Most of you are aware, or have heard something about the recent decision by the Supreme Court (District of Columbia v. Heller) to end Washington DC's 32 year handgun ban. While larger and longer guns were previously allowed, now guns of all types except those specifically regulated under law (basically legalizing anything that is not completely automatic). This decision has been controversial and hotly debated. It doesn't help that many of the people involved in pushing the Heller court case to the highest level were people completely unrelated to DC itself. All of this aside, DC is in the process of crafting new ordinances on the carrying and use of firearms in the nation's capital. The Supreme Court has given them a predefined period to comply completely with the new ruling. Currently the city is following a set of 'emergency' laws set in place until longer term legislation could be crafted.
HOWEVER, currently in committee in the House of Representatives is a proposition by a Democratic representative from Mississippi (and others) which would leave gun ownership and normal oversight completely open in DC, and out of the control of the DC government itself. It abolishes the need to register guns at all in the District of Columbia and sets up interstate gun commerce, allowing DC residents to buy guns in Maryland or Virginia. Every other state in the Union does NOT allow guns to be purchased out of state by individual residents. When this proposal was brought before the committee it was revealed that the version of the bill released to the press had different language from the bill actually before the House. This difference in language greatly changed the meaning of the clauses involving public display of firearms. It would legalize the carrying of a loaded semi-automatic rifle in the District of Columbia. Anywhere. While the NRA has claimed this is just scare tactics, trying to prevent people from defending themselves, the House Committee on Oversight and Governmental Reform admits that this is actually true based on the current language of the bill. It would also eliminate the current age requirement and five year waiting period for those who have been voluntarily to committed for psychiatric treatment
Most disturbing for the long run is implication to what would traditionally called "states rights." DC has a long history of a contentious relationship with the lawmakers who just occasionally live here. As one commentator said, " How the congressfolk [. . .] justify laughing in the general direction of lawmaking by duly elected local officials may seem hard to fathom, but hey, that's what Congress does for its entertainment. [. . .] whenever members of Congress want to send a message back home by taking a tough stand that won't have the slightest impact on their own constituents, they play with the District." While this might seem unnecessarily bitter, its also hard to understand a country built on voting rights for all, one who fueled the Revolution on cries of 'No Taxation without Representation,' and yet has denied this right to the two million people living in it's own capital city. AND whenever a bill crafted to give the non-voting representatives of DC to the House an actual vote comes before Congress, it is shot down. How can giving people a vote in the future of the country be a bad idea? Are DC residents some how less worthy than the rest of the country.
Ok, so I don't think that is necessarily the thinking of the rest of the country in terms of DC voting rights, but it is stressful issue in DC politics. Should the a body of people specifically not from a place be allowed to legislate for that place? Shouldn't the place be able to create it's own laws, within the confines of federal statute and jurisprudence?
Because I am all about being balanced, below are some statements from both the Washington Post and the NRA website about the legislation. These are direct quotes followed with links to their sources. Listed first is a letter composed by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
This site allows you to change the letter composed and sends it automatically to your Senators and Congressional representatives based on your address. Consider signing it after your own careful research. Here are some places to start. (Above are links to the Supreme Court decision as well as the new proposal before congress).From the Washington Post
Gun Bill Dangerous, D.C. Chief Tells HouseEditorials
"The bill on the Hill would completely undermine Fenty's efforts, forcing the city to allow military-style semi-automatic weapons, preventing the city from discouraging gun ownership, even repealing the city's ban on gun ownership by those under the age of 21. There would be no gun registration rules, no requirements that guns be kept locked up." Wa. Post
City in the Crossfire: A House panel considers gutting gun restraints, home rule and basic public safety in the District.
The House's Stickup: Democrats agree to consider legislation stripping the District of the right to regulate guns.
NRA written support of new legislation : Support Effort to Restore the Second Amendment Rights of D.C. Residents
This critical legislation overturns D.C.'s recently enacted emergency laws [. . .]Repeal the District's ban on semi-automatic handguns. [. . .] Reform the current D.C. registration system that requires multiple visits to police headquarters; ballistics testing; passing a written test on D.C. gun laws; fingerprinting; and limiting registration to one handgun per 90 days. The current system is unduly burdensome and serves as a vehicle for even more onerous restrictions; and Create a limited exemption to the federal ban on interstate handgun sales by allowing D.C. residents to purchase handguns in Virginia and Maryland.
No comments:
Post a Comment