Congress Moves to Strike D.C. Gun Laws; Wait, What?

Enjoy your Federally funded park system hypocrites.

When DC takes over Rock Creek Park, then you can make some sort of claim to be an independent city/state. Until then...

As a reminder:

Central Park-New York City owned
Grant Park-Chicago owned
Fairmount Park-Philadelphia owned
Griffith Park-LA owned

Rock Creek Park-owned by the taxpayers of New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, LA, and yes, the 3rd District of Indiana.

Fortunately, there isn't much time left for Congress to do much of anything this year, so this likely won't go anywhere.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Hot dog, we have a wiener! If there's anything Congress excels at, it's pushing pointless, unpassable, score-some-brownie-points-with-constituents legislation at the end of their term. Usually, it's for impeachment, but you gotta take what you can get.

If curbing violent crime is the point of this legislation, they're going about it all wrong. Most of DC's crime problems would be solved by simply turning the Washington Monument into a giant bong, and forming an infinite loop daisy chain while singing "It's a Small World After All." This is completely in line with the original intent of both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independece. I'm sure Scalia would support this wholeheartedly if Smith & Wesson issued a commemorative revolver. I mean, what part of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" do you not understand? It's all clearly spelled out on the back of the dollar bill, man. There's some spooky s**t goin' on there. And it's green too. And behind every good man there is a woman, and that woman was Martha Washington, man. And everyday George would come home, she would have a big fat bowl waiting for him, man, when he come in the door, man. She was a hip, hip, hip lady, man.

While we're at it, have Pasta Plus fill the Reflecting Pool with cacciatore, scallopini, and carbonara, and give Marion Barry a lifetime supply of mouthwatering babies and sweet, delicious crack if he agrees to resign.

Vote Monkeyrotica. Now is you is or is you ain't mah constitients?

The DC Council is taking a narrow view of its responsibilities because Heller was a narrow ruling. The Heller decision made no mention of the ban on semi-automatic weapons. The decision said that you can't ban handgun ownership and you have to have legal provisions for home defense. That's the guidance the Council is following because the vast majority of DC residents were supportive of the ban and remain supportive of strict controls.

Ianto94... do you think that there hasn't been years of litigation that define our freedoms with regard to speech, equality, and other rights? You think that people just glanced down at the constitution and figured out what 'free speech' means in the information age? Of course not... the Supreme Court's cowardice in avoiding the 2nd amendment for a century is a big part of why we're just now dissecting this right in a modern context.

At issue here is whether or not people from other jurisdictions have the right to weigh in on this issue for DC residents. You think we're the only place that gets federal funding? You think we're the only jurisdiction in this country with a national park? Please... federal funding doesn't give some random Representative the right to legislate local issues on your behalf. Let our elected officials make laws, and let the constitutionally designated processes for vetting their constitutionality work it out. It's worked for every other place in this country for 200 years. Why shouldn't it be our turn?

So is "crime ridden third world sh!t hole" the new "worse than Hitler?" Because for me, "DC" and "crime ridden third world sh!t hole" are inextricably linked, even more than "third rate wannabe capital like Zagreb or Eisengard."

hillvada,

Just because a city has something that is federally funded does not mean that it should not have home rule. For example all large public transportation systems receive federal funds, with the exception of the DC area metro system.

Does that that I should have say in what other cities do as they are using my tax dollars to maintain their systems, but I am not using their tax dollars to maintain the one I use?

As a native of Rep. Souder's Third Indiana district, I must apologize for this Bitter that has been representing people from places like Fort Wayne, Kendallville, and Bippus. When he first ran in 1994, Souder promised that he would serve no more than 3 terms. 14 years later, he is still hard at work.
Don't get me wrong, the Third district has a lot going for it besides people who cling to Jeebus and their guns....Let's see...
Shelly Long (Troop Beverly Hills was her crowning achievement, imo) is from Ft. Wayne
Dave Thomas, (The Wendy's guys, R.I.P.) grew up in Ft. Wayne
Philo T. Farnsworth, from Ft. Wayne
There's also lots of corn and soybeans, of course--and some Amish too. Plz don't hate them for the clown they keep returning to Congress (I don't think the Amish vote, so its definitely not their fault).

Btw, to confirm what you are thinking--yes, I AM drunk before 11 am on a Thursday. Also, Philo T. Farnsworth invented the cathode ray tube, which made television possible. Props to P-Dog.

"Republicans love to point to DC as the ultimate failure of liberalism. Yeah, they like to point to the heathens in SF too, but most Americans still think DC is still crime ridden third world sh!t hole...little do they know that only applies to Metro now."

Actually, DC is still a crime ridden third world shithole. Didn't you see the Post on Monday detailing how many people were shot and killed in the city this weekend?

"The DC Council is taking a narrow view of its responsibilities because Heller was a narrow ruling. The Heller decision made no mention of the ban on semi-automatic weapons. The decision said that you can't ban handgun ownership and you have to have legal provisions for home defense. That's the guidance the Council is following because the vast majority of DC residents were supportive of the ban and remain supportive of strict controls."

Except that the council apparently missed the parts of Heller telling you that weapons that are "in common use at the time" and not military-grade are perfectly legal (See DC's 'Machine gun' ban which covers semi-automatic guns which are in common use). They must have also skimmed the part saying that a ban on operative handguns is also unconstitutional.

And just because DC residents support the ban doesn't mean that they're right. I would be if you polled a majority of the city that they'd immediately re-elect Marion Barry or support dropping a Daisy Cutter on Trinidad.

As much as I would prefer DC to have home rule, the council and mayor are dead wrong on this issue and that the comparatively responsible adults in Congress should set them straight.

dcist20009: would you advocate that congress set up a financial control board for a state, let's say michigan, since its economy is in the tank?

Rock Creek Park-owned by the taxpayers of New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, LA, and yes, the 3rd District of Indiana.

Douché!

[...]Justice Scalia, the author of the majority opinion, out right said in his opinion that more litigation is needed to flush out what a person's rights are under the Second Amendment[...] If you don't like that, go "discharge" something on Scalia, he's to blame! You do have to love those activist judges when they don't think things out...

Right, just try to imagine spending 40+ years to build a conservative Supreme Court majority to explicitly do things like strike down 2nd Amendment restrictions, or eliminate the "Right to Privacy" that undergirds reproductive rights...only to have the Supreme Court that represents the high-water mark of conservative jurisprudence turn around and say, "Ah, not so much."

I feel their pain.

@Boomhauer: "As much as I would prefer DC to have home rule, the council and mayor are dead wrong on this issue and that the comparatively responsible adults in Congress should set them straight."

Good idea. Maybe when they're done with that, they can tackle problems in other places. As much as I would prefer Massachusetts to have home rule, their legislature and local school boards are dead wrong on the whole evolution issue. It's time for the comparatively responsible adults in Congress to set them straight and get Intelligent Design into the public school curriculum.

When they're done with that, they can get Illinois to re-institute the death penalty.

And it's definitely time for a Financial Control Board to take over the finances of Orange County, CA.

tmoney and dcist20009: i bring up michigan because i'm from there as well. i assume that you're talking about flint being put into receivership by the state.

i brought up the whole thing because people seem to want to try to call the district a state when things are good, and a city when things are bad, or some combination that suits their purposes. i say you can't have your cake and eat it too. it's either fundamentally one or the other. so which one is it?

The City Council has made it clear that it was going to move as absolutely slowly as possible in implementing the Supreme Court ruling. And, in ignoring the part of the opinion saying mandatory gun locks were unconstitutional, the DC government is willfully ignoring the plain language of the ruling (regardless of the cutesy, but irrelevant, "self defense" exception). The city gov't, as has been made clear by Nickels and Cheh, is basically going to do as little as possible, until ordered to do so by the courts. They are happy to have this drag on for another 30 years.

The kicker is that b/c of DC's unique status as a federal entity, such a strategy of perpetual delay can be overcome by a congressional vote. The simple fact remains that the mayor, city council and DC gov't exist b/c Congress wanted them to exist. If Congress were to decide to revoke the Home Rule Act, DC residents would have no say in the matter. And it would be perfectly constitutional for Congress to do so since DC is a constitutionally-created federal enclave with exclusive jurisdiction by Congress.

Now, we could go through a whole discussion of the Founders' intent of DC and how it was affected by them getting bumrushed back in Philly, and how it was a way to avoid being indebted to a state for basic services, etc. But that wouldn't do anything to affect the simple bottom line, which is that DC is a federal entity and that Congress can intervene whenever it desires, so long as its legislative mandates are constitutional.

Were the Council to enact legislation that was as hostile to the First, or Fifth, or Fourth Amendments as the current regulations are to the Second Amendment, there's little doubt the hoi polloi would be asking for Congressional intervention to correct such a blatantly unconstitutional stance by the local DC officials. But b/c the Second Amendment is involved - an amendment that in the view of Tommy Wells is an antiquated and useless collection of words - somehow the debate is shifted away from a concern about blatant constitutional violations, and into one on home rule. I think that's a neat debating trick, but it's intellectually dishonest.

I salute your consistency. But that consistency just isn't backed by any Constitutional support. If DC were an actual state, then yes, your position would be perfectly fine. But we're not a state, no matter how much we like to think we are or no matter how many local gov't agencies to which we attach the word "state". We are a unique, Constitutionally-mandated federal entity subject to the jurisdiction of Congress.

Regarding your anger, I believe it was Master Yoda who said, and I quote:

Fear leads to anger.

Anger leads to hate.

Hate leads to junk punching.

D.C.....a fun city. Where the crooks have guns but the citizens don't.

Hillvada. Where did you go? Please chime back in?

I want to know where you are from? (obviously not here) What state breeds ignorant douches by the million and has no national parks or federally funded resources? That is a state I want to live in! Hell yeah!

Its not that no state has Federally funded parks or resources, but rather that DC, unlike every other state, has the Federal government pick up THE ENTIRE TAB FOR:

Parks (its not just Rock Creek and the Mall, nearly every neighborhood park is run by the National Park Service). DC also gets free policing for those parks and surrounding areas from the US Park Police.

Corrections (a major part of most state's budgets that DC does not have to pay for since those convicted of crimes in DC go to Federal prisons).

Higher Education (while DC does run UDC, it does not fund any community colleges or smaller state schools and DC residents are subsidised by the Federal government to attend other state's schools).

There are other smaller examples (US Attorneys, courts, etc), but those are the big ones.

My point is simply this. DC benefits in major ways from its "unique" relationship with the Federal government and before you go calling for a major change in that relationship (like statehood), you might want to think about what the consequences will be.

"Whatever legal authority it may have, Congress has no moral authority to pass any law that regulates the citizens of D.C. until we have voting representation in both houses of Congress"

So....that means Congress shouldn't have enacted the Home Rule Act, which allowed DC residents to have an elected mayor and council?

Sorry, I just don't buy the argument that Congress can't pass any laws that the Constitution says it has to for DC (since Congress has exclusive jurisdiction), b/c that same pesky Constitution says we're not a state and can't have votes in the House and Senate. It's a Constitutional Wookie on Endor.

DC is not a state. Congress has very limited power to tell a state what it can or cannot do. But under the Constitution, Congress has plenary power over DC. If the council will not restore DC citizens' rights under the Constitution, Congress should.

Timmeroo: You register all sorts of rights. The 1st amendment guarantees the right to free assembly, but you still need a permit to gather in public for a protest.

That aside, the people of DC pay their taxes and earn their keep. Though the letter of the law does not grant it to us, the spirit of life in a free society dictates that we are entitled to elect lawmakers and allow their decisions to be evaluated just like everyone else's. DC political leadership may not impress to many folks, but the mayor of Cincinnati once paid for a hooker with a check. Democracy sucks sometimes. But bear in mind as you rant and rave about civil liberties, that you're advocating the federal government over-ruling a democratically elected local council. Handguns or no handguns, that way lies madness.

"Whereas DC is not allowed to collect tax dollars from the residents of those bedroom communities."

Damn right. And those "bedroom communities" make up over 80% of the D.C. area's metro population.

Actually i would prefer leaving the working and shopping class people alone and instead go first for taxing the property of non-profits, churches, and trade associations as none of their properties are taxed.

Also, please resist the "conservative gun lovers/anti-gun liberal" labels. I am liberal gun owner (shotgun-registered) and know many others. I think the Dems are really out of touch with most of their supporters on this one.

I still don't really understand it. My guess is that most, or a large majority of Dems support the right to bear arms, but its the elitist liberals sitting in their McMansions in Mclean who donate all the money.

Y'know, that dome would make a f***ing kickass bowl for the Washington Monument bong, man. It'd suck to clean it, though.

@Martin:

I agree that it would most certainly be best for a court intervene in order to keep the the concept of the local democracy working, but my concern is what happens when the DC gov basically ignores major sections of the ruling? They go to court again and again to score political points, or someone finally holds them in contempt of court and things start happening.

@JonBoyDC
Starting with reasonable limitations on rights: they have been exercised in cases of A. national security or B. infringing on the rights of others (fire in the theater doesn't mean you can't say fire, it means you can't do it with the intent to injure people by causing a stampede).
Owning firearms does neither. If guns randomly went off, then I could see it being a "public safety" question. They don't do that: 280M firearms harmed no one this year in the US.

Also, you don't need registration to do background checks as the instant NICS system has proven. Ballistics testing is not only expensive and easy to defeat (every time you shoot you change the signature of the barrel), but is a proven failure in states such as MD, NY and CA. However, registration has been used both domestically and abroad to aid in gun confiscation (Katrina anyone? or Nazi Germany had registration which was then used to disarm the Jews). I don't want to sound like I'm paranoid, but I do think the idea has substantially more cons than possible pros.

@Big MikeDC
The 1st does guarantee the right to free assembly, which means you don't need a permit to have a crowd of people at your birthday party etc, it's only when you're going to infringe on others rights (to throw a parade on public roads) that you need a permit. What else in the Bill of Rights do you register or would you have register? The local government should be given deference on local matters, within the bounds set by the Constitution and federal government. That's the problem, the local gov overstepped their bounds and appealed to the Supreme Court, yet didn't abide by their decision.

@DCGuy2
Well said; I'm right with you on this one.

ok, last post.

The absolutely CRAZY thing about this, which has gotten no media play, is one of the planks of DC's argument. They claimed that since 2A refers to state militias, and because DC is not a state, and Congress has absolute authority over the District, then 2A does not apply to DC.

Thankfully, both the lower court and SCOTUS didn't think this argument was even worth addressing. But think about it. Fenty named as AG a guy that argued that part of the Bill of Rights does not apply to DC!

Do people realize how reckless that is? The chances were slim, but suppose SCOTUS agreed. I guarantee that some time in the next 20,50,100 years someone (the Feds?) would argue that some OTHER part of the BoR does not apply to the District citing that case as precedent.

This is the guy who is supposed to be our legal advocate?

question, does Nickles need to go thru some type of confirmation process?

hey dcguy2, great to see that you're excited about all this, but can you cut back on the "lattle liberal" bullshit? the concern trolling is a touch lame.

and hce, you can replace the word 'gun' with anything you want, but the fact is that weapons are different from feathers, or books, or sprockets, because the other things aren't typically used to commit violent acts. you're trying to oversimplify things by half.

@IMGoph

Actually, hce's point is valid and at the crux of the SCOTUS decision. They ruled that the need for the militia is the reason the right of individuals to keep arms in their home shall not be infringed.

And I am sorry, but feathers and sprockets are also not used to defend yourself, hunt, or overthrow a dictator. You may think these things are outdated, and I respect that (and could possibly agree with that), but until 2A is amended (which I am not sure is possible) we have to live with it and accept it, or be willing to give up our other righrs.

dcguy2: well, i have to respectfully disagree with you with respect to the process. there was a law struck down, so now there is a new law. it will be challenged in court, and then the legislation will be tweaked until there is no court challenge.

the fact of the matter is that the NRA and their ilk will continue to fight this until there is absolutely no regulation regarding guns whatsoever. since the district is being used as a law laboratory, they'll keep pushing for things here in order to use it as a wedge issue in federal elections.

the local people don't want unfettered gun access. there's disagreement as to the level of gun access, but there's no constituency who wants access to assault rifles, etc.

regardless of that fact, the NRA will push for it. hard. that's why there has to be a continuous back-and-forth here between the legislature (DC council) and the courts.

IMGOPH. What part of "shall not be infringed" is hard to comprehend?

Why should I not be able to drive down to the gun store and buy a Glock 19 (a midsize semi-automatic handgun), load it and put it on my night stand, if needed (I don't have children)?

Moreover, why shouldn't I be able to take it to the range and practice with it so if I ever have to defend myself with it I can.

Moreover, why should I not after having a background check and undergoing training -- of which I have in excess of 110 hours -- be able to carry the weapon as I go about my daily business, since a violent assault can happen at any time?

ianto94: i think i told you this before, but maybe it was someone else...no need to go all caps on the name.

anyway, i comprehend that phrase just fine, thank you. you may not realize this, but the first amendment has a similar phrase:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...

the same applies to the second amendment. you don't get unfettered access and use of your gun. it's constitutional and legal for the government to put limitations on your right.

sorry, them's the breaks.

IMGoph:
You are absolutely correct that rights are not absolute, Justices Douglas and Black to the contrary notwithstanding. But to restrict free speech there must be a clear and present danger of imminent harm, not a bad tendency to cause harm. The government cannot ban or punish Playboy or Hustler because they might objectify women. The government cannot ban or punish personal attacks on politicians and public figures even if false. The government cannot ban or punish hateful, abusive speech unless it rises to the level of harassment or threats. To bring this back to guns, the government can regulate concealed carry. The government could likely make you own a trigger lock. But the government cannot generally stop you from carrying a weapon peacefully as you go about your daily business. The government cannot tell you that you cannot own a semi-auto pistol just because you own a revolver. It would be like the government saying you can read books but not newspapers. In sum where a constitutional right is involved, it is not absolute, but the government must show: (1) a compelling state interest; (2) a close nexus between the harm sought to be addressed and the means addressing it; and (3) that it is using the least restrictive means to address the harm. DC cannot justify the semi-auto ban on that test or the virtually prohibition on carrying. Sorry, that's what it means to have a constitutional right.

Whether local goverment is a good idea, or even whether that's what's done in the states *outside* of DC doesn't matter.

According to the constitution, Congress has the power and responsibility to either control the District itself; or to delegate that control, to some point.

However, even if they delegate it, they still have the responsibility for that; and for what comes of doing so; and also the responsibility to fix things if they get broken.

The DC council is *obviously* attempting to violate the SPIRIT; and, in my humble opinion after *READING* all 150 or so pages of the Heller decision, the LETTER of the law; as noted by the Supreme Court. There's really no question there; if one has a brain and speaks and understands English.

If *I* lived in DC; and paid those taxes people are talking about; I'd be pretty upset at my 'elected officials' doing something that pretty much was GUARANTEED to waste some of that money they got from me. Crafting regulations that are clearly in defiance of a Supreme Court ruling seems to be doing just that. Lawsuits are expensive, especially if you LOSE. But politicians don't really care about that; it's not THEIR money they're throwing away. It's yours. And, after all, they'll just get more next year. And, if that's not enough, they'll raise the tax rate.

In the meantime, other good, worthwhile, and WORKABLE initiatives and ideas won't get funded, since the money will have been thrown away to some already wealthy lawyers.

The truly amazing thing is that there seem to be so many DC citizens who seem ok with the whole idea.