May 20, 2005
Congress Wants More Guns For D.C.
Again proving that members of Congress know what's best for full-time residents of the District, Congressional Republicans have again hatched a plan to use their constitutional authority over D.C. to overturn the city's stringent, yet overwhelmingly popular gun laws.
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) announced yesterday that she had introduced the cynically-named "District of Columbia Personal Protection Act of 2005," which would overturn the Firearms and Control Regulations Act of 1975, the law which banned ownership of handguns in the District. The law would also prevent the City Council from considering any future legislation that would limit gun ownership. Joined by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) and Sen. George Allen (R-Va.), Hutchison claimed to have 30 co-sponsors, and expected 20 more. Similar legislation was introduced in the House on March 14 by Rep. Mark Edward Souder (R-Ind.), and currently has 128 co-sponsors.
Souder's legislation, which goes buy the same name as its Senate counterpart, passed in the House last September with 250 votes for and 171 against, but was hung up in the Senate as legislators left D.C. to campaign. Similar attempts date back to 1999, but they have gained momentum with the Republican take-over of Congress.
While Souder has in the past gone to lengths to present the proposal as one allowing District residents to better defend themselves, Sen. Hutchison, pictured at right, shamelessly admitted her self-interested intentions:
Many people live in the district during the week who are members of Congress and they would like to be able to protect themselves in their homes.She similarly cloaked herself in the constitutional language of the Second Amendment, stating that,
The rights guaranteed by the Constitution do not end at the borders of Washington, D.C. Residents of the District should not have to choose between protecting themselves and obeying a law that shreds the Constitution.Both D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams and D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton indignantly expressed opposition to the plan, with Williams opining,
I am incensed by any Congressional proposal that uses District residents as pawns. I am incensed by any proposal that assaults Home Rule. And I am incensed by any proposal that is an insult to the memory of the people who have died in this city due to gun violence—in particular the three children who have died from gun violence this year.Republican supporters of the measure claim that the murder rate in the District -- which is eight times the national average -- can be associated to the limits on the rights of residents to purchase and own handguns for self-defense, while city officials and police argue that recent drops in violent crime (17 percent so far this year) would be threatened by a renewed availability of guns.
Whether or nor one agrees with the substance of the proposal, it seems plainly obvious that certain Congressional Republicans are using their constitutional authority to pander to the gun lobby and undermine the right of self-determination of the 600,000 residents that would most be affected by the changes. Republicans are first in line to defend the rights of states to determine their own laws, yet they are also the ones most often leading the charge to impose their own morality and ideology on a city in which few live full-time and by whose residents they are never held accountable.
Hutchison's comments, noted above, should cause most consternation, though. She clearly indicated that this law would benefit her, a gun owner, yet she fails to recognize that most District residents have little sympathy for self-aggrandizing self-defense rhetoric coming from a member of the U.S. Senate -- and even less for one that doesn't make their primary residence here. Few intelligent residents, in the District or elsewhere, would argue that one Senator's desire to pack heat serves as proper justification for overturning a popular law enacted in a city struggling to overcome a long history of violent crime and social blight. To add insult to injury, Hutchison is one of 22 senators that benefited from the city's Homestead Exemption (saving her $38,000 on the assessable value of her home and limiting her annual property tax increases to 12 percent), even though her primary residence is in Texas. One would hope that Hutchison would stop exploiting a D.C. tax loophole before trying to change the city's laws.
This DCist proposes a tit-for-tat. They change our gun laws, we change one of their laws. Is there anything that particularly irritates DCist readers about Texas or Indiana? If so, propose a modification of one of their laws, based on your standards and beliefs. DCist will make sure to forward these on to the offices of Souder, Hutchinson, and city officials.
|
I do hate the Indiana blue laws...
My fave Simpsons moment ever is when Homer walks into the gun store and pays money for a handgun.
Shopkeeper: "Great. Now fill out this background check paperwork and you can come pick up your gun in three days."
Homer: "Three days? But I'm mad NOW!"
So best.
I'm really conflicted about the DC firearm laws, being both a Democrat and from Texas (a few such strange creatures do exist). I'm generally o.k. with gun restrictions, but find myself maddened by this law. I own a handgun that was my great-grandmothers and would like to be able to posses it in the district. I've never shot it, I don't own ammunition for it, but I can't legally have it in my posession. So it sits in a drawer in Texas.
While I understand to many people my Granny's .32 is an instrument of personal destruction, to me it's just a thing- like my great-grandfathers pocket watch. I wish that rather than outlaw posession of handguns, there were simply stiff penalties for their discharge, whether for self defense, muggings, murders, or killin rats in the alley.
Speaking of, anybody know where I can buy a slingshot and ball bearings in this city?
Good christ, BrodyV, you think there should be "stiff penalties" for discharging a gun in self-defense?
I sincerely hope that the D.C. police get to you in time if a criminal ever pulls a gun on you. I mean, miracles do happen.
Being Swiss, I sympathize with gun ownership. All Swiss men are given a gun after their military service, which is mandatory. The difference with the Swiss is that they know who has the guns, and they can control their use. The bill being proposed not only abolishes the law, but would also make any laws aimed at registering guns in the District impossible to debate or pass. This is plainly ridiculous. If you own a lethal weapon, I believe there should exist a mechanism by which the government can know that.
Furthermore, D.C. residents are still allowed to own rifles. So, protecting your house is perfectly possible under the current restrictions. I believe handguns were outlawed because of the possibility that they could be concealed.
The house bill had a little tiny provision that conveniently outlawed guns in the neighborhoods around the Hill. They wanted everyone to have guns, except people who might be near them. Does the Senate version have the same?
As for reciprocity, I'd love to smack down some zoning laws on Texas' ugly, gargantuan mega-churches.
Not really, I don't. But I also don't think that it's fair for Pols like Kay Bay sticking their nose in the cities gun laws. The citizens here want stiff regulation of handguns. So be it. I'd like to be able to posess a handgun that will never be fired. The compromise position is to allow the posession of handguns but not their discharge. I'm not so much of dogmatic that I refuse to allow any compromise on an issue. All I want to be able to do is own a sentimental firearm. Beyond that, well, that's for other people to argue about.
In a perfect world anyone would be able to own one, everyone would keeps a trigger lock on them, children will never touch them, and 9mm jacketed rounds wouldn't overpenetrate in dense housing. But the reality of the situation is that a handgun fired in "self defense" is 18 times more likely to kill an innocent resident of the house than an intruder. The reality is that most police engagements take place at about 6 feet and 1 in 10 rounds hit the intended target. The reality is that most people who own handguns wouldn't select the proper ammunition to reduce overpenetration, much less be well practiced enough not to spray rounds everywhere. The best way to get yourself or an innocent bystander killed is try and play hero.
The issue here isn't really gun ownership. I personally think no urban space should allow handguns on anyone other than law enforcement, but that's beside the point. The infuriating thing about this is the nerve that these people are displaying in trying to determine federally what should be a local matter. Whether they're trying to make a political point for the people back home, or whether, despite the security measures available to members of Congress, they feel they need a handgun to protect themselves in their Georgetown palaces, these reps are trampling over the will of the 500,000 or so people who live in this city and don't have a vote in the House of Representatives. It's absurd and unacceptable, and I for one will sign up to demonstrate, long and loud, against this. You want to carry a million guns around your spot of godforsaken west texas desert, fine. But don't make my life more dangerous because you feel scared walking from your town car to your palisades brownstone, and you don't think Washingtonians can quite manage self-government. Jerks.
Furthermore, D.C. residents are still allowed to own rifles. So, protecting your house is perfectly possible under the current restrictions. I believe handguns were outlawed because of the possibility that they could be concealed.
And that law is doing a bang up job of keeping concealable weapons off the street. I'm sure the bulletproof KFC 2 blocks from my house is that way due to the muzzleloaders the DC criminal element love so much.
Screw Texas, let's give it back to Mexico, its rightful owners.
The federal gov't passing a law to help citizens uphold their constitutional rights that a state (or in this case "district") has decided to deny said citizenry? How dare they! Outrageous indeed. Why, it reminds me of when those federalies back in the 60s when they butted their noses into the business of the great state of Alabama and made them uphold the rights of those pesky negros over the expressed desires – and laws – of the majority of the most of the fine, upstanding (*cough cough* white) population. Outrageous!
Who would have thunk it, the DCist (and most of the commenters it seems) are closet Dixiecrats. Strom would be proud.
Riiiight. Because not being able to have a glock under your pillow is EXACTLY like being lynched.
Andrew,
District residents can already exercise their Second Amendment rights -- they can own rifles. The Second Amendment merely protects the right to bear arms, it does not say the right to bear handguns. These sorts of regulations are perfectly constitutional.
And I have no problem, in theory, with the federal government passing laws that infringe upon states' rights. That being said, when those laws are debated, they apply to the whole country, and those that vote for or against them are held accountable by their constituents. This case is different -- Congress wants to pass a law that would apply only to D.C., which has not voting representation to use against it.
Andrew,
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
What in there specifically states that you should be allowed to own whatever type of weapon you want? By your logic, the second amendment allows me to keep a nuclear warhead in my basement.
The Second Amendment merely protects the right to bear arms, it does not say the right to bear handguns.
A handgun is "arms." That's akin to saying the first amendment merely protects the right to free speech, but it does not say the right to talk about certain topics.
"Hey, you're free to talk all you want, just don't talk badly about the president. That'll put you in the big house for 10-20 long ones."
Actually, Texas rightful owner would be, well, Texas. They fought and won a war against Mexico already. And they tried that secession thing once, which didn't work out so well. Personally, I'd rather it be given back to the Apache, Kiowa, Comanche, and Caddo.
Yes, handguns are arms, but just as Congress passed an assault weapons ban in 1994, states and localities can pass certain laws regulating the use and ownership of guns. The Second Amendment says that government cannot infringe upon the right to "bear" arms, but that does not stop them from regulating said ownership (much the same as assembly and expression can be limited based on certain narrowly drawn concerns for public safety).
I'm sure D.C. was challenged when they first passed the law, and since it is still on the books, I am guessing it passed constitutional muster.
A handgun is "arms." That's akin to saying the first amendment merely protects the right to free speech, but it does not say the right to talk about certain topics.
Well, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. You can't say "fuck" on tv. So, there are limits to free speech.
Also, dirty bombs are "arms" but I don't want any in my neighborhood.
Andrew- perhaps you need to retake ConLaw. Freedom of speech does give more protection to certian topics than others. Political speech is the most protected, with varying degrees of protection allowed after that. Slander- not allowed. Threats against the president- not allowed. Speech that would endanger public safety- not allowed. The protection isn't blanket. It would be foolish to assume that the protection of the 2nd ammendment is blanket and subject to no restrictions.
It's also important textually to note that the 2nd amendment is the only one to include justification " A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state." The first amendment doesn't say "A investigative media being necessary to the honest of a government." And yet it has been firmly established that is the most protected speech.
It's really hard to argue that the second amendment doesn't explicitly provide for regulation.
The fact that you are able to compare the battle to ensure equal protection for brown-skinned people to the battle to pack a nine-milli in Deanwood is perfectly evocative of our warped sense of national morality. Stay tuned, also, for pro-life legislation from pro-war trolls.
Laws constantly make distinctions between things like hand guns and rifles. What the DC government did was create a law that didn't infringe upon the right of residents to bear arms (however stupid that right is) but does a little to protect it's citizenry. By criminalizing possession of a handgun, DC gave the police another tool to combat crime.
Still this is less about the actual law then it is about the continued practice of making laws for DC which has no voting representation. This also isn't about over-turning an unconstitutional law. It is about conservative lawmakers doing anything they can to push around the largely Democrat population of DC.
What in there specifically states that you should be allowed to own whatever type of weapon you want? By your logic, the second amendment allows me to keep a nuclear warhead in my basement.
By my logic? Wow, I just pointed out that the act of the Federal gub'ment poking its head into the business of the states to protect constitutionally protected rights has, historically, been seen as a positive thing.
Kudos though on the ridiculous analogy, though. Like you, I or anyone else on this board has the ways, means, money and ability to build or procure a nuclear weapon. Handguns fall into what is historically defined as “arms.” They were around when the founding fathers were; it’s a safe bet to think they had just that weaponry in mind when they drafted the second amendment. Equating a handgun with a nuclear weapon displays about the same level of histrionics as equating voting for Kerry with Treason.
Like you, I or anyone else on this board has the ways, means, money and ability to build or procure a nuclear weapon.
Discounting, of course, the 14 year old boyscout who built a working breeder reactor in his garden shed out of smoke detectors. Or the U Chicago students who did it as part of the 2004 UC scavenger hunt.
It's really hard to argue that the second amendment doesn't explicitly provide for regulation.
Well, I wasn't making that argument. The argument was about the appropriateness of the feds stepping in on local affairs. I’m not opposed to some sort of regulation of certain arms. DC’s handgun law, however, is overly restrictive considering it has been a massive failure. During its tenure DC has been the murder capital of the country and how many businesses have inch think bullet-proof plastic surrounding them (a’la Nathan’s bulletproof KFC)? Apparently the criminal element in this city has no problem procuring and using handguns. Private, law abiding citizens, however, get the shaft.
And I’m not just talking about home safety here either (a shotgun, which you can legally own in the District, although it’s a bitch of a process to go through, is a much better tool for home safety). I would like to competitively shoot a pistol, but I cannot own a hand gun with which to do so, even if I purchase and store the handgun outside of the District simply because I am a resident of DC.
DC’s handgun law is a “feel good” law. Make all the progressives feel warm and gooey inside; does dick all to solve the problem.
Anyhow...the main point is the hypocrisy of a Republican trying to impose their view of what's good for America on the citizens of the District. Like I said, agree with the law or not, it should be up to the citizens to debate that matter.
And again, I find it ridiculous that part of Hutchison's logic was that members of Congress have to protect themselves. I know that Frist has been known to wander aimlessly through Ward 8 at night, but other than him...
Discounting, of course, the 14 year old boyscout who built a working breeder reactor in his garden shed out of smoke detectors. Or the U Chicago students who did it as part of the 2004 UC scavenger hunt.
Yes, because the step from taking radioactive material to a fully functioning bomb is trivial. Hell, scrape enough smoke detectors and you can get a nice mound of radioactive material. That's trivial. Making a bomb... not so much.
Hey, that guy has taken my name! However, I wish Kansans and everybody else would get their nose out of DC's business. What about States' Rights, which Republicans seem to love so much? Why can't we govern ourselves?
Equating a handgun with a nuclear weapon displays about the same level of histrionics as equating voting for Kerry with Treason.
... and yet that doesn't stop such histrionics from being remarkably effective when it comes to drumming up public support for a policy like, say, overthrowing the government of a third-rate Stalinist backwater with a military budget 1/500th the size of our own. Or, for that matter, repealing the District's handgun ban because it will curb an already-declining homicide rate.
Then again--maybe if DC citizens are allowed to carry handguns, the District will finally be as safe as PGC. I know I wouldn't go to Oxon Hill without my Beretta.
Now we're getting somewhere. If you want to argue that the law is silly (when the border to MD or VA is no further than 10 miles away at any point, it is) or that it's ineffective (with one of the highest per-capita murder rates, it is) then you'll get no arguments from me. But if you want to argue that the law is unconstitutional or that removing it is the equivelent to federal mandates ending desegrigation, then I'm going to disagree with you.
Shotguns are considerably better- they solve the problems of overpenetration and aiming. But I'll disagree that it does nothing to prevent crime. It's mostly used as a pretext or multiplier crime- the MPD use it to get someone off the street that they cant convict otherwise, or to add years to a short sentance. That is a valid and useful law enforcement tool, but walks the knife edge of a balance between personal liberty and security. The citizens of DC overwhelmingly support it. Not nessicarily my choice, but I'll respect it, rather than posess my handgun illegally.
However, I wish Kansans and everybody else would get their nose out of DC's business. What about States' Rights, which Republicans seem to love so much? Why can't we govern ourselves?
Actually, for the most part I agree. I'm no fan of an overly powerful Federal government. I usually err on the side of “stay the hell out of the state’s business.” However, there are times and places for a Federal government to poke its head into the affairs of the states, issues of constitutionality being one of them (which was the reasoning behind my first post).
Funny you bring up Kansas though. I wonder how much the "Leave DC alone" crowd are willing to leave Kansas alone if they pass a "We won't teach evolution, but we will teach 'intelligent design'" law there. I suspect the hypocrisy meter would be redlining.
I wonder how much the "Leave DC alone" crowd are willing to leave Kansas alone if they pass a "We won't teach evolution, but we will teach 'intelligent design'" law there. I suspect the hypocrisy meter would be redlining.
The point? There are things I would liked to see about changes everywhere. It's not as if we have an apparatus for changing Kansas law (unlike the vice versa), so it's hardly parallel.
Funny you bring up Kansas though. I wonder how much the "Leave DC alone" crowd are willing to leave Kansas alone if they pass a "We won't teach evolution, but we will teach 'intelligent design'" law there. I suspect the hypocrisy meter would be redlining.
Hell, if they want to do that, let them. Means I'd never have to compete for a job with another person with a Kansas education. It'd be a great way to take an entire state out of competition for good college spots too.
Incidentally, it would be hard for them not to teach evolution. If they wanted to add inteligent design to the course it'd be dumb, but I have a hard time seeing how the federal government could legitimatley prevent it. If they wanted to completely remove teaching evolution, I'd imagine they'd get a NCLB test score smackdown though.
And secondly, "nuclear" weaponry doesn't, by definition, include only fission or fusion based explosive devices. A breeder reactor couldn't make fissionable material, but it'd be a nice source for a dirty bomb- which is much more scary based on it's potential likelyhood.
But if you want to argue that the law is unconstitutional or that removing it is the equivalent to federal mandates ending desegregation, then I'm going to disagree with you.
I never said they were equivalent, simply that there’s precedent for federal interference. If its terrible for the simple act of the federal gov’t butting into the affairs of a state, especially with respect to constitutional matters (and since 2nd amendment issues have in no way, shape or form been definitively settled it’s still a active, valid topic for the courts, states and congress to argue about) then its was just as terrible for the federal gov’t to but its head into the affairs of Alabama in the 60s. Remember, this is what the parent blog post’s beef has been. All of the second amendment specific arguing is orthogonal to that argument.
But I'll disagree that it does nothing to prevent crime. It's mostly used as a pretext or multiplier crime- the MPD use it to get someone off the street that they cant convict otherwise, or to add years to a short sentence.
This can be done without banning handguns. Other states have laws where the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime jacks up sentences. Plus, if you have handgun registration (not my favorite thing, but better than a ban) then you can still get a criminal off the street that you couldn’t convict otherwise.
"I never said they were equivalent, simply that there’s precedent for federal interference. If its terrible for the simple act of the federal gov’t butting into the affairs of a state, especially with respect to constitutional matters (and since 2nd amendment issues have in no way, shape or form been definitively settled it’s still a active, valid topic for the courts, states and congress to argue about) then its was just as terrible for the federal gov’t to but its head into the affairs of Alabama in the 60s. Remember, this is what the parent blog post’s beef has been. All of the second amendment specific arguing is orthogonal to that argument."
The key difference is Alabama had a voice in Congress. It also had all of the rights of a state. DC has no serious representation in Congress.
In Indiana you can't buy cold beer at a grocery store. Warm beer only. Always hated that when I lived there.
Taxation without refrigeration!
if that b**ch feels so threatened in DC then she should move the f**k back to texas. shes not a resident, shes a tourist with a two/four year lease. who do these people think they are?
"The rights guaranteed by the Constitution do not end at the borders of Washington, D.C"
no sh*T. so where is the representaion that goes along with our taxation?
As a 51 year old black man I need protection from white people. Will the guns be just white people? Like the drugs?
Will black men be allowed to have guns in protection against white racism?
How will Miss Hutchin's 'white priviledge' affect my black life?
Ms Hutchins, as a black I'm sick and tired of other people making decisions that affect my life.
Ironically, KBH is a huge proponent of state's rights. She wants to run for governor of Texas next year, but the Republican Party back home thinks she's too moderate.
As a result, those of us living in DC, without our own powerful representatives in Congress to protect us, will have to contend with more guns in the streets.
But as long as the senator has her bona fides back in the Lone Star State, who cares about a bunch of crime victims in DC?
I wonder how much the "Leave DC alone" crowd are willing to leave Kansas alone if they pass a "We won't teach evolution, but we will teach 'intelligent design'" law there. I suspect the hypocrisy meter would be redlining.
I challenge you to find one instance where anyone has said that Kansas should be forced to teach evolution by the federal government. I am sure you will find many instances instead of people stating that teaching biblism will render Kansas children unable to compete or form a coherent sentence, but nothing about requiring them to teach evolution because the rest of us think so.
Oh, and Timothy McVeigh could build a bomb big enough to take out most of a building, what's to prevent someone a bit smarter from coupling a device with nuclear material on U street?
Honestly, you're pulling the same garbage that conservative talk radio does - asking a question no one else did and giving an answer no one else supplied and attributing it to those damn liberals in Congress or whomever.
Point is, DC doesnt want legal handguns guns on the street. right or wrong, ignorant or intelligent, we dont want them as a city.
until that desire changes, we should be free to make that choice.
Washington DC has an absolute prohibition on the private posession of firearms since 1976, and a murder rate of between 30 and 60 per 100,000 population.
Neighboring Montgomery County, with minimal gun control, has a murder rate of about 3 per 100,000, the same as Singapore.
So the answer to the question "why are people killing each other" clearly is NOT "the availability of guns".
That said, I'm not sure which bothers me more, the stupidity of the DC law or the arrogance of Congress.
FrmrHoosier -
You can't buy cold beer at Montgomery County's dispensaries, either. More stupid laws.
Lets see handguns are for shooting people and or other things at close range, so by encouraging people to own hand guns… eureka! We can reduce handgun deaths and injuries by increasing handgun ownership, which will doubtlessly instill a Hammurabi like ethos of an eye for an eye. Now I get it. Although I bet that gun toting bitch from Texas Sen. Hutchison is pretty tight lipped about the whole unconstitutional taxation with out representation thing. Which by the same gun logic above should lead to a mass federal tax refusal by residents of DC. Sweet!