Enough is Enough: Two Bills Overwhelmingly Supported by Americans, Killed in Congress by Republicans

boehner-mcconnellI’m not here to write an ideological breakdown about whether or not universal background checks would make a difference or the good or bad of immigration reform.  What I find alarming is that the vast majority of Americans, both Republican and Democrat, support both measures—yet we still can’t get them passed.

That should be alarming to every American.

In a country that seems more partisan and divided than ever, two issues which most Americans support (which is unheard of in today’s political environment), yet we still can’t get them passed by Congress.

And no, I’m not talking about bills that are supported by a slim margin, say 54%-46% or something like that.  I’m talking about universal background checks that are supported by over 80% of Americans and immigration reform that’s supported by 69% of Americans.

Yet, one bill was killed by Republicans in the Senate and another House Republicans refuse to hold a vote on.

But these people want to claim it’s Democrats and President Obama that are causing the gridlock in government?

That statement would be the makings for great satire if millions of Americans didn’t believe it was true.

Since Republicans gained filibuster control in the Senate and the majority back in the House, we’ve seen Congress exist as one of the most unproductive government entities our nation has ever seen.

Even House Speaker Boehner, in an attempt to be clever I suppose, said a couple of weeks back that we shouldn’t judge them based on how many laws they passed but on how many laws they repeal.

Outside of just how ignorant that comment is, the ironic part is that under conservative leadership House Republicans have repealed exactly zero laws.

So even in Boehner’s attempt to pander to the “small government” section of his party, he more or less admits that Congress (specifically the House) under his leadership has done absolutely nothing.

They’ve probably passed the fewest pieces of legislation in Congressional history, while repealing absolutely none.

Then if you can even get something out of the House which Democrats and Republicans support, there’s always the possibly that Senate Republicans will throw a temper tantrum and continue adding to their ever increasing record number of filibusters.

And American support for something clearly doesn’t matter, as the immigration reform bill and expanded background checks prove, because if it did both of those would be law right now.

But they’re not, and the only people to blame are Congressional Republicans.

If we took both issues to the American people for a vote right now, credible scientific polling data tells us they would both easily pass, yet to Congressional Republicans that doesn’t matter.

And when it comes to immigration reform, Boehner is so terrified that it would pass he refuses to even bring it for a vote.

How are these acts not some lower form of treason?  When your citizens overwhelmingly support something, but you simply refuse to pass it, that’s betraying your country and your oath of office.

Sure it’s not trying to overthrow the government or handing over classified information to the enemy.  But it’s a blatant act to deny the will of the American people on two issues they overwhelmingly support.

And there’s absolutely no excuse or logic behind it.  It clearly shows these Congressional Republicans aren’t working for the American people.  They’d rather work for their big money donors who don’t want either of these bills passed.

Because that’s the only plausible reasoning behind their refusal to pass these bills.  They sure as heck aren’t “listening to the voice of the American people” because that voice is clear and definitive—and is the opposite of what Republicans represent on these issues.

At the end of the day, if we allow one political party to deny the will of the vast majority of Americans on key issues, that’s a huge problem.

And it’s a problem we need to rectify in 2014.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Charles Vincent

    That 80% number is bogus for many reasons, one of which is the wording of the question asked.

    • Oldetooles

      Really Charles; please explain further, because the wording of your statement & lack of proof doesn’t really lead me to believe you know better than Mr. Clifton.

      • Charles Vincent

        See my reply to Michael mcangus below and also please look up the duke university study on polling questions it detailed the problems with the questions he has listed and which I cursorily explained.

    • Michael McAngus

      Charles, did you follow the link to the Politifact April 17 article? Which poll question(s) do you find problematic, and why?

      —– From the Article —–
      Here, we will check Giffords’ claim that polls show that Americans “overwhelmingly” support “expanding background checks.”

      To do this, we will look at national survey data from media and academic polls taken in the month prior to Giffords’ column. Here’s a rundown of all such polls we could find that addressed an expansion of background checks:

      • Washington Post-ABC News poll, April 11-14, 2013: “Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online?” Support: 86 percent. Oppose: 13 percent.

      • CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, April 5-7, 2013: “Some proposals would require a background check on anyone attempting to purchase a gun in order to determine whether the prospective buyer has been convicted of a felony or has a mental health problem. Please tell me whether you would favor or oppose a background check for a prospective gun buyer under each of the following circumstances. … If the buyer is trying to purchase a gun at a gun show.” Favor: 83 percent. Oppose: 17 percent.

      “If the buyer is trying to purchase a gun from another person who is not a gun dealer but owns one or more guns and wants to sell one of them.” Favor: 70 percent. Oppose: 29 percent.

      “If the buyer is purchasing a gun from a family member or receiving it as a gift.” Favor: 54 percent. Oppose: 45 percent.

      “Please tell me whether you would favor or oppose a background check for anyone who wants to buy ammunition for a gun.” Favor: 55 percent. Oppose: 44 percent.

      • Quinnipiac University poll, March 26-April 1, 2013. “Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?” Support: 91 percent. Oppose: 8 percent.

      • CBS News poll, March 20-24, 2013. “Would you favor or oppose background checks on all potential gun buyers?” Favor: 90 percent. Oppose: 8 percent.

      • Derek Pryor

        Don’t bother asking him to explain–it’s clear he’s just another hit-and-run artist who’s been brainwashed by the GOP.

      • caFfiend

        it’s from politifact and they are pretty good at fact-checking. So branding him as “brainwashed by the GOP” makes you look like you’re playing partisan politics and not giving his argument any credibility. By the way, neither liberals nor conservatives are welcome to their own facts, yet both are equally keen on taking a proper look at the others.

      • melloe

        With respect, politifact is pretty good at checking, very poor at rating when they prove and an out and out lie, and call it “mostly False” OTOH, I agree, they are about the best we can hope for in this climate. Snopes is better but the right has made it impossible to hold them faultless.

      • Charles Vincent

        Washington Post-ABC News poll, April 11-14, 2013: “Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online?” Support: 86 percent. Oppose: 13 percent.

        • Quinnipiac University poll, March 26-April 1, 2013. “Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?” Support: 91 percent. Oppose: 8 percent.

        • CBS News poll, March 20-24, 2013. “Would you favor or oppose background checks on all potential gun buyers?” Favor: 90 percent. Oppose: 8 percent.
        These questions are misleading. The main reason is that guns shows and online sales already have background checks because FFL dealers are required by law to perform a NCIS check on every sale per the Brady bill law circa 1993. Another reason they are misleading is that they paint a picture that we don’t have background checks, a person with out knowledge of gun laws wouldn’t know if we did or didn’t and the wording of these questions could lead people being surveyed to believe we don’t have background checks currently which is false. These questions also do not make it clear that the people doing the survey are talking about universal background check which are distinctly different from the background checks we have via the Brady bill. Duke university did a study on this that presents more detail on how polls can be skewed like this.

        CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, April 5-7, 2013: “Some proposals would require a background check on anyone attempting to purchase a gun in order to determine whether the prospective buyer has been convicted of a felony or has a mental health problem. Please tell me whether you would favor or oppose a background check for a prospective gun buyer under each of the following circumstances. … If the buyer is trying to purchase a gun at a gun show.” Favor: 83 percent. Oppose
        This question falls in to the above line of thought.

        “If the buyer is trying to purchase a gun from another person who is not a gun dealer but owns one or more guns and wants to sell one of them.” Favor: 70 percent. Oppose: 29 percent.

        “If the buyer is purchasing a gun from a family member or receiving it as a gift.” Favor: 54 percent. Oppose: 45 percent.
        These questions are invalid because the federal government nor congress have the lawful power to regulate them as they are not commerce as defined by blacks law dictionary.

        Please tell me whether you would favor or oppose a background check for anyone who wants to buy ammunition for a gun.” Favor: 55 percent. Oppose: 44 percent.

        This question is also irrelevant, but it is so because, in my state for example a background check is $20 and most ammunition cost lees than than that SCOTUS made a ruling that it is unconstitutional to impose a tax on an item where the tax is more expensive that the cost of the item.

      • deckbose

        Claiming that a question is improperly phrased does not refute the overwhelming statistical response. Your essential premise is false. You can say the questioning was imprecise, sure, but until you show another national survey from a reputable polling service with questions more to your liking and answers that fit your paradigm, all you’ve managed to provide here is your belief that the questioning could be better. You cannot claim the results are bogus — the results are the results. People answered the questions, and in such an overwhelmingly uniform manner that it would be stupid to suggest the conclusions are false.

      • Charles Vincent

        President Barack Obama has vowed to keep pushing for new gun control measures and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the failed gun vote in the Senate was “just the beginning.” However, the latest Reason-Rupe national poll finds just 33 percent of Americans feel the “Senate should debate and vote on gun control legislation again,” while 62 percent want the Senate to “move on to other issues.”

      • Charles Vincent

        Here is an excerpt from your post that will be deleted because this site doesn’t allow links.

        “”Understandably the media punditry expected public outrage when the Senate voted down gun control legislation. However, a Pew Research Center poll found that 39 percent of Americans were relieved/very happy the “Senate vot[ed] down new gun control legislation that included background checks on gun purchases” while 47 percent were disappointed/angry. But then again, Gallup found that 65 percent thought the Senate “should have passed the measure to expand background checks for gun purchases.””

        None of the numbers you list equate to the 80% number that statistic purports. What’s your point?

      • deckbose

        My point is that debating whether the figure is 80% or 60% is sophistry. A majority of Americans — by dint of every poll you can cite, including the Reason-Rupe poll — want expanded background checks and that’s the only statistic that is relevant here. We have an allegedly representative government, which means that legislative representatives are supposed to represent the will of their constituents, not the will of monied lobbyists. Your nitpicking about the number is obfuscatory.

      • Charles Vincent

        This number says different.
        Rupe national poll finds just 33 percent of Americans feel the “Senate should debate and vote on gun control legislation again,” while 62 percent want the Senate to “move on to other issues.”
        His number is not accurate saying so is relevant.
        If that number were accurate politicians would have passed the bill with out fear of not getting re-elected. In my state our districts senator and house congressmen have Facebook pages that were both flooded with posts to vote against all new gun control proposals.

      • Michael McAngus

        “Duke university did a study on this that presents more detail on how polls can be skewed like this.”

        Citation please.

      • Charles Vincent

        http://people dot duke dot edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm
        There is the link it details more on how surveys can be skewed concerning gun control.

    • Jeff Morrison

      Sorry you missed the point of the article Charles. The article was about the lack of leadership that is currently lacking in the Republican party. They are dysfunctional, have not contributed to solving America’s problems since Obama was elected President and America deserves better. There needs to be a vote on both issues but rather than do that Congress has decided to take a month off. Your statement here is a distraction from the conversation. It is not about the gun issue.

      • Charles Vincent

        “And no, I’m not talking about bills that are supported by a slim margin, say 54%-46% or something like that. I’m talking about universal background checks that are supported by over 80% ”
        His words not mine and that statistic has been proven wrong. Try again Jeff.

      • Jeff Morrison

        Charles the story is about the lack of leadership on the right, again you have taken one point out of context for your own personal reasons. The gun issue isn’t the only issue facing American Leadership. My guess is your a gun owner and a fearful one at that.
        Funny thing though, if the stat is wrong and it’s not. Why won’t Congress vote on it? Why would they not want to seize something in what has been historically the worst Congress ever? They’ve passed zero bills and repealed zero bills but tried with Obamacare a record 40 times (insanity defined by trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results). Do you not think, they would want to achieve something or is the writer correct in what he is saying?

      • Charles Vincent

        “The gun issue isn’t the only issue facing American Leadership.”
        Nope it is not and it shouldn’t even be on the table wasting valuable time.

        “My guess is your a gun owner and a fearful one at that.”
        There is a distinct difference between being fearful and being tired of people who use the government to infringe on any of my liberties.

        “Funny thing though, if the stat is wrong and it’s not. Why won’t Congress vote on it?”
        If the statistic is right then why didn’t the gun control measures pass after all they had 80% of the American public supporting them according to those polls.

        “They’ve passed zero bills and repealed zero bills but tried with Obamacare a record 40 times (insanity defined by trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results).”
        They only voted 3 times for full repeal of the ACA. The other votes were to amend, repeal or defund portions of the whole. Something that’s usually done before the bill becomes law, but like the sound bit says we need to pass it to see what’s in it.

        I think he is correct in that there has Been a stalemate on some of the things that have gone on, but this doesn’t mean he gets to use dubious statistics.

      • Michael

        That is a lie. Boehner admitted they voted in the House over 40 times to repeal the healthcare act. Over FORTY TIMES. You want them to move on, but all they want to do is use stalling tactics to make the President fail when in fact it is the GOP/TP party failing. They won’t move on from the fact they lost the Presidential Election – twice, and both by over 50%.
        …and we still see the GOP/TP holding this country hostage for selfish reasons.

      • Charles Vincent

        Look at the congressional vote records that is where I got the information, this record shows exactly what I stated so unless you’re willing to admit that the government site posted in accurate information on the ACA vote record you’re unaware of what really happened.

    • Randy Hanson

      Like if you ask people if they would like Free Healthcare?

      • Charles Vincent

        There is no such thing as free healthcare, some one somewhere along the way pays for it.

  • Derek Pryor

    They need to go. Before they destroy our country any further than they have already. I’m sick of these Republican tyrants.

  • Karen Schmidt

    LOWER form of treason? Gridlocking the government? No, no, no – it’s HIGH treason, in my opinion!!

  • djhbutler

    And Boehner wants to claim that he was put in Congress to do the people’s business…Except, he forgot the qualification that says “except when the NRA doesn’t want me to….”

  • CaliNative

    80% of all statistics are made up.

    So – what we have here is a liberal article trying to put spin against the conservatives. How about all of the common sense laws that the republicans tried to get put through that the liberals resoundingly defeated or simply ignored?

    For example, It is a proven FACT that the majority of americans are afraid of obamacare and want it defunded. However, the libs in congress (senate) will not event consider examining what this socialized medical bill is going to do to the country.

    Even the liberals in office found that obamacare was so obnoxious that they cried and complained so Obama granted them a waiver allowing them to escape participation from the program.

    So it is once again it’s Democrat “It’s good for thee, not for me” playing out all over again.

    • itsamom

      Where did you get the” FACT that the majority of Americans are afraid of obamacare and want it defunded”? Is that one of the 80% of stastistics that you made up? That’s baloney!

      • melloe

        Many if asked right say they don’t want Obamacare because of the lies programmed by those who will lose money and used by the right., OTOH, but if asked about the individual parts of the law, they want it. Those who are already have benefited from parts of the law love it. You have to realize Billions have been spent trying to kill the ACA.. The whole idea about the calling it Obamacare was to add hate for the Black guy to the rest of the lies and half truths in a vain attempt to stop it. Pig Pharma and many in the various so called Health care industry related fields will; now have to actually price services and appropriately Some greed will be tempered.

    • Carolyn Gollaher Holloway

      As soon as you state congress is exempt from Obamacare you show ignorance of the law. Obamacare is a regulation, not a policy. Congress already has credible insurance; paid for by us, by the way. Anyone that has credible insurance provided by an employer does not need to change anything, although most people have already had the additional perks including no cost preventative and no lifetime limits added to their existing policies. Obamacare regulates current insurance and creates a mandate for those WITHOUT insurance to purchase insurance. Try looking up the actual law. Thank you.

    • deckbose

      Is this a parody comment? How else is it possible to string together so many paranoid lies and half truths and still keep a straight face? On the off chance you’re actually serious, you spew some interesting generalizations as a member of a party that insists on transvaginal probing as a preface to abortion, insists on removing a variety of women’s essential health services from the landscape of preventive care just to make abortion — which is legal in the United States — impossible to obtain, insists on depriving MILLIONS of American citizens access to the voting booth by ginning up several dozen claims of voter fraud, insists on ignoring the very reason they were sent to Congress — to create jobs — so they can vote 40 times to repeal the law of the land, insult immigrant Americans, and attempt to enslave women and put them back in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, where they belong.

      Where are the job bills, CaliNative? THAT’S what 80% of Americans want to know.

    • Jeff Morrison

      So 80 percent of what you say here is not true either I would guess. How about a list of the laws that “the liberals” have defeated as part of your proven facts?
      I find it really peculiar that when it comes to funding war and killing innocent people in other lands there is always plenty of money to go around. Like when Bush borrowed money from China to pay for the Iraqi and Afghani sorties. However when it comes to funding women’s health, education or the healing and health of the people of America, these are non starters and must be debated and stalled or cancelled for months and years. It easy to see where the rights priorities lie – death, destruction and money. …. and that is a proven FACT!!!

    • disqus_6AeSbMRBY2

      It’s a proven fact that the majority of FOX “News” viewers are afraid of Obamacare. Liberals are unhappy with it only in that it doesn’t go far enough, but the Republicans pitched SUCH a hissy fit that Obama scaled it back in an effort to convince the Republicans that he was willing to work with them. But it’s a good first step towards single payer.

  • I think it is time for direct democracy. We have the technology.

  • Lawrence Devine

    Congressional republicans have prevented our government from operating for the last three years. Their unified efforts to prevent any bill from moving through the system as it was designed to is criminal. I believe that this will spell the end of the republican party as a viable political participant in the US government. They now represent a vanishing group of old-time conservatives who are out of step with the world of the 21st century. The republican leadership must find a new philosophy in order to survive in the elections to come.

  • MiniMax

    Is this the GOP “circle the wagons” fantasy?

  • jimingrapevine

    Still not as alarming as trap laws…hell you could build an entire totalitarian regime with a few of those…uh wait, do you suppose….

  • Jeff Morrison

    Tea Party politics at work. The Republican party is dysfunctional and at some point in the future if they don’t get their act together it will collapse. You don’t have to look far to see what the problem is in American – it is the right, their absurd policies, their pettiness and their supporters. Obama has persevered regardless in his 2 terms thus far but I find it very tragic that at a time that America really needs to work together and pull itself out of the mess created by the Republicans , the little boys and girls on the right have obstructed America. It is truly shameful and it totally void on any semblance of leadership.

    • disqus_6AeSbMRBY2

      Can you IMAGINE how much better our country would be doing as a whole without all this obstruction? That we’ve made as much progress as we have is nothing short of astonishing.

      • Jeff Morrison

        That’s the way things used to work. When there were gentlemen who could agree to disagree and still get the job done and maintain friendship. This current climate is very largely in part to people like the Kock brothers, Grover Norquist, Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay and the politics of Reaganism which has been a complete failure ideologically but perhaps most damaging the trickle down lie that stripped the middle class of much of its wealth and power. From where I stand the Republicans are morally bankrupt and you’d be hard pressed to find a similar group of people in any other modern western country.

  • James Walker

    You can make a poll say anything you want, but I can most assuredly tell you that the vast majority of Americans are NOT in favor of any more unconstutional laws that infringe on any of the amendments. Any state that has any law that restricts any law abiding citizen from owning any firearm they so choose needs to be taken to court and have all such laws struck down.

    • melloe

      I am sorry James, but with all due respect, I think you are FOS, and very misguided. I seriously doubt if you really understand the 2nd amendment and the Supreme Courts rulings to date. BTW, Wayne is not a good referent, nor does the NRA represent gun owners.

      OH, did I mention you are also out of step ( with most in the US ) and most gun owners . Imagine that. The “any gun I chose” thing has been all the way to the Supreme court, and they lost. OOPS

      • Charles Vincent

        You’re wrong. Here is the heller decision on what the second amendment say concerning an individuals right.

        “The Supreme Court held:[43]
        (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.
        (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.”
        “Issues addressed by the majority[edit source | editbeta]
        The core holding in D.C. v. Heller is that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense.
        The Scalia majority invokes much historical material to support its finding that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to individuals; more precisely, Scalia asserts in the Court’s opinion that the “people” to whom the Second Amendment right is accorded are the same “people” who enjoy First and Fourth Amendment protection: “‘The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.’ United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings….”
        With that finding as anchor, the Court ruled a total ban on operative handguns in the home is unconstitutional, as the ban runs afoul of both the self-defense purpose of the Second Amendment – a purpose not previously articulated by the Court – and the “in common use at the time” prong of the Miller decision: since handguns are in common use, their ownership is protected.
        The Court applies as remedy that “[a]ssuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.” The Court, additionally, hinted that other remedy might be available in the form of eliminating the license requirement for carry in the home, but that no such relief had been requested: “Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not ‘have a problem with … licensing’ and that the District’s law is permissible so long as it is ‘not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.’ Tr. of Oral Arg. 74–75. We therefore assume that petitioners’ issuance of a license will satisfy respondent’s prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement.”
        In regard to the scope of the right, the Court wrote, in an obiter dictum, “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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.”[45]
        The Court also added dicta regarding the private ownership of machine guns. In doing so, it suggested the elevation of the “in common use at the time” prong of the Miller decision, which by itself protects handguns, over the first prong (protecting arms that “have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”), which may not by itself protect machine guns: “It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home.”[46]
        The Court did not address which level of judicial review should be used by lower courts in deciding future cases claiming infringement of the right to keep and bear arms: “[S]ince this case represents this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field.” The Court states, “If all that was required to overcome the right to keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment would be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws, and would have no effect.”[47] Also, regarding Justice Breyer’s proposal of a “judge-empowering ‘interest-balancing inquiry,'” the Court states, “We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach.”[48]”

      • melloe

        Did you actually read that? Do so and tell me where I am wrong. And how “any gun I chose” is held legal. Sorry, no cigar. Unless your “any gun you choose is…Just in case you missed it..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.

      • Charles Vincent

        Where to start…
        Well the Feinstein AWB bill sought to ban 200 common use weapons.
        The magazine bans also seeks to ban common use accessories.
        The UBC bill sought to regulate something that the government has no lawful right to regulate.
        Private sale from one individual to another is not commerce.
        The founding fathers intended for people to carry firearms openly hence the laws in some states banning concealed carry, in addition the framers considered concealed Cary something only a criminal would do.

    • Michael

      Are you that dense? There was NOTHING in the bill that states no one could own a firearm. The bill wanted STRICTER background checks. It would make sense to have one when approximately half of the country was allowing people to go to gun shows and purchase a gun without even knowing the person’s name. Funny how you state a gun law restriction should be struck down, yet your party wants to make sure they circumvent the Roe v. Wade law of the land.
      That’s the problem with the sheep of the GOP/TP – they listen to Fox, the Koch Brothers, and Norquist who only want to make sure their followers stay ignorant to what they are really doing and make sure they continue to stay rich. You follow a party who believes in destroying a country to make the President look bad. They want to hold this country hostage. This is the party you want to follow?

  • John

    I guess your there just to suck at your job then. Get the GOP out!!!

  • deckbose

    I would like to know why “Forward Progressives” is so stunningly backwards about its posting policy. I have written two long comments in response to Charles Vincent below and had both of them deleted despite the absence of anything remotely personal or profane or vitriolic. There seems to be some inherent bias at this site against using corroborative links to support one’s contentions, and I have to ask, what kind of debate are you attempting to foment here? Uneducated, unsupportable whining or documented argumentation supported by fact?

    • Charles Vincent

      They do not allow hyper links. You have to post block copy and past sections.

      • deckbose

        I see that now, but the question remains, why?

      • Charles Vincent

        I don’t know. You can find me on other social media and send me the links or continue the debate if you wish.

  • Pat

    Abominable, this disgusting group of buffoons and idiots. Are they happy and proud that they will go down in history as the worst congress, ever??? I guess so, because they have done NOTHING to change their image. Unbelievable that these slackers now get to take a month off. Cannot wait to get rid of them!

  • Jonathan Wagner

    one question… is ANYONE in Washington working for the American people? Anyone at all? it seems that democrat or republican (there are a few exceptions on both sides of the aisle) are all there worried more about how long they can stay there and how they can benefit more than what the people want… tehy think they know what the people NEED.. they are there to be representatives OF the PEOPLE.. if the people want something stupid and bad… convince the people to want something else, otherwise, do what the people want! Currently, it seems that our government, all three branches are more interested in pandering to each other than in solving anything or in doing what the people of the united states of america want… Stop putting labels on these people Republicans, Democrats.. doesn’t matter… for a majority of the folks in public office in Washington, they are politicians.. playing a game a game that they don’t have to invest in, where they get money from other people to do what they want when they want how they want without the people with the money having ANY way to call them to task… sucks, doesn’t it?

  • Jim Wetherell

    The sad thing is that it is all racism. The teatards cannot stomach the reality that a non lily white male in the white house. A t-shirt read that we need to put the white back in the white house, I think we ought to piss that wearer off and paint the white house brown, or beige, or ecru, or chocolate tan.