From the Washington Post:

House Democrats look to roll back little-known rule allowing guns in the Capitol

House Democrats are looking to roll back a little-known, five-decade-old Capitol Hill regulation that allows members of Congress to keep guns in their offices and carry them around the Capitol grounds.

The effort has been spearheaded by Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), who has pressed Capitol Hill authorities to revisit the 1967 regulation for months, and he now has the support of Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who has been nominated by her party to become House speaker early next year.

“I don’t think we can just keep looking the other way or sweep this issue under the rug,” Huffman said in an interview, citing potential threats to public safety and national security from a lost or stolen weapon — or an overheated lawmaker. “Our political climate is too volatile and there are too many warning signs that we need to address things like this.”

Right….. because the Congressman who attacks another Congressman in the Capitol with his legally possessed handgun is going to be one of those angry white male Republicans.

Never mind that the only assault with a weapon by one Congressman on another was when Representative Preston Brooks, a pro-slavery Democrat from South Carolina beat Massachusetts abolitionist Republican Senator Charles Sumner over insults exchanged in regards to the Kansas-Nebraska act.

It is unclear how common it is for lawmakers to keep guns in their offices. Multiple Republican lawmakers said this week that they are aware of colleagues who keep guns in the Capitol complex but do not know how widespread the practice is. Bringing firearms legally to Capitol Hill involves complying with strict D.C. gun laws, which include a registration requirement.

Then they admitted they all lost their guns in boating accidents.

But any attempt to roll back lawmakers’ ability to keep firearms could become a partisan flash point between the new Democratic House majority — which is likely to pursue new gun control measures — and conservative Republicans who favor gun rights.

A Pelosi spokesman said that, if elected speaker, she would direct authorities to “revisit” the regulations “in the name of ensuring safety and security.”

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Second Amendment Caucus, said any change to existing rules would be about “theatrics” rather than public safety and said it would be hypocritical for Pelosi or other House leaders with a security detail to erode the ability of rank-and-file members to protect themselves.

“It’s proposing to solve a problem that doesn’t exist,” he said. “She’s worried that members aren’t responsible enough to handle a firearm?”


It is clear what this is all about.  The Democrats have already announced that at the very top of their 2019 to do list is to impeach Trump, or at least ramp up the rhetoric about it, and end the investigation in Hillary Clinton’s criminal acts.

These are the kinds of things that are going bring out the #Resistance, the protesters, and the crazies.

The only reason to repeal this 52 old rule is to disarm Republicans to make them more vulnerable to the screeching, cursing, hysterical hate mob the Democrats are so good at whipping up.

I’ve wondered why Cocaine Mitch and Ted Cruz were so calm in the face of some of these protesters harassing them in restaurants.  It’s probably because the Senators from Texas and Kentucky were packing heat.

Take that away from them, and the many members of the House who don’t have nearly the same security detail that Senators do and now a handful of spitting protesters is a much greater threat.

This is purely for the reason of levering the power of the Democrat mob against Republicans in Congress by taking away their ability to defend themselves.

It couldn’t be more transparent if they tried.

Spread the love

By J. Kb

4 thoughts on “They know EXACTLY what they are doing”
  1. Oh, yes. They know exactly what they are doing alright.

    Like the ban on headwear. You know the one that is not defunct because of two muslim women in Congress. Yet, I bet the men wearing Yarmulkes will be asked to remove them. Just like they have been for 170+ years.

    They are doing everything they can to destroy the US as we know it, and while they are unlikely to succeed via a full frontal assault, if they remove the mortar holding the bricks of our foundation together from enough places the entire thing will collapse.

    Besides, if they can disarm Congressmen, it removes one more argument against disarming the average citizen.

    I wonder what Feinstein would say about this?

  2. That bit about having to comply with strict DC rules is not true. As Congresscritters, they can’t be arrested: “They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same…”

  3. Just like the pussy college professors who are “fearfull that a student might shoot them if allowed to have guns” how many of these a$$hats got attacked by anyone?? Fukem. Id carry if I am allowed to by laws in DC and continue to after the dumbacrats take over. Id also ask the pelosi types” what are you afraid off?”

  4. Part of me is in favor of this. Why should they get to carry when I couldn’t. This may help with the aditude of do what I say an not as I do. Granted the author of the article is most likely correct. The politicans should not have any more special privelages that are not directly required for the job.

Login or register to comment.