Congress Moves to Strike D.C. Gun Laws; Wait, What?
They say that it's good to never give up, but would someone send Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) a memo telling him that sometimes it's cool to throw in the towel?
According to a press release issued yesterday by DC Vote, Souder is looking to re-introduce legislation that would do away with the District's gun laws. Didn't the Supreme Court recently rule that the city's gun ban was unconstitutional, and didn't the police recently start registering handguns and the D.C. Council start re-writing the city's gun regulations? Yes, yes and yes.
But Souder has been trying for years to gut the District's gun laws, and the Supreme Court's decision has seemingly emboldened him in his quest to make handguns available to everyone, no registration or other reasonable restrictions standing in the way. He's apparently even more committed than before -- this time, he's trying to get the legislation out of the House Government Reform Committee by discharging it, a legislative maneuver that could get the bill to the floor for a vote against the wishes of the committee chairman. D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton isn't happy, a point she made clear in a statement released yesterday.
Sigh. We don't need to repeat the same old arguments about home rule, local voices for local choices, Congress getting out of our business, the need for Souder to be declared persona non grata in the District and be helicoptered to and from his office every day without touching city soil, and so on. They're obvious enough to us. Well, most of us.
Photo by lynch_m_j
Gary Imhoff, editor of the DC Watch bi-weekly email newsletter on local affairs, argues today that if the D.C. Council won't act to pass legislation in line with the Supreme Court's decision, Congress should.
The mayor and the council are writing legislation that flouts and defies the ruling; they are pursuing a policy of “massive resistance” by retaining old gun ban restrictions that are explicitly rejected by the Heller decision, and they are considering new restrictions that invite further litigation. Whose responsibility is it to bring DC into compliance with the constitution, if local elected officials refuse to do it? We can go through years of litigation and appeals, defiance and delay, which is clearly the strategy of the mayor, attorney general, and council. Eventually, after years or decades of resistance, the courts will impose gun laws that are consistent with the Second Amendment on the District. Or Congress can pass legislation imposing constitutional gun laws on the District, as is its constitutional right and duty. Even the laboratories of democracy, which can experiment with most of its laws, have to obey the higher laws of the constitution and the Bill of Rights.Our problem with Imhoff's logic is that he doesn't see any difference between what Congress can do and what Congress should do. We've long known that Congress can act as a benevolent dictator (or not so benevolent, depending on the member playing the role) when it comes to the District's local affairs, but we'll never argue that it's right that they do so.
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that handgun ownership can no longer be banned, but they didn't spell out exactly which regulations and restrictions are permissible. And yes, the D.C. Council is playing dumb, making only the most incremental changes and running the risk of years and years of litigation. But that's how democracy works -- legislative bodies legislate, the judiciary weighs the constitutionality of their actions. Just because Imhoff disagrees with the D.C. Council's actions -- even if he believes they are not living up to the spirit of the court's decision -- doesn't mean that Congress should suddenly step in and legislate for us. If anything, it means that Imhoff should start writing letters, lobbying council members and even threatening to run himself should the council not act. If he's not willing to work within the District's democratic process, than he should be ready for the Pandora's Box he's willing to open by saying that in this case it's OK that Congress legislate for the District from up on high.
Fortunately, there isn't much time left for Congress to do much of anything this year, so this likely won't go anywhere. It's still frustrating, though, that Souder and the many co-sponsors of his legislation seem to think that allowing District residents unfettered access to handguns is an obvious remedy to the city's problems. The ban didn't work, neither will Souder's solution on the other extreme.