June 13, 2005
KBH's Dangerous Digs
It was a mere three weeks ago that Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) introduced the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act, a law which if passed would dismantle the District's three-decades old strict prohibition on the ownership of handguns and limit the ability of the City Council to pass laws regulating the ownership or sale of guns. To date, the law has attracted 31 co-sponsors in the Senate, while its counterpart in the House, introduced again by Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.), has 157 co-sponsors.
While announcing the introduction of the legislation, Sen. Hutchison both complained of the unconstitutionality of the District's gun laws and of her inability to store her own Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum revolver, pictured here, by her bedside in her D.C. home (though she is legally allowed to own a rifle or shotgun, as 101,000 District residents do). She stated:
I have always had a handgun in the drawer next to my bed, and I would certainly again have one if it were legal in D.C. I think every woman in the District of Columbia should have the ability to protect herself in her home.By the sound of her pleas, one would think Sen. Hutchison was living in a neighborhood beset by waves of violence and insecurity. Was owning and storing a loaded weapon her only option to defend her homestead? Or was this discourse merely more cynicism in an already cynical ploy to shore up her conservative bases before a rumored run for the governorship in gun-friendly Texas?
DCist did a little digging, and after the jump are our findings.
Many senators rent apartments or townhouses in the District or Virginia, but many of those that have served longest have become homeowners in the District.
For instance, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) resides on Whitehaven Street near the Naval Observatory, while across the Normanstone greenbelt, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Ten.) lives in a stately residence on Woodland Drive in Massachusetts Avenue Heights. During the 2004 election cycle election, we had the first true hometown ticket, with Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and then-Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) living one street away from one another in Georgetown.
According to a recent Post article, 44 of the Senate's 100 members own homes in D.C., 22 of which were recently caught exploiting a city law that allows for breaks and exemptions on property taxes for residents who own homes (but not for homeowners that claim residency in another state, as many senators do). Sen. Hutchison was one of these twenty-two, alongside twelve Republicans, eight Democrats, and one independent. This hint allowed DCist to explore District home ownership records, giving an interesting insight into the neighborhood Sen. Hutchison calls home.
Hutchison owns and lives in a stately Capitol Hill rowhouse in the Stanton Park neighborhood of Capitol Hill, at left, half-way between Maryland Avenue NE and Massachusetts Avenue NE and a stones-throw away from the U.S. Capitol, the Supreme Court, and Senate office buildings. Trees line the streets, couples walk their dogs and frequent nearby outdoors cafes and bars, and rowhouse after rowhouse speak to a neighborhood steeped in Washington history and closely linked to the city's most prominent political players and nearby Congress.
While the house sits in Ward 6 -- a sprawling and diverse area encompassing all of Southwest, all of Southeast west of the Anacostia River, and parts of Northeast south of Florida Avenue and Benning Road -- the demographics of Hutchison's neighborhood are closer to those of affluent Wards 2 and 3 than they are parts of Southeast and Northeast less than a mile away.
Ward 6 is 31.6 percent white and 62.6 African-American. Hutchison's house is located in a census tract where black becomes white -- 88 percent of her neighbors are white, .07 percent African-American. Eighty-six percent are college grads (compared to the 43.6 percent average for Ward 6), enjoy a per capita income of $55,797 and median household income of $58,274 (roughly $14,000 and $30,000 higher than those of Ward 6, respectively), and suffer from a poverty level that barely exceeds 3 percent (while the percentage of Ward 6 residents living below the poverty line surpasses 20 percent). The median value of single-family owner-occupied housing units in her tract is $311,000, substantially higher than the Ward 6 average of $169,802. Hutchison's home was recently valued at $607,670.00.
Hutchison's abode falls within Police Service Area (PSA) 102, pictured at right, an area that runs from East Capitol Street up Second Street on its western-most corner and extends as far north as Florida Avenue NE, moves east along Florida and meets Maryland Avenue NE at 14th Street NE, and is contained on its east flank by Ninth Street NE up until Maryland, where it cuts up towards Florida. PSA 102, though including less affluent areas north of H Street NE, is relatively safe, and is fast becoming much safer. During the first six months of 2004, the Metropolitan Police Department logged 634 criminal incidents, among those two homicides, six sexual assaults, seventy-seven robberies, one-hundred thirty-one burglaries, and one-hundred forty-two stolen cars. In the same period this year, the total number of incidents stands at 395 -- a 62 percent reduction. No homicides have yet occured, only one sexual assault has been reported, and robberies, burglaries, and stolen cars have decreased on average by 48 percent. Additionally, Hutchison's house is within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police Department and the U.S. Capitol Police --two distinct police forces that are well-armed, well-trained, and quick to respond to instances of crime in the area.
In promoting the legislation, Sen. Hutchison invoked the safety of the city's residents to garner support and sympathy. While there is an argument to be made that the city may well be safer if its residents are allowed to protect themselves and their properties with handguns, it is less convincing when made by a Senator whose primary residence in the District is in an affluent and generally crime-free neighborhood.
None of this is to say Sen. Hutchison cannot make this argument -- if she feels safer with a gun at her side, few demographic or criminal statistics will make her think otherwise. But residents whose neighborhoods are often beset by waves of violence and criminal activity may have a stronger argument to be made in this regard, though few have done so to date, and even fewer have garnered the support necessary to impulse a change in local gun laws.
Gun ownership in the District is clearly a debatable topic. Early last year Sandra Seegars, a member the D.C. Taxicab Commission, proposed that the city allow taxicab drivers to carry guns for self-defense, a move that was followed by a lawsuit accusing District officials of violating the Second Amendment rights of city residents. Late last year, as a similar measure was debated in the halls of Congress, the Post highlighted a city resident living in a dangerous area of Northeast who admitted sympathy with the proposal, conceding:
I might feel safer with a gun in the house. So, yes, you ask me, a gun would make me feel safer. It's what they were invented for.And it was only two weeks ago the Washington City Paper featured the Rev. Douglas E. Moore, a 76 year-old gun-rights activist and District resident that has spent the better part of three decades opposing the city's gun laws.
One thing is District residents arguing for an end to the handgun ban. But is that argument best made by a senator seeking to fend off non-existent intruders from within the safety of her Capitol Hill home? Probably not.
|
So KBH would feel safer with a gun by her head. I live less than a mile from her, and I would feel less safe if she had a gun. Whose safety issues do we cater to? (Hint: although I've lived here longer than she has, she has an actual vote in the Senate, which DC residents don't have).
Having resided in this neighborhood I would like to make the point that it is not nearly as affluent or as safe-feeling as Georgetown or other areas of Northwest. Two blocks away from Stanton Park at the corner of 8th and Maryland is a 7-Eleven that is constantly patroled both by police and (ironically) panhandlers. Futher up Maryland and further into NE the areas drops off in economic status pretty quickly and as you get closer to H St. it gets a lot rougher still. The gentrification bubble continues to grow, but certainly Stanton Park is closer to being on its edge than it its center.
While I lived near Stanton Park one of my friends had his bicycle stolen from out front porch while another almost literally watched as thieves drove off with his uncle's minivan. Earlier last year there were also reports of a stabbing and other muggins closer in towards Union Station.
Please don't misunderstand me: I loved the neighborhood and it's proximity to Union Station, the Capitol, and Eastern Market. But it's not Georgetown and it's not Woodley Park.
Futher, I will still stand solidly with those criticizing KBH's gun bill. Despite what I just wrote I do not think having a gun in my house would have made me safer. Further, it is an insult to the concept of home rule to suggest that the US Senate has any business legislating on this issue. DC has its democratically elected representatives who will more appropriately handle its citizens preferences.
Thanks.
almost literally watched as thieves drove off with his uncle's minivan
how does one "almost literally" watch?
My friends rented a house on D around the corner from that 7-11 for a year, so I spent on average 3 days a week there. It's not quite Kalorama or Cleveland Park in terms of affluence and safety, but it's also not a particularly dangerous area.
The proximity to Union and the substation in the 7-11 make the police presence strong. I don't think I've ever felt unsafe while there.
I do however fear insane Texas Senators with guns.
I do however fear insane Texas Senators with guns.
Yet no one seems to fear the 100K shotgun & rifle owners in the District. Interesting.
101,000 rifle and shotgun owners? Where does that statistic come from? That would be 1 in 5 DC residents, and that's including the children. I'd have to see some real evidence before I'll believe that one.
The stat on the 101,000 registered District residents that own rifles or shotguns comes from a Washington Post I linked to towards the end of the post. I use it because the Post is not know to throw out stats they can't defend.
As for Stanton Park, I live around there and admit it is no Woodley Park or Palisades. Nonetheless, KBH hardly lives in Anacostia, much less can she claim that her block isn't well guarded -- as I mentioned, both the MPD and the U.S. Capitol Police have jurisdiction of that stretch of the neighborhood.
Finally, the only danger with handguns, in my estimation, is that they can be concealed.
Whoa. Nice point, KCinDC. There may be 100k rifles and shotguns in DC, but they aren't owned by 20% of DC's population.
There are muggins around Union Station? Where? Muggins are so cute! With their furry little noses. Oh, man.
I support allowing DC residents to own handguns as long as they are registered. However, KBH is not interested in this, as mentioned above this is mere posturing to help solidify her support among the right-wing base which has traditionally been skeptical of her.
Dorkfish -- from the NRA:
"All firearms must be unloaded and disassembled or locked with a trigger lock except when kept at a registrant`s place of business or while being used for lawful 'recreational' purposes."
So rifles and shotguns are legal, but have to be kept at home. Hence, there isn't much reason to fear them.
You could argue that folks could easily break the law, but of course that's true of the handgun ban as well. If any type of firearm is outside of the house the cops have reason to arrest its owner. Realistically this is probably most relevant for when folks get pulled over. In that scenario a license is no excuse.
Now that KBH has stopped claiming the "Homestead Deduction" on her property (and paid it back?) maybe we should cut her a little slack.
Well, has she paid it back or not? Even if she has, if the punishment for being caught stealing is simply paying the money back, and we're not even allowed to stigmatize the thief, what's the risk in stealing?
The WaPo article says "More than 101,000 residents have legally registered rifles and shotguns over the decades". So the number seems to be the number of people who have ever registered a rifle or shotgun in DC, not the number of current citizens with registered guns. Not sure how many decades we're talking about, but presumably most of those people have died, moved away, or passed their guns on to others.
I'm sorry, I usually love this site, but this is just about the stupidest thing I've ever seen. You grant that her arguments have merit but that you don't like it that she's the on making the arguments? That's the most ridiculous ad hominem I've ever heard: she lives in a safe neighborhood and therefore her opinions on gun control have no value? That's absurd, sloppy, and offensive to your readers, who expect MUCH MUCH better of this site.
Say what you will about how Senators treat their adopted home in DC. Say what you will about gun control. Say what you will about DC's status as an unrepresented district. But for god's sake, at least recognize that in the real world in 2005, KBH is someone who has the power to change laws in the District. If you want to argue with her about it, argue the merits, not what friggin neighborhood she lives in.
Anna,
It's good to see that you have a strong opinion on the content of my post. I, obviously, disagree. Here's why:
KBH presented the legislation as two things: (1) A personal safety issue, and (2) A constitutional issue, in that order. I decided to dig into the personal safety issue, for one reason: it is the ultimate cynicism to speak of personal safety when you live in such a safe neighborhood. This isn't to say she can't be concerned for her well-being, much less that of District residents generally, but if this argument is to hold any water, it would have to be made by a full-time resident that lives in realistic fear of personal violence or crime. When the Post decided to explore this issue, they went to a dangerous neighborhood to interview residents, not Georgetown. Why? Because the people who would have the best argument for or against gun ownership in this city, on a practical level, are those that would realistically believe they would need one for self-defense. KBH does not fall into this category, and thus I believe it makes her argument a purely political ploy to score points with the gun lobby. Notice how Mark Edward Souder, who has introduced this legislation year after year in the House, has never, to my knowledge, made it about him and his protection -- he has highlighted the constitutional issue and the personal safety issue, but only in direct reference to District residents. Had KBH done the same, I would have had much less grief with her legislation.
As for absurd, maybe. Sloppy? I think not -- all the research is solid. If you think differently, feel free to fact-check it. Offensive to readers? Possibly. But no more offensive that KBH's shameless admission that she is pushing this legislation so she can once again own and store a handgun in her house. If she wants a gun, she has two choices in my estimation: (1) Go back to Texas, or (2) Try and be honest about her intentions and actually talk to District residents that would be directly impacted by a reversal of the city's gun laws.
Martin
With all due respect, Kay Bailey Hutchison HERSELF abandoned the "argue the merits" path from square one when she laid out her "I gots to have one by my bedside at all times for protection argument." She opened the door to that line of argument, specifically referring to her home and protection. So, by definition, this is not an "ad hominem" (please learn to use that term correctly, btw--"ad hominem" means "marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made"). Additionally, I agree that the argument is vastly stupid--but you can blame this squarely on KBH for engaging in this stupidity in the first place. If she wanted a debate on the merits, there are plenty of worthy lines of reasoning she could have chosen to advance. In this case, she opened with cheap theatrics, and DCist decided to play tennis with the ball she put in play.
I'm not saying your fact-checking was sloppy, just your logic. I don't think anyone thinks KBH wants to undo DC's gun laws so that she alone can reap the benefits. Giving a speech in which she cites her own peace of mind as a reult of a given policy by no means indicates that it's ONLY her own peace of mind she's worried about.
"I think every woman in the District of Columbia should have the ability to protect herself in her home."
Those are her words. She uses herself as an example. I fail to see what's wrong with that. I too am welathy and live in a safe neighborhood, and I too would prefer it if I could keep a handgun in my home for personal protection, and I too think that all the other women (and men) in the District should be able to protect themselves as well. Is my opinion discounted because I'm slightly less likely to be the victim of a violent crime in my home than someone else? Because that's what you seem to be saying.
"If this argument is to hold any water, it would have to be made by a full-time resident that lives in realistic fear of personal violence or crime."
That's just preposterous. You don't think part-time residents should get to protect themselves in their homes? You don't think that for someone who doesn't come from DC, just being in the on-again off-again murder capital might create a "realistic fear of personal ciolence or crime?" With less respect than might be due, who on earth are you to tell women in their homes late at night what they should and should not be afraid of?
Anna,
Here is exactly what KBH said when she first introduced the legislation:
"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."
In later commentary, she mentioned the dismay she felt when she had to take her .357 back to Houston. So, does the legislation seem any more self-serving now? Does anyone actually believe that any member of Congress, especially a Senator, would ever, ever, ever need to have a gun for self-defense in this city?
I fully believe that all District residents have a say in this matter. I do not deny that you have a right to defend yourself. Then again, those who can best testify to the need for guns are those who would be most likely to need them in self-defense -- probably not residents of Cathedral Heights or the tonier parts of the Hill, to name a few. This isn't to say that those parts of town don't suffer from crime, but it is to say that instances of crime are much lower and do not often include homicide and other violent crimes on often finds east of the river.
Plus, if you really want to defend yourself, you are legally entitled to a rifle or shotgun. To be perfectly honest, any intruder would think twice much more quickly at the sound of a cocked shotgun than a measley handgun.
Martin
I initially assumed Anna was a staffer for KBH who somehow wandered onto DCist...until she claimed she was "wealthy."
The fact that KBH did not have a single citizen stand by her side at her press conference speaks volumes. I highly doubt KBH would even know how to get in touch with a DC citizens group is she wanted to.
The truth of the matter is that MOST DC residents support and appreciate the gun ban. And just because KBH has the power to stomp out our wishes doesn't mean she's right to do so.
And, Anna, in case you haven't checked...DC's murder rate is almost at a 20 year low. How could a repeal of the ban possibly further this drop???
See? "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."
That's cheap theatrics. The congressional membership hardly constitutes "many". As a population, they are negligible. They are also protected by the greatest security agency in the history of the world, so the image of our Congresspersons, laying alone and vulnerable at home is retardofabulous.
Now, many people in the District ARE vulnerable, and would probably rationally aver to wanting the protection of a handgun. Let KBH build an actual argument that's not numbskulled and no one's going to spend any time reflecting on her personal living arrangements.
It's also a bad public policy argument because most citizens recognize members of Congress as interchangeable/expendable. It's not like we'll run out of them.
Handguns, by the way Martin, would probably be more of a danger to the intruder than a shotgun or rifle, as they are specifically designed to kill human beings, or, failing that, knock them backward a great distance.
Since no one has decided to address any of the arguments I made, I'll repeat them. Just as I happen to think it's absurd that KBH and her Congressional buddies get to rule DC like it's some grand petri-dish experiment, I think it's utterly absurd that some dudes on a blog think they're the best judge of how safe people should feel in their homes.
KBH happens to feel safer when she has a gun in her home. She was upset when she couldn't have a gun in her home here, because her home state happens to think that citizens should be allowed to protect themselves. That's all I take from her statement. I don't care how many nights a week they sleep here or in what neighborhood or whether the District's murder rate is zero: all people should be able to have handguns in their homes to protect themselves. The Constitution is not in the business of distinguishing which citizens need rights and which ones don't. It provides them equally.
If you want to read more into her statement because you happen to personally dislike her or her politics, or, as seems to be the case, you are an urban-hipster fourth-wave gentrifier in an "unsafe neighborhood" who dabbles in reverse snobbery, please at least be honest about that. I wouldn't have objected to this post if there had been any element of intellectual honesty to it, even if I'd disagreed with it.
We do not send representatives to Congress so they can legislate their personal safety. So long as the issue is: What we, as a nation, need to do to protect Kay Bailey Hutchison, I'm afraid she deserves the mockery. Her argument belies her political illiteracy. What she needs to do is come at the issue from the standpoint of a constituency.
It's a simple balancing of interests. My tax dollars and I had a conversation, and we all agreed that we're not interested in protecting KBH. My tax dollars say: "If she's not a lackwit, she'll come up with a different way of making this point." I'm no rigid gun control fanatic--I'd like to hear some sound public policy. But I reserve the right to train my representatives away from their addiction to cheap melodrama and egotism. KBH isn't Marie Antoinette, she's a public servant.
Anna,
If you want intellectual honesty, I refer you to comments made by KBH's spokesperson yesterday which further verify my initial point, via today's Post:
"Hutchison spokesman Chris Paulitz said the senator's motives are personal, not political. 'Senator Hutchison spends a lot of time in Washington, D.C., when we are in session. She wants to be able to protect herself. She wants women to able to protect themselves. She wants people in crime-ridden areas to not have to rely on other people to protect themselves,' he said."
KBH's motives are personal, not political, straight from the mouth of her spokesperson.
You're right, though -- she has every right to be and feel protected. Unfortunately, that right is balanced against the rights and desires of the city's legitimate residents, those who are responsible for the fate and laws of their chosen place of residence. If they feel so strongly in opposition to the gun laws, they will act against them. It's called democracy. KBH's selfish legislation seeks to undermine everyone else's sense of safety and the city's sense of home rule so she can feel better protected in her home, which, as I noted, is in an affluent and relatively crime-free area of town.
As for the constitutionality of the city's gun laws, I can only say this -- they have survived the courts. As such, I can only think that enough of this country's ultimate arbiters of judicial matters believe that the District is entitled to restrict the ownership of one type of gun. Residents are still allowed to keep rifles and shotguns, thus allowing them to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
This has been a fruitful debate, but I cannot see why you are so dedicated to defending a shameless proposal made for selfish reasons. I applaud your consistency in doing so, though.
Martin
"'Senator Hutchison spends a lot of time in Washington, D.C., when we are in session. She wants to be able to protect herself. She wants women to able to protect themselves. She wants people in crime-ridden areas to not have to rely on other people to protect themselves,' he said."
Um, yeah, she sounds so selfish!
Anna-
You naive little thing. KBH doesn't give a damn about DC women. The woman is trying to advance her narrow political agenda at the expense of REAL DC residents.
As was pointed out at an anti-KBH press conference yesterday, Dallas and Houston have crime rates just as high or higher than DC's. KBH needs to butt out of our city laws and focus on her own damn state's problems.
Anna,
It is selfish. Mark Edward Souder, who introduces the same legislation on the House side year after year, has never made the issue about himself and his protection. While I disagree with his motivations, at least they are defensible -- he argues that for the sake of the Second Amendment and the safety of District residents, the gun laws should be repealed. KBH made District residents an afterthought, second only to her protection and that of other members of Congress. Why is she trying so hard to impose a law upon District residents simply so she can claim to feel a little safer in her already safe home?
On another point: What's your take on the legislation as a whole? Especially the provisions that would ban the City Council from ever passing laws regarding ownership, registration, or safety of personal handguns? Don't you agree that it's one thing to repeal a city's laws, and a whole other to deny them the ability to impose regulations thereafter?
This is politics, plain and simple. Throwing in the safety of District residents is simply a convinient way not to seem so.
Martin