Home
Jul 07
Thursday
Free DC! - Statehood Now!

Your Vote's Good Here!

Favorite D.C. hero?
 

Sign In

Incrementalism is a Dead End for D.C. Rights E-mail
Once again, a bill to give the District of Columbia more rights, has been pulled because of hostile amendments taking away what few rights we have.  Read more in Ben Pershing's article on Senator Rand Paul's amendments in the June 26, 2012 Washington Post.

As Brookland resident Josh Burch has pointed out in his blog (http://the51st.org/), the "incremental" approach to getting our rights doesn't get us anywhere. It just gets us the Rand Pauls of the world trying to do to us what they can't do to their own constituents. What the people of D.C. need to be full Americans with the same rights as everyone else is statehood.  Only statehood is permanent and can't be revoked. States must be admitted "on equal footing" with all other states so Congress couldn't discriminate against the State of New Columbia and it only takes one law to be passed to make us a state.  As we approach July 4th and the celebration of our national independence day, please remember those glorious words penned by Thomas Jefferson --

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed ..."   (italics added)  --

and remember that though the people who lived in what is now D.C. fought and died in the American Revolution, we do not have the right to self-government and have not consented to our lack thereof. This is the last great civil right/civil liberty issue in the United States and has gone on for over TWO CENTURIES! Please ask your family, friends, neighbors, coworkers and the person you sit next to on the Metro, who are citizens of a state, to contact their Senators and Representative and demand that they vote for statehood for the District of Columbia by passing H.R. 265, the New Columbia Admission Act.  Only then, will we have a reason to celebrate the 4th of July!
Read more...
 
Senate Committee Passes 2013 D.C. Appropriations Bill E-mail
On June 15, 2012, Washington Post reporter Ben Pershing reported that the Senate Appropriations Committee reported out a 2013 appropriations act for the District of Columbia. The only reason the Congress has to pass an appropriations bill for D.C., as well as approve D.C.'s budget, is that D.C. is NOT a state and that so long as that is the case, Congress has "exclusive legislation" authority over D.C. For the details of the Senate bill and Mr. Pershing's article, read more.
Read more...
 
Congressional interference in D.C. Gun Laws E-mail

On May 17, 2012, the House of Representatives approved by a voice vote an amendment from  Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) to H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, that would express a sense of Congress that active duty military personnel who either live in or are stationed in Washington, D.C., would be exempt from existing District of Columbia firearms restrictions. Rep. Gingrey expects this to allow 40,000 active duty military personnel in the Washington metropolitan area to freely carry their firearms in the District. The House passed the entire bill 299 to 120.

D.C. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton rose in strong opposition to this amendment noting that "(t)he amendment reflects a pattern by Republicans in the 112th Congress of singling out the District of Columbia for unique treatment and outright bullying." For the full text of the amendment and Rep. Gingrey's and her full remarks, read more.


NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 

(House of Representatives - May 17, 2012)

AMENDMENT NO. 39 OFFERED BY MR. GINGREY OF GEORGIA

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 39 printed in House Report 112 485.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

______________________

(bolding added)

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle H of title X of division A, add the following new section:

SEC. 10__X. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING PRESERVATION OF SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY PERSONNEL STATIONED OR RESIDING IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(2) Approximately 40,000 servicemen and women across all branches of the Armed Forces either live in or are stationed on active duty within the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Unless these individuals are granted a waiver as serving in a law enforcement role, they are subject to the District of Columbia's onerous and highly restrictive laws on the possession of firearms.

(3) Military personnel, despite being extensively trained in the proper and safe use of firearms, are therefore deprived by the laws of the District of Columbia of handguns, rifles, and shotguns that are commonly kept by law-abiding persons throughout the United States for sporting use and for lawful defense of their persons, homes, businesses, and families.

(4) The District of Columbia has one of the highest per capita murder rates in the Nation, which may be attributed in part to previous local laws prohibiting possession of firearms by law-abiding persons who would have otherwise been able to defend themselves and their loved ones in their own homes and businesses.

(5) The Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended by the Firearms Owners' Protection Act, and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, provide comprehensive Federal regulations applicable in the District of Columbia as elsewhere. In addition, existing District of Columbia criminal laws punish possession and illegal use of firearms by violent criminals and felons. Consequently, there is no need for local laws that only affect and disarm law-abiding citizens.

(6) On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, and thus ruled that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirements that rifles and shotguns in the home be kept unloaded and disassembled or outfitted with a trigger lock to be unconstitutional.

(7) On July 16, 2008, the District of Columbia enacted the Firearms Control Emergency Amendment Act of 2008 (D.C. Act 17-422; 55 DCR 8237), which places onerous restrictions on the ability of law-abiding citizens from possessing firearms, thus violating the spirit by which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller.

(8) On February 26, 2009, the United States Senate adopted an amendment on a bipartisan vote of 62-36 by Senator John Ensign to S. 160, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009, which would fully restore Second Amendment rights to the citizens of the District of Columbia.

(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that active duty military personnel who are stationed or residing in the District of Columbia should be permitted to exercise fully their rights under the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and therefore should be exempt from the District of Columbia's restrictions on the possession of firearms.

__________________

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to urge my colleagues to support my nonbinding amendment, No. 39, which would express the sense of Congress that active duty military personnel who live in or are stationed in Washington, D.C. should be exempt from existing District of Columbia firearm restrictions.

Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that the District of Columbia has historically had some of the most restrictive firearm regulations in the Nation. In fact, in June of 2008, the Supreme Court--in the District of Columbia v. Heller case--ruled that the District's handgun ban and requirements that rifles and shotguns in the home be kept unloaded and disassembled or outfitted with a trigger lock is unconstitutional. In that decision it also said that the Second Amendment is applicable to an individual, not just a militia.

Well, just 1 month later, the District of Columbia enacted the Firearms Control Emergency Amendment Act of 2008, which places onerous restrictions on the ability of law-abiding citizens to possess firearms, thus violating the spirit, if not the letter, by which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in D.C. v. Heller.

Mr. Chairman, there are approximately 40,000 servicemen and -women across all branches of the Armed Forces that either live in or they're stationed on active duty within the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Indeed, many of them are stationed at the Pentagon. Unless these individuals are granted a waiver as serving in a law enforcement role, they are subject to the District of Columbia's onerous and highly restrictive laws on the possession of firearms.

Mr. Chairman, there are servicemen and -women who have been prosecuted because of this unconstitutional prohibition, despite their training in the use of firearms. This is a travesty. Studies have clearly shown that firearms are a crime deterrent. The de facto handgun ban leaves law-abiding citizens unable to protect themselves from violent acts or individuals breaking the law.

This amendment recognizes that the D.C. handgun law, especially in regard to trained servicemen and -women, punishes individuals well equipped to protect themselves and others while emboldening perpetrators of violent crime. Mr. Chairman, if we trust these brave men and women to defend our country, why do we not trust them to legally exercise their Second Amendment rights?

I would like to note that the NRA is supportive of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia is recognized for 5 minutes.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to amendment No. 39. The amendment reflects a pattern by Republicans in the 112th Congress of singling out the District of Columbia for unique treatment and outright bullying.

There is no Federal law that exempts active military personnel in their personal capacities from otherwise applicable Federal firearms laws, except with respect to residency requirements, or from any State or local firearms laws. Yet the amendment expresses the sense of Congress that active duty personnel in their personal capacities should be exempt from gun laws only in one jurisdiction, the District of Columbia.

If the gentleman on the other side who sponsored this amendment believes that active duty personnel should be exempt from Federal, State, or local firearms laws, why did he not offer an amendment that would apply nationwide? Perhaps he did not offer such an amendment for the same reason that the Republican sponsor of H.R. 3808--to ban abortions for 20 weeks only in the District of Columbia, on which the House Judiciary Committee on the Constitution held a hearing today--did not introduce that same 20-week bill to apply nationwide. Or perhaps Republicans pick on the District because they think they can.

The proponents of this amendment, as well as the D.C. gun bill which would eliminate D.C.'s gun laws, live in the past, acting as if the changes the District has made in its gun laws after the Supreme Court Heller decision in 2008 had not happened, and as if a Federal district court and a Federal appeals court had not already upheld the constitutionality of the District's new gun laws. They act as if the Supreme Court's McDonald decisions in 2010 had never occurred.

In McDonald, the Court said that the Second Amendment does not confer ``the right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.''

This amendment represents the third attack by this Congress on the District's gun safety laws. Although the amendment is nonbinding, we will fight every attack on our rights as a local government, particularly when we are singled out for unequal treatment.

This amendment does nothing less than attempt to pave the way for actual inroads into the District's new gun safety laws. Republicans have been trying, this week, to use the District of Columbia to move issues they dare not propose for the Nation at large, instead of focusing on jobs. And our allies, our city, and I have spent the week fighting back equally hard.

The majority can expect a fierce fight from us whenever a bill degrades our citizens and treats them in any way as second-class citizens, as this bill proposes to do this very evening.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, can I ask how much time I have remaining.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has 3 minutes.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I remind the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia that, first and foremost, this is a sense of Congress resolution, nonbinding resolution. It's not to be, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, confused with any other ban or amendment that she referenced. It's certainly not to be confused with H.R. 645, a bill that would eliminate D.C.'s gun safety laws, which she was so concerned about in the last couple of years.

This is just simply saying, very clearly, Mr. Chairman, and especially to the governing body, the City Council and Mayor of the District of Columbia, look, we want to help you. We are recommending that you take this action. We're not forcing you to do this.

This is, again, as I say, a nonbinding resolution. It is just the sense of Congress, which, after all, has jurisdiction over the District of Columbia. We want to say to the governing body, we think it's a darn good idea for you to enact this waiver for these military men and women, 40,000 of them, as I say, stationed either in D.C., at the Pentagon, at Fort Myer in Virginia or Maryland, that have the ability and the training, the necessary judgment and mentality to actually help the 500,000 residents of the District of Columbia.

I don't think that my colleague and any colleagues on the other side of the aisle who might be in opposition to this, I think that opposition is misguided. They're missing an opportunity to support something that would be good, indeed, good for the safety of the people of the District of Columbia.

If we criminalize the possession of firearms, then it might be a trite and hackneyed expression, but only criminals then would have the right to bear arms.

Now, this bill that the District of Columbia passed in the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision, Heller v. District of Columbia, that upheld the Second Amendment rights for individuals and said that what law existed in the District of Columbia was unconstitutional.

So they come up with some arcane, very difficult, almost impossible rules and regulations in regard to the possession of firearms so that they, de facto, make it impossible. So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, support this amendment, sense of Congress, nonbinding.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 45 seconds remaining.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, if this is such a benign amendment for the good of the District of Columbia, I can't imagine why the gentleman hasn't offered it for the Nation at large. Why help us when we haven't asked for your help? Why not help everybody?

Why not help people in Virginia? More of the Members of our Armed Services pass through Virginia than pass through the District of Columbia.

You don't want to help us. Nobody on that side has helped us this year. If you want to help us, come ask me first, and I'll tell you what kind of help we need.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.Gingrey).

The amendment was agreed to.

 

 

 
Rep. Peter W. Rodino, Jr. on the Legality of D.C. Statehood E-mail

Rep. Peter W. Rodino, Jr., Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives, testified on June 11, 1986 before the House District of Columbia Committee's Subcommittee on Fiscal Affairs and Health on the legal issues raised by H.R. 325, the New Columbia Admission Act, introduced by D.C. Delegate Walter E. Fauntroy.  He specifically addressed the constitutionality of statehood for the District of Columbia, whether Maryland's consent is required, and statehood process.

Read more...
 
Congress Uses D.C. for Political Points E-mail

In a May 17, 2012 column (online; printed version May 18) the Examiner's Harry Jaffe wrote about how Congress is again using its exclusive legislative authority over the District of Columbia to impose on D.C. residents poiicies it can't impose upon its own constituents. As Jaffe noted, "This is the time when we denizens of the District are reminded that we do not control our laws or our destiny -- or our tax dollars."

In this case, the culprit is Arizona Republican Trent Franks who held a hearing on his bill to ban all abortions in D.C. after 20 weeks of pregnancy. To add fuel to the fire, he also denied D.C.'s nonvoting delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton, the right to testify at the hearing about a bill that will affect only her constituents. Similarly, Jaffee reported that Georgia Republican Phil Gingrey offered an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would express the "sense of Congress" that active-duty military personnel should be exempt from D.C. gun laws while they are in civilian capacity in D.C.

Here are two clear examples of why the commerical and residential parts of D.C. need to become the 51st state. Only then will D.C. voters have a say in policies that affect them and will Congress people not elected by D.C. voters be unable to unilaterally impose its will on D.C.

Read more...
 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Page 2 of 23
Home

Profile Information

Application afterLoad: 0.000 seconds, 0.29 MB
Application afterInitialise: 0.067 seconds, 1.35 MB
Application afterRoute: 0.072 seconds, 2.03 MB
Application afterDispatch: 0.118 seconds, 2.77 MB
Application afterRender: 0.214 seconds, 3.44 MB

Memory Usage

3625760

17 queries logged

  1. SELECT *
      FROM jos_session
      WHERE session_id = 'fgm4h22lrl1guhf4c7rksmbv70'
  2. DELETE
      FROM jos_session
      WHERE ( TIME < '1657211463' )
  3. SELECT *
      FROM jos_session
      WHERE session_id = 'fgm4h22lrl1guhf4c7rksmbv70'
  4. INSERT INTO `jos_session` ( `session_id`,`time`,`username`,`gid`,`guest`,`client_id` )
      VALUES ( 'fgm4h22lrl1guhf4c7rksmbv70','1657213863','','0','1','0' )
  5. SELECT *
      FROM jos_components
      WHERE parent = 0
  6. SELECT folder AS TYPE, element AS name, params
      FROM jos_plugins
      WHERE published >= 1
      AND access <= 0
      ORDER BY ordering
  7. SELECT *
      FROM jos_migration_backlinks
      WHERE url LIKE 'index.php?limitstart=5%' OR sefurl LIKE 'index.php?limitstart=5%'
  8. SELECT m.*, c.`option` AS component
      FROM jos_menu AS m
      LEFT JOIN jos_components AS c
      ON m.componentid = c.id
      WHERE m.published = 1
      ORDER BY m.sublevel, m.parent, m.ordering
  9. SELECT template
      FROM jos_templates_menu
      WHERE client_id = 0
      AND (menuid = 0 OR menuid = 1)
      ORDER BY menuid DESC
      LIMIT 0, 1
  10. SELECT a.id, a.title, a.alias, a.title_alias, a.introtext, a.fulltext, a.sectionid, a.state, a.catid, a.created, a.created_by, a.created_by_alias, a.modified, a.modified_by, a.checked_out, a.checked_out_time, a.publish_up, a.publish_down, a.images, a.attribs, a.urls, a.metakey, a.metadesc, a.access, CASE WHEN CHAR_LENGTH(a.alias) THEN CONCAT_WS(':', a.id, a.alias) ELSE a.id END AS slug, CASE WHEN CHAR_LENGTH(cc.alias) THEN CONCAT_WS(":", cc.id, cc.alias) ELSE cc.id END AS catslug, CHAR_LENGTH( a.`fulltext` ) AS readmore, u.name AS author, u.usertype, g.name AS groups, u.email AS author_email, cc.title AS category, s.title AS SECTION, s.ordering AS s_ordering, cc.ordering AS cc_ordering, a.ordering AS a_ordering, f.ordering AS f_ordering
      FROM jos_content AS a
      INNER JOIN jos_content_frontpage AS f
      ON f.content_id = a.id
      LEFT JOIN jos_categories AS cc
      ON cc.id = a.catid
      LEFT JOIN jos_sections AS s
      ON s.id = a.sectionid
      LEFT JOIN jos_users AS u
      ON u.id = a.created_by
      LEFT JOIN jos_groups AS g
      ON a.access = g.id
      WHERE 1
      AND a.access <= 0
      AND a.state = 1
      AND (( cc.published = 1
      AND s.published = 1 ) OR ( a.catid = 0
      AND a.sectionid = 0 ) )
      AND ( a.publish_up = '0000-00-00 00:00:00' OR a.publish_up <= '2022-07-07 17:11:03' )
      AND ( a.publish_down = '0000-00-00 00:00:00' OR a.publish_down >= '2022-07-07 17:11:03' )
      ORDER BY  f.ordering
      LIMIT 5, 9
  11. SELECT a.id, a.title, a.alias, a.title_alias, a.introtext, a.fulltext, a.sectionid, a.state, a.catid, a.created, a.created_by, a.created_by_alias, a.modified, a.modified_by, a.checked_out, a.checked_out_time, a.publish_up, a.publish_down, a.images, a.attribs, a.urls, a.metakey, a.metadesc, a.access, CASE WHEN CHAR_LENGTH(a.alias) THEN CONCAT_WS(':', a.id, a.alias) ELSE a.id END AS slug, CASE WHEN CHAR_LENGTH(cc.alias) THEN CONCAT_WS(":", cc.id, cc.alias) ELSE cc.id END AS catslug, CHAR_LENGTH( a.`fulltext` ) AS readmore, u.name AS author, u.usertype, g.name AS groups, u.email AS author_email, cc.title AS category, s.title AS SECTION, s.ordering AS s_ordering, cc.ordering AS cc_ordering, a.ordering AS a_ordering, f.ordering AS f_ordering
      FROM jos_content AS a
      INNER JOIN jos_content_frontpage AS f
      ON f.content_id = a.id
      LEFT JOIN jos_categories AS cc
      ON cc.id = a.catid
      LEFT JOIN jos_sections AS s
      ON s.id = a.sectionid
      LEFT JOIN jos_users AS u
      ON u.id = a.created_by
      LEFT JOIN jos_groups AS g
      ON a.access = g.id
      WHERE 1
      AND a.access <= 0
      AND a.state = 1
      AND (( cc.published = 1
      AND s.published = 1 ) OR ( a.catid = 0
      AND a.sectionid = 0 ) )
      AND ( a.publish_up = '0000-00-00 00:00:00' OR a.publish_up <= '2022-07-07 17:11:03' )
      AND ( a.publish_down = '0000-00-00 00:00:00' OR a.publish_down >= '2022-07-07 17:11:03' )
      ORDER BY  f.ordering
  12. SELECT id, title, module, POSITION, content, showtitle, control, params
      FROM jos_modules AS m
      LEFT JOIN jos_modules_menu AS mm
      ON mm.moduleid = m.id
      WHERE m.published = 1
      AND m.access <= 0
      AND m.client_id = 0
      AND ( mm.menuid = 1 OR mm.menuid = 0 )
      ORDER BY POSITION, ordering
  13. SELECT a.*, cc.title AS ctitle, s.title AS stitle,  CASE WHEN CHAR_LENGTH(a.alias) THEN CONCAT_WS(":", a.id, a.alias) ELSE a.id END AS slug, CASE WHEN CHAR_LENGTH(cc.alias) THEN CONCAT_WS(":", cc.id, cc.alias) ELSE cc.id END AS catslug
     
      FROM jos_content AS a
     
      INNER JOIN jos_categories AS cc
      ON cc.id = a.catid
     
      INNER JOIN jos_sections AS s
      ON s.id = a.sectionid
     
      WHERE ( a.state = '1'
      AND a.checked_out = '0' )
     
      AND ( a.publish_up = '0000-00-00 00:00:00' OR a.publish_up <= '2022-07-07 17:11:03' )
     
      AND ( a.publish_down = '0000-00-00 00:00:00' OR a.publish_down >= '2022-07-07 17:11:03' )
     
      AND a.access <= 0
      AND cc.access <= 0
      AND s.access <= 0
     
      AND ( a.catid IN (39,42) )
     
      ORDER BY a.created DESC
      LIMIT 0,5
  14. SELECT id, title, CASE WHEN CHAR_LENGTH(alias) THEN CONCAT_WS(':', id, alias) ELSE id END AS slug  
      FROM jos_polls
      WHERE id = 16
      AND published = 1
  15. SELECT id, text
      FROM jos_poll_data
      WHERE pollid = 16
      AND text <> ""
      ORDER BY id
  16. SELECT a.*, CASE WHEN CHAR_LENGTH(a.alias) THEN CONCAT_WS(":", a.id, a.alias) ELSE a.id END AS slug, CASE WHEN CHAR_LENGTH(cc.alias) THEN CONCAT_WS(":", cc.id, cc.alias) ELSE cc.id END AS catslug
      FROM jos_content AS a
      INNER JOIN jos_categories AS cc
      ON cc.id = a.catid
      INNER JOIN jos_sections AS s
      ON s.id = a.sectionid
      WHERE a.state = 1  
      AND a.access <= 0
      AND cc.access <= 0
      AND s.access <= 0
      AND (a.publish_up = '0000-00-00 00:00:00' OR a.publish_up <= '2022-07-07 17:11:03' )  
      AND (a.publish_down = '0000-00-00 00:00:00' OR a.publish_down >= '2022-07-07 17:11:03' )
      AND cc.id = 82
      AND cc.SECTION = s.id
      AND cc.published = 1
      AND s.published = 1
      ORDER BY a.ordering
      LIMIT 0, 5
  17. SELECT a.*, CASE WHEN CHAR_LENGTH(a.alias) THEN CONCAT_WS(":", a.id, a.alias) ELSE a.id END AS slug, CASE WHEN CHAR_LENGTH(cc.alias) THEN CONCAT_WS(":", cc.id, cc.alias) ELSE cc.id END AS catslug
      FROM jos_content AS a
      LEFT JOIN jos_content_frontpage AS f
      ON f.content_id = a.id
      INNER JOIN jos_categories AS cc
      ON cc.id = a.catid
      INNER JOIN jos_sections AS s
      ON s.id = a.sectionid
      WHERE ( a.state = 1
      AND s.id > 0 )
      AND ( a.publish_up = '0000-00-00 00:00:00' OR a.publish_up <= '2022-07-07 17:11:03' )
      AND ( a.publish_down = '0000-00-00 00:00:00' OR a.publish_down >= '2022-07-07 17:11:03' )
      AND a.access <= 0
      AND cc.access <= 0
      AND s.access <= 0
      AND s.published = 1
      AND cc.published = 1
      ORDER BY a.hits DESC
      LIMIT 0, 5

0 legacy queries logged

    Language Files Loaded

    Untranslated Strings Diagnostic

    None

    Untranslated Strings Designer

    None