakroom adjacent thereto, in the galleries of either House or in the Marble Room of the Senate or Rayburn Room of the House unless assigned or approved by the two Sergeants of Arms for maintenance of adequate security.”

Just so we’re keeping it easy to understand…guns are legal in Washington, D.C. and Members of Congress can have guns in their office. Rules adopted by the House of Representatives forbids them on the floor of the House chamber, in the respective lobbies and cloakroom or designated rooms.

Blinded by Bias
This isn’t the first-time Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s ignorance of federal firearm laws has been on full display. She infamously accused fellow Congressman Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) of wanting to lend firearms to “people unsupervised who can’t pass a background check.” In the same tweet, she accused any friends of Rep. Crenshaw to “have likely abused their spouse or have a violent criminal record, & you may not know it.”

If Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez took time to understand the Constitution she’s sworn to defend, or the laws she purports to understand and advance, she would know that it’s a felony to knowingly transfer a firearm to a prohibited individual. This includes domestic abusers.

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s comments in which she bungled gun laws and Constitutional rights started with her saying that she didn’t feel safe and claimed many other Members of Congress agreed with her. She didn’t offer any other names or even attempt at putting a number on it. She did willingly ignore that a concern for safety is exactly why more than 8.4 million people purchased a firearm for the first time last year, among the 21 million background checks for a gun sale.

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez has sponsored 29 bills and amendments. None of her bills have passed the House of Representatives, controlled by her fellow Democrats. Only two of her amendments have passed, one by voice vote and one by recorded vote. A courtesy she might want to consider on behalf of the people she’s elected to represent would be to understand the laws before she attempts to destroy them.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/aoc-displays-stunning-ignorance-of-federal-firearms-laws-again-still/

NOTE: It isn't just AOC. It seems that Dem lawmakers who know the law are an overwhelming minority. We are constantly bombarded with soundbytes about the "gunshow loophole" - which does not exist. Usually, when that purported loophole is mentioned, Dems are trying to prohibit the transfer of any weapon between any two people who are not federally licensed dealers. Lawmakers either don't know the law, or they are purposely trying to confuse voters on the issue.

AOC Displays Her Stunning Ignorance of Federal Firearms Laws | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 87 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Reply to Comment Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Eratosthenes on Thursday January 28 2021, @10:26PM (2 children)

    by Eratosthenes (13959) on Thursday January 28 2021, @10:26PM (#1106317) Journal

    She did say guns are not allowed in the District of Columbia, which is factually incorrect.

    What do you mean, incorrect? Concealed carry permits from other states are invalid in DC, so to that extent, she is correct. Open carry is illegal in DC, so in that respect she is correct. Of course, police and the National Guard have weapons, that are allowed, but we all know that is not what she meant. So how, exactly, is she incorrect? Or only in your misconstrual?

    --
    Ἀριθμητικὴ εἰσαγωγή
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Troll=1, Informative=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2021, @11:39PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2021, @11:39PM (#1106353)

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html [cornell.edu]

    Syllabus

    NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321 .

    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

    certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit
    No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008
    District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.

    Held:

    1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

    (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

    (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

    (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

    (d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

    (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

    (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

    3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

    478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

    Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 29 2021, @01:08AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 29 2021, @01:08AM (#1106398)

    Fuck off dipshit troll