Ballou HS Rocks the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade
Morning Roundup: Black Friday Edition
Photo of the Day: November 27, 2009
Caps Thankful for Varly in 2-0 Win
Thanks to This Week's Advertisers
As we mentioned this morning, today the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is holding a hearing to discuss legislation that would do away with the District's newly-issued regulations on gun ownership. According to the pro-gun crowd, the city's regulations are still restrictive enough to violate the Supreme Court's June decision holding the District's handgun ban to be unconstitutional.
Of course, Congress stepping up to re-write local gun laws isn't anything new; the twist is that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi recently said she would allow the legislation to come to a vote in order to save vulnerable Blue Dog Democrats from negative NRA publicity coming into November's elections.
Two local officials are stepping up to preempt Congress, though. In time for today's hearing, D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton introduced legislation that would call for the District merely to comply with the Supreme Court's decision. At the same time, Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) sent a memo to D.C. Council Chair Vincent Gray announcing his intention to submit legislation on September 16 that would amend the current regulations. His amendments would address the main complaints expressed by Congress by allowing the registration of semi-automatic pistols; making current storage requirements advisory and instead imposing penalties for child access to guns; replacing ballistics testing with a requirement that new firearms be micro-stamped; and repealing the limitation on the amount of guns that each resident can register (currently one). Mendelson announced that he would hold two hearings on the amendments, on September 18 and October 1.
Of course, both efforts may be too little too late. If Pelosi really sees the congressional legislation as the only way to save a few members of her party, then we wouldn't be surprised to see the House vote before the end of the month. And while such a move is a clear affront to home rule and Pelosi should be told so, we all know that the Senate is the place where attempts like these go to die.
That's not to say that the Council shouldn't act on Mendelson's amendments -- the man isn't known for his radical views on gun ownership, and his amendments are common-sense responses to many of the complaints that have been echoed so far. It would behoove the District to get a solid set of acceptable regulations in place, because we all know what the next battle down the line is -- zoning.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Hey Councilman Dingleberry, HOW 'BOUT FIXIN' THOSE GUN POSSESSION LAWS!
Not sure how it's an affront to home rule for Congress to force the city government to abide by the Constitution and the Supreme Court (I'm guessing if it was another of the pesky amendments that was being infringed upon, the pontification about home rule sanctity would be non-existent).
That said, Norton's bill is utterly pointless (sorta like Congress telling DC to make sure they smile more and wish everyone a good day).
But, Mendelson's bill looks relatively reasonable. Which makes me wonder what Ol' Dingleberry is up to.
cranky: it's pretty damn clear how it's an affront to home rule. the city isn't getting to pass its own laws. we're not arguing constitutionality here, we're just talking about a body not elected by the residents of a locale being legislated upon without their consent.
replace "congress" with "indiana senate" and "the city" with "chicago" and see how much sense it makes.
Damn, that is one seriously S&M looking handgun.
"it's pretty damn clear how it's an affront to home rule. the city isn't getting to pass its own laws."
Now plenty of people will be offended at the comparison, and it's not like I believe it 100%, but here goes: The federal government swatted away a ton of local control and sovereignty in the pursuit of civil rights in the 1960s. They did it because, frankly, it was the right thing to do. To say one constitutional right is more worthwhile than another is to diminish the constitution. That denying someone a pistol is the same thing as denying them the vote is the unpleasant reality following Heller. We expect the federal government to step in to protect citizens from rogue state (read: District) governments that violate the Constitution.
The fact is, though, Congress doesn't really need to use its special relationship over the District to pass these laws. It could easily justify them under the commerce clause, which was expanded pretty much to the breaking point in the pursuit of progressive laws. So if its sovereignty that you're lamenting, that ship sailed a long time ago...
good point, reid
"Damn, that is one seriously S&M looking handgun."
Maybe!
DC Council really screwed this one into the ground. Everybody and their dog knew this Congressional action was coming.
I'm as big a fan of DC rights as anyone, but does anyone out there really think the DC gun registration rules were actually in keeping with the Supreme Court decision?
At the end of the day it may be wrong, but the DC Council brought this on themselves.
the city isn't getting to pass its own laws.
But it did pass it's own laws. It banned handguns for damn near thirty years. It took that long for the law to be deemed unconstitutional.
we're not arguing constitutionality here, we're just talking about a body not elected by the residents of a locale being legislated upon without their consent.
Well, until DC GETS representation, they're kinda stuck with what Congress passes and what SCOTUS deems constitutional. I want DC to get Senators and reps like any other jurisdiction, but it doesn't help their case when the Mayor and Nickles and the Council acts like a bag of uncut cocks. How is this any different from admitted cannibal necrophile and non-pornstar Marion Barry telling "the Man" where to get off, and everybody else in DC being stuck with the rep as "that town that keeps re-electing that crackhead?"
It's pretty bad when Dingleberry Mendelson winds up at the top of this dungheap smelling like a rose.
Let's face it congress is not going to give us the keys to the car until our elected officials start acting like grownups. ...I just hope they don't expect us to be republican grownups.
Pretty interesting news--I'm going to try really hard not to say "told you so" at the next hearing. Mendelson is moving things in the right direction, but still could stand to work on:
A. nixing microstamping requirements (super easy to defeat)
B. capacity limitations
C. semi-auto rifles
D. concealed carry for well-trained and tested citizens
E. the super-crazy long and expensive process of registering anything in the first place.
The only thing that gun in the picture needs is a big red ball stuffed in its muzzle.
Microstamping does not work, has never been implemented and is just a gun ban by another name.