August 1, 2008
Pelosi May Fold on D.C. Gun Law Legislation
We expect this from Rep. Mark Edward Souder (R-Ind.), but Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi? Say it ain't so.
The Hill is reporting that Pelosi may allow legislation to come to a vote that would do away with the city's current ban on semi-automatic guns, trash the registration requirement for all guns and allow District residents to purchase guns in Virginia and Maryland and bring them into the city. But in a surprising twist, the measure she's thinking of putting to a vote isn't the usual effort by Souder and his Republican allies -- they recently tried again to gut the District's gun laws -- but one put together by a group of Blue Dog Democrats.
What gives? Election-year politics. Apparently the NRA threatened to use its considerable resources against vulnerable conservative Democrats if they didn't side with Souder's legislation. Instead of jumping on his bandwagon, they decided instead to put forth their own proposal -- and Pelosi seems to be looking to allow a vote so she can save them their seats come November. Supporters of the legislation are claiming that they've been given a commitment of a mid-September vote.
No, no, no! We understand the tough position Pelosi is in, but this is one issue she should speak up on. She's long been a friend of D.C. voting rights, and it's just not right that she'd be willing to trample on the principle of local rule just to head off threats from the NRA against a few Blue Dogs. Yes, the D.C. Council is dragging its feet, but that's no reason to hurdle over them altogether. Dick Heller, the man responsible for the historic Supreme Court decision that's gotten us where we are today, is still participating in the process, having recently challenged Mayor Adrian Fenty's post-ruling regulations with a second lawsuit. For their part, we'd like to see our Council members and Fenty do a better job explaining the reasoning behind the current regulations. C'mon -- there isn't anyone who thinks that having a gun but only being able to assemble and load it when there is an imminent threat makes sense.
Please stand your ground, Nancy. We get screwed enough as it is. Having a "liberal" Democrat lead the charge for the sake of a few votes is just too much.
| 
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
[ report this ]
Burn it down.
You heard me, Cheney.
[ report this ]
Bike-thieving crackheads beware.
[ report this ]
so much for home rule.
[ report this ]
More like a Bannana Republic.
[ report this ]
As much as I hate the idea of stepping all over Home Rule, I'm glad Democrats are going to get the credit for intervening in the DC Council's blatant defiance of the Heller ruling.
Pretty slick move by Pelosi. Maybe she can attach an amendment to the bill giving us representation? Rights all around!
[ report this ]
I totally agree with timmeroo:
Call it the "District of Columbia Equal Rights Act" and allow citizens of D.C. to own guns and vote! Novel idea.
[ report this ]
C'mon -- there isn't anyone who thinks that having a gun but only being able to assemble and load it when there is an imminent threat makes sense.
Where are you getting that statement from? Did I miss a poll other than DCist?
The reality is that the Democrats would not control the House if it wasn't for the Blue Dogs. Hard as it is to believe, a Ted Kennedy liberal could NOT take Heath Schuler's district or that of other Blue Dogs. Thankfully Nancy knows this.
[ report this ]
Sad news. It's perhaps understandable to mess with the legislation's trigger lock provisions, but "trash the registration requirement for all guns," which under this bill would include semi-automatic weapons! Come on Blue Dogs, throw us a bone!
[ report this ]
DCster, what's the trouble with semi-autos? They've only been in common use for about a hundred years.
The registration requirements are nothing more than an annoyance for honest people. Criminals still can't go to VA and legally buy guns (NICS check) and they wouldn't have registered their guns in the first place. I expect DC to react with gun "licensing" where you have to have a license to own a gun, but don't have to register your guns.
I wonder if this would have any effect on the ban on semi-auto rifles too...
[ report this ]
hold on. you mean politicians in a political town made a political decision based on politics? what a shame that local pols have been doing the exact same in failing to abide by the heller decision. i certainly hope the feds show the same fortitude when the voting rights bill comes up. oh snap! thats what they've been doing for the past 37 years! totally didnt see this one coming.
[ report this ]
I hit that!
[ report this ]
No big deal. Look, here's what's gonna happen. The Dems will get to bring their bill to the floor, it may even pass. They get to avoid the issue in the elections. But it's not going to get 60 votes to avoid a filibuster in the Senate before the end of the year. Exactly what happened in 2004. Pelosi needs to do this to help keep the Democrats in line, and to protect some House seats. Then it falls off the radar for a while. Certainly won't be a priority issue early next year, for either McCain or Obama, I suspect, or what is likely to be a larger Democratic majority in Congress.
[ report this ]
Say it ain't so MikeB. You don't think there would be enough votes to avoid filibuster when the bill is coming from Democrats? If she really wants to defuse the NRA's plan to tar Obama and other Congressmen in November, she could take the wind out of their sails by discouraging Democrats to filibuster in the Senate and actually allowing the bill to pass.
If I were her, I'd trade gutting DC's unconstitutional laws to ensure having enough seats in Congress to pass Obama's more challenging ideas such as universal healthcare or raising taxes on those making $250K+.
[ report this ]
There are damn close to 60 votes for this in the Senate. Reid, Pryor, Lincoln, McCaskill, Tester, Baucus, Casey, Landrieu, etc. are Dem. moderates that represent large rural areas where pro-gun sentiment runs high.
However, I suspect Harry Reid would use this legislation as a carrot to force Republicans into votes on energy and tax legislation that they don't care for.
[ report this ]
This is what happens when you settle for a half-assed "home rule" charter that has all the responsibilities of independent governance but none of the benefits. And it's not as if we can look to the mayor, who can't be bothered to walk across the room to a Websters and look up the definition of the words "shall", "not", "be", "infringed" without breaking his foot. Then there's the Council that's soiling itself spectacularly trying to find a way to ban fois gras and the illegal trade in nicotine suppositories.
Can't we just set fire to the Reichstag, blame it on Borf, and have Senator Jar Jar vote emergency powers to the Chancellor so he can deploy a clone army to fight the separatist gangsta g's in Trinidad? That would pretty much take care of 90% of DC's violent crime.
[ report this ]
Senators couldn't even pass cloture for the energy bills, something that actually impacts their constituents. So I don't think this legislation has a high enough profile to worry those moderate Senators or be used as leverage, most of them aren't up for reelection this year anyway.
Wouldn't people find licensing just as annoying as registering, timmeroo? What's the difference between the two? There should be some provision to allow the tracing of firearms, in the chance (however small) they end up being used in crimes.
[ report this ]
If a bill is passed by Congress on the matter, the DC government should respond with a borrowed and modified quote from Andrew Jackson: Congress has made its decision, now let them enforce it!
[ report this ]
DCster,
People (myself included) would find licensing just as annoying as registering, as they both basically serve the same purpose: tell the Police/local gov where the legally obtained guns are. Licensing tells you who is able to buy guns, registration says which guns are owned by who.
How could this data be used? Let's say someone gets shot on the street. The police determine that there are 200 people with registered guns in the same caliber of the weapon in the neighborhood. Would that be probable cause to go knocking on doors, searching houses of those gun owners? It's certainly not going to lead officers to the illegal gun which was never registered/licensed.
Let's say a gun is found on a criminal. If the criminal didn't already scratch the serial numbers off the gun, those numbers can be run by ATF who can tell police the gun store who sold the gun, then get the original seller/trafficker from the gun store. But that happens without registration.
So what does registration/licensing do? Basically, and I promise you, I'm not a paranoid person, it has been used many times in this country (Hurricane Katrina) and others (UK ban, Australia ban, WWII Germany ban on Jews owning) to confiscate guns when politically possible.
Personally, I think the very real cons outweigh the potential pros.
[ report this ]
Would that be probable cause to go knocking on doors, searching houses of those gun owners? It's certainly not going to lead officers to the illegal gun which was never registered/licensed.
I think in an ideal world, a gun registered in an ATF database, reported stolen in Portland, and that was retrieved from a crimescene in DC would create a liability situation for the Portland owner who left their gun on top of their tv set next to the penguin.
Notice I said "in an ideal world," one where penguins would be stamped "PROPERTY OF THE ZOO" when they're small.
[ report this ]
"ow could this data be used? Let's say someone gets shot on the street. The police determine that there are 200 people with registered guns in the same caliber of the weapon in the neighborhood."
You're neglecting to mention the part of the registration process where each legal gun is test fired and ballistics data is kept on file.
[ report this ]
It's tough to say. The Portland owner could say "Yeah, that gun was lost/stolen." If it turned out that the guy keeps "losing" guns that show up in DC criminals' hands, then you could look into him for illegal trafficking.
Downtown rez, I wasn't so much neglecting it as assuming it would not be effective (cost or performance-wise) as Maryland recently found:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16475-2005Jan17.html
This article doesn't mention how the markings of a gun shot on the day of registration will change after shooting it, further decreasing the chances of a match. This was a reason why California decided against ballistic imaging:
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/pdf/03-013_report.pdf
And again, we're talking about legal guns. It's safe to say that nearly every crime where a handgun was used in DC recently was with an illegal gun, which this system wouldn't know about.
Given the $2.5M the program cost Maryland, I think the money would be more effective being spent on more youth programs or officers on the street rather than clerks behind a desk at headquarters.
[ report this ]
This is a simple recognition by Pelosi and fellow Dems that the majority of the American people support protection of their Second Amendment rights. These is nothing nefarious here; she and her fellow House members are ELECTED to REPRESENT the people - who support Second Amendment rights. The Supreme Court has ruled that DC residents also have Second Amendment rights. The mayor and council are trying to thwart the court and to trample on DC residents Second Amendment RIGHTS.
"A right delayed is a right denied." Marin Luther King, Jr.
[ report this ]
blah de blah (just felt i should get my 2¢ in)
[ report this ]
Say it ain't so MikeB. You don't think there would be enough votes to avoid filibuster when the bill is coming from Democrats?
I'm just guessing, since I haven't seen either the Blue Dogs bill or Souter's to see how different they are. There are definitely Dems in the Senate who might support it, but there are also some Republicans I suspect would oppose it (Collins and Snowe of Maine come to mind). Plus, to my knowledge, there is no companion bill in the Senate. They would still need to go through the committee process, I suspect. And, as we've seen with Sen. Coburn's tactics, it's very easy for one senator to block a bill. My point is, even if the bill passes the House, there still is a ways to go.
That said, I understand why opponents of the legislation are concerned. And why home rule isn't always home rule, sadly.
[ report this ]
Um, that's actually a savvy move on Pelosi's part. Think of it, it's a gimmy situation. As Martin says, no one thinks the current "solution" put forth by the city complies with the wording of the SCOTUS decision. If self-defense in the home, then reasonably usable should apply. SO, if that's the case, why not have the Democrats get the credit for the proposal, strike a compromise with the NRA (yes, even them :P), AND save some seats in November. No, no, no? Yes, yes, yes!
This fall has the possiblity of a Democrat in the White House and 60 Democrats in the Senate. Why not work towards a workable solution for DC residents at the time?
[ report this ]
...and furthermore! If she's "folding" she's folding some origame. I don't even like Pelosi all that much but I give her credit in this case. Come on, folding makes this post sound like a complaint of a band like Coldplay "selling out". Yeah, that's how you hear about them in the first place.
[ report this ]
I don't have a problem with this specific vote, but I just don't buy the assertion that Dems would get credit for anything when it comes to gun control issues. Anyone who is passionate about this issue (aside from DC residents) probably isn't going to vote Democrat.
[ report this ]
DR:
"You're neglecting to mention the part of the registration process where each legal gun is test fired and ballistics data is kept on file."
T:
"I wasn't so much neglecting it as assuming it would not be effective (cost or performance-wise) as Maryland recently found:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16475-2005Jan17.html"
DR:
Still doesn't really explain the false premise here:
T:
"How could this data be used? Let's say someone gets shot on the street. The police determine that there are 200 people with registered guns in the same caliber of the weapon in the neighborhood. Would that be probable cause to go knocking on doors, searching houses of those gun owners? It's certainly not going to lead officers to the illegal gun which was never registered/licensed."
[ report this ]
Following IMGoph's lead, I throw in my 1 million Zimbabwean dollars:
Pelosi is making a smart move. DC gov't is making a bad move with the gun regulations. Morlocks are bad.
[ report this ]
Morlocks are good when armed and properly trained.
[ report this ]
OldPoster - You may want to reconsider that. The government re-valuated the currency on Friday:
"All monetary valuations have been re-denominated by a factor of 1:10,000,000,000 which effectively means the removal of ten (10) zeros from all monetary value"
[ report this ]
You may not like the idea of registration or licensing, but I fail to see how either is an infringement on your right to bear arms. (Of course, some licensing or registration requirements might be so onerous that they amounted to an infringement, but I haven't seen anything in D.C.'s registration rules that impose a real burden.) A mere suspicion that the government might mis-use the registration information in the future is hardly grounds to find the registration requirement unconstitutional.
Which isn't to say that there aren't problems with D.C.'s new rules, but you make yourself look like an extremist when you argue against basic registration.
[ report this ]
Well, there are reasonable registration processes, like getting your car registered, where you pretty much walk in with ID and proof of residency and you walk out with a registration. And there's no Constitutional right to own a car. Then there's ridiculously onerous processes like the gun registration, where you have to jump through all these hoops and make multiple visits and if you bring a semiauto to register it'll be confiscated as a "machinegun." And you still can't buy a legal gun in DC because they're not licensing any dealers. This entire process serves the same function as a poll tax: to discourage people from exercising a right they already have. And DC residents get to foot the bill for this halfassed bag-o-dicks legislation to be litigated and ultimately thrown out by a higher court. Bra. Vo.
[ report this ]
I leave for vacation and am suddenly no longer a Zimbabwean millionaire! Outrage! This is worse than Hitler!
[ report this ]
Our group totally left Nancy's name out when discussing who could pick up the role of Joker for the second Bat-sequel. But that head shot puts her right up there with Benicio del Toro and Emile Hirsh.
[ report this ]
DR: I guess my point with that premise was that to believe registration + ballistics will help solve crimes you have to make a number of difficult assumptions: A. criminals register guns, B. bullets found are able to be identified with the weapon shot (it's very difficult to match if the gun is shot between registration and crime or a different ammunition is used in the crime) C. that the number of possible matches would allow a judge to issue warrants to search all these people's homes for the weapon D. that the time and money spent couldn't be more effective preventing crime with intervention programs or more cops.
If that's still hazy or "false," please let me know.
Monkeyerotica gets it exactly right JonboyDC. I'll add that I'm not so sure I'm an extremist for questioning "basic registration." I'm not sure if you've been outside DC in a while, but only DC and Hawaii have registration of all firearms, and 6 other states for some types of guns. Interestingly enough, nine states have laws forbidding registration. That makes 43 states that either don't have the interest to pass such a law or actively oppose it, which hardly makes me an extremist. The Brady Campaign doesn't even include registration on their state law scorecards.
http://www.lcav.org/content/registration_firearms.pdf
http://www.stategunlaws.org/xshare/pdf/scorecard/2007/2007_state_scorecard.pdf
I don't think that registration alone is likely unconstitutional, but I do think it's bad policy. Given other constitutional rights (speech, press, assembly), can you imagine the uproar if President Bush said "We need all bloggers to register their computers with their state in order to track them down in case they end up using their computers to support terrorism." We'd probably feel like we live in China, which is the point. We'd sure feel safe, but we'd lose part of our freedom.
[ report this ]
The problem is that, unlike guns, the primary purpose of a computer isn't to kill people. Sure, you can us