Comments on: More on Davis’ Gun Vote http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2008/09/17/some-more-clarity-on-davis-gun-vote/ D.C. News, Politics, Media, Arts, and More Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:52:14 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1 hourly 1 By: al gonzales http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2008/09/17/some-more-clarity-on-davis-gun-vote/comment-page-1/#comment-323343 al gonzales Thu, 18 Sep 2008 01:40:42 +0000 http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/?p=6779#comment-323343 It was a good vote. DC officials have tried to obstruct the citizens rights to own & bear guns long enough that they have forfeited any right to legislate here. Their "last minute conversion" legislation simply came too late. It was a good vote. DC officials have tried to obstruct the citizens rights to own & bear guns long enough that they have forfeited any right to legislate here. Their "last minute conversion" legislation simply came too late.

]]> By: KCinDC http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2008/09/17/some-more-clarity-on-davis-gun-vote/comment-page-1/#comment-322782 KCinDC Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:59:57 +0000 http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/?p=6779#comment-322782 Let's be clear here. The amendment Davis voted against wasn't just a tweak. It substituted Childers's bill for Norton's, so the whole thing was changed. He voted against that amendment, but then, when the amendment passed and became the whole bill, voted for it. He threw home rule out the window even though the council had already addressed the 2nd Amendment issues. What sense does it make to "send a message" that the council needs to do something it's already done? And he's not running for reelection. Hell, if he were running for reelection he wouldn't be so worried about what the NRA thinks, since they're not a huge force in his district. Sounds to me like kowtowing to the wingnuts to help with lining up a lucrative position as a lobbyist. Let's be clear here. The amendment Davis voted against wasn't just a tweak. It substituted Childers's bill for Norton's, so the whole thing was changed. He voted against that amendment, but then, when the amendment passed and became the whole bill, voted for it. He threw home rule out the window even though the council had already addressed the 2nd Amendment issues. What sense does it make to "send a message" that the council needs to do something it's already done?

And he's not running for reelection. Hell, if he were running for reelection he wouldn't be so worried about what the NRA thinks, since they're not a huge force in his district. Sounds to me like kowtowing to the wingnuts to help with lining up a lucrative position as a lobbyist.

]]>