February 8, 2008
Another Hero of the Day: Sen. John Warner
The Post is reporting today that a majority of the members of Congress have filed a brief before the Supreme Court arguing that the District's gun ban should be ruled unconstitutional. All told, 305 members -- 55 in the Senate; 250 in the House, 68 of them Democrats -- signed on to the brief, which was pushed by famous gun enthusiast Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.). The brief argues:
...historically Congress has interpreted the Second Amendment as recognizing the right of law-abiding individuals to keep and bear arms. This Court should give due deference to the repeated findings over different historical epochs by Congress, a co-equal branch of government, that the Amendment guarantees the personal right to possess firearms. The District’s prohibitions on mere possession by law-abiding persons of handguns in the home and having usable firearms there are unreasonable per se.One of the few Republicans in the Senate not to sign, though, was Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), who withheld his signature because he believes that this is a matter of home rule:
"While the District of Columbia is not a state, it operates under a framework of laws enacted by the Congress which gives its elected leaders the duty to advocate the positions and interest of its citizens before the federal judiciary."While we've struggled with whether or not the District's restrictive gun laws should be re-tooled, we've consistently opposed Congress's repeated attempts to impose or overturn local laws. And when it comes to the city's gun laws, they've made overturning them an almost annual tradition. (Let's not forget that last year's House vote on D.C. voting rights legislation was held up when a crafty Texas representative tried to insert language nullifying the city's gun laws.)
Of course, this is an issue of national importance, so there are bound to be a number of concurring and opposing opinions from across the country (Maryland and Virginia have taken opposite sides in the Supreme Court battle; SCOTUSBlog has a list of recently filed amicus briefs). Regardless, we appreciate Sen. Warner's sound reasoning in choosing not to sign on to Sen. Hutchison's brief. It's rare that someone in Congress of Warner's pedigree and standing so clearly lays out one of the fundamental issues here -- home rule.
|
I'm of mixed opinions on the gun ban, but this nasty little action by Congress is just pissing all over 500,000 taxpaying citizens.
Warner can follow his conscience - he ain't running for reelection.
This little action is not pissing on anyone. It's one thing to use federal law to overturn the gun ban. That's annoying.
But this is a legal brief arguing that the gun ban is unconstitutional. Which is fine because a lot of people think it is.
If someone files a brief arguing that South Dakota's restrictive abortion laws are unconstitutional, it's because they think those laws are unconstitutional. Not because that person wants to mess around with South Dakota's ability to create and enforce state laws.
So, federal legislation trying to overturn the ban: bad.
Filing a brief to the SCOTUS: good.
Rusty is a douche.
Pats suck.
Capital City Service, ya bas!
How many of the congressmen who signed on to that brief are lawyers? And they're arguing that the SCOTUS should defer to Congress in its interpretation of the __Constitution__? That's a new one.
Amen, Martin!
If DC wants to institute speech codes or punish its criminals in cruel and unusual ways, those pesky Congress-folk should keep their noses out of the courts when those regulations get challenged... we clearly need this type of independence from pesky things like federal law...
I agree with Rusty. You're mixing up issues, and I really doubt you'd be mixing up the issues if you agreed with the policy argument being put forward by the senators (like say if they sent a brief in support of the ban). The Supreme Court's ruling will likely affect all jurisdictions. A lot of groups want to have their say on this issue. That one of those groups is a bunch of lawmakers doesn't really make it a personal insult to the District.
I agree there does seem to be a logical disconnect in having the legislature lobby the judiciary. But then again, that logical disconnect is just as present with protesters directing their attention to the court. Do they really want the court to be influenced by the public?
Regardless of that, thinking that the home rule question is a fundamental issue to this just goes to show how myopic you've become.
Hey, DCist, I doubt many of your readers come here for your trenchant political commentary, so how about sticking to what you know? This is some of the most vapid analysis I've ever seen on this issue.
Home rule is a good thing and Congress should generally butt out of District affairs, but just because John Warner is a "hero" in your eyes doesn't make Hutchison and company any less justified in their filing this brief. As long as the District continues to have the unique constitutional standing that it has, congressional officiousness is going to be a way of life. Deal with it.
And I won't even get into the issue of how DC's insanely restrictive gun-control laws have paralleled the city's rise as one of the nation's murder capitals. Someone please square that circle for me.
I suppose a gun ban in DC is as unconstitutional as taxation without representation? Make up your f-ing minds already! Do we, or do we not, care about constitutional rights?
CHC, if you can find the spot in the Constitution where non-states are granted representation, I'd be awfully impressed.
See, this is what happens when you let a bunch of Freemasons and deists write your laws, and none of them is a decent editor. Talk about a freaking run-on sentence. I coulda trimmed that down to a lean 25 words; just ding that whole "Piracies and Felonies" bit.
When you get halfassed sort-of "home rule" where you don't get real voting representation, you're kinda stuck with a bunch of honkey lawyers f**king with your s**t. I'm just glad "Diaperman" David Vitter isn't legislating mandatory Budreau's Butt Cream use for DC resident's tender hineys.
Just to clarify, I'm not knocking the fact that Congress is filing this brief. I actually understand why they might; after all, the case will have national impact.
My issue is that with the history Congress has had on this particular issue, I don't much trust their motivations. And that's why I feel Warner took a brave stand. While he's surely pro-gun rights and possibly personally opposed to the District's gun ban, he seems to have seen through Hutchison's attempt as an attack on home rule. (And given her history on this issue and on D.C. home rule generally, it's not that hard to believe.)
And as an FYI, I'm leaning towards getting rid of the gun ban. I just wish Fenty had chosen not to appeal and asked the courts for an injunction of sorts to give the city time to consider what changes to make. I think the Supreme Court gamble is a bad one, especially since it leaves the nation's gun laws at the mercy of the most extreme example (our own).
Malcontent,
Notice that I don't take any particular issue with the filing of the brief itself. I do take issue with the motivation of those who did push it, simply because they have shown total disregard for D.C. home rule over the years. I appreciate Warner's opinion not because I necessarily disagree with the content of the brief, but because I just can't stand Sen. Hutchison's take on anything District-related.
Well, it's not as if an amicus brief has as much of an impact on home rule as, say, report language in appropriations bills outlawing needle exchange programs and the like.
As I say, I like the concept of home rule, but I also abhor the groupthink and one-party rule in the District that have brought a great city to such a state of ineptitude.
"And I won't even get into the issue of how DC's insanely restrictive gun-control laws have paralleled the city's rise as one of the nation's murder capitals. Someone please square that circle for me."
Sure. Be happy to. Right after you 'square that circle' on why Richmond and New Orleans always rival DC for murder and crime rate supremacy. You know, what with both of those lovely towns being smack dab in the middle of rootin-tootin' gun fetish states.
Rusty:
When's the last time Congress filed an amicus brief on, say, gun laws or abortion laws in, say, South Dakota or any other location which has Congressional representation, in which the Congressional brief position is at odds with local opinion and against the wishes of the local Congressman/Senator?
I'm not saying it's never happened. I just think Congress wouldn't have the balls to pull this crap if there were a home Senator to tell them to go fuck themselves.
"As I say, I like the concept of home rule, but I also abhor the groupthink and one-party rule in the District that have brought a great city to such a state of ineptitude."
Brought a great city to ineptitude? Please point me to the point in history when the people of the District of Columbia had a government less inept than it currently has. You seem relatively educated on the history of DC, so I would imagine you realize that ineptitude of the city government from the 70's until the 90's had little to do with "groupthink" and a lot more to do with the unintended consequences of giving self-governance to a populous and a political class that had absolutely no experience at it.
And I'll agree that it would be better to have a stronger second party, but while we have only one organized political party, there are certainly more than one political party (with a lower-case "p") that compete for control of this town.
historically Congress has interpreted the Second Amendment as recognizing the right of law-abiding individuals to keep and bear arms
Any footnotes? While the Big Lie works on the campaign trail, saying it doesn't make it so in court.
Senator Hutchison was a terrible neighbor when she lived on the Hill. Her big beautiful corner house always looked like hell. The yard was ridiculously overgrown and unkempt, and she never turned on any security lights. She was pretty much inviting criminals to break in.
No wonder she apparently spent her sleepless DC nights cowering under the covers wishing she had a strong, hard, never-go-flaccid Smith & Wesson next to her.
And there's the matter of her private driver constantly blocking traffic on the block as he waited for her to come and go.
I was never so happy to see a prima donna leave the 'hood.
Malcontent wrote:
As I say, I like the concept of home rule, but I also abhor the groupthink and one-party rule in the District that have brought a great city to such a state of ineptitude.
It seems like what you are saying is if there were more Republicans in DC you would be in support of home rule not just "in concept", but in reality. And it's funny how competent government officials aren't a prerequisite for other U.S. citizens to get voting representation...or for Iraqis, for that matter.
Forgive us for seeming suspicious of Congress intruding on our rights. This is clearly an issue with national implications, but Congress f@#ks with with our local laws on a regular basis.
Malcontent wrote:
"As I say, I like the concept of home rule, but I also abhor the groupthink and one-party rule in the District that have brought a great city to such a state of ineptitude."
It seems like what you are saying is if there were more Republicans in DC you would be in support of home rule not just "in concept", but in reality. And it's funny how competent government officials aren't a prerequisite for other U.S. citizens to get voting representation...or for Iraqis, for that matter.
Forgive us for seeming suspicious of Congress intruding on our rights. This is clearly an issue with national implications, but Congress f@#ks with our local laws on a regular basis.