Congress trying to change DC laws

[lbodel]

Curious to hear opinions on this.

A Kentucky first-term Congressman attached an amendment to a bill that would essentially block DC from enforcing their gun laws and would make DC have the minimum federal standards. Ironically, this would make DC's gun laws be more relaxed than the Congressman's own district in Kentucky. The Congressman also claimed DC's laws do not fit what the Supreme Court has ruled (which the laws have been ruled as "ok" every time in the federal judicial system).

I keep hearing the federal government's involvement is not a good thing though. And here is Congress trying to use their federal power to stamp out local laws they do not care for.

So which is it?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/house-votes-to-block-dc-gun-regulations-in-latest-challenge-to-city-laws/2014/07/16/62e11152-0d0b-11e4-8341-b8072b1e7348_story.html

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Originally posted by lbodel:

I keep hearing the federal government's involvement is not a good thing though. And here is Congress trying to use their federal power to stamp out local laws they do not care for.

So which is it?

Huh? Federal government shouldn't be involved. (Which is what? Your statement didn't present a conflict!)

Next question?

 

[lbodel]

The federal government (Congress in this case) is attempting to add a provision to a bill to strike down passed gun control laws in DC.

How is that not federal govt getting involved? None of these Congressmen/women represent people in DC.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Originally posted by lbodel:
The federal government (Congress in this case) is attempting to add a provision to a bill to strike down passed gun control laws in DC.

How is that not federal govt getting involved? None of these Congressmen/women represent people in DC.

It IS the Federal government getting involved. Which they shouldn't. Which is what I said. Which is why your question didn't make any sense.

"Which is it?" WTF are you talking about? I am guessing you are setting up some straw man about conservatives who want gun control relaxed but don't want federal government involved. You failed to communicate it well, and it is a poor attempt at any rate. Fed shouldn't have any authority to overturn local laws that are constitutional, so they shouldn't be involved.

Next question.
Posted from wireless.rivals.com[/URL]

 

[lbodel]

It really has nothing to do with gun control, it could be about any subject (the gun control issue was interesting because as I mentioned, the Congressman's district who introduced this would end up with stricter gun laws than DC).

I simply said:

"I keep hearing the federal government's involvement is not a good thing though. And here is Congress trying to use their federal power to stamp out local laws they do not care for.

So which is it?"

I hear Republicans say the federal government shouldn't get involved in local issues. And then hundreds of Republican congressmen/women voted for this amendment to strip DC of its gun laws. So I was asking - which is it? You can't have it both ways, depending on which way the outcome is you like better.

Does that not seem a bit hypocritical to you?

I respect your answer for keeping a consistent opinion.

 

[qazplm]

it's a bad example

Gr8 is wrong, the Feds should get involved because DC IS more or less under Federal control.

Now we can argue about whether that should continue given modern realities of what DC is now v. what it was originally, but nevertheless, it's not a state at this point, it's a federal enclave.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: it's a bad example


Fair enough. My point was more my constant point about the Fed being involved in state/local matters, but I think you got that.