Updated Forecast: In Excess of 8" of Snow, Plus Wind
And Now, 10-20 Inches
Federal Govt. Closed Tuesday
Snowmaggedon 1.0 in Time Lapse
The Senate has voted to approve the D.C. House Voting Rights Act, 61-37. The only vote that changed from Tuesday's cloture vote was that of Alaska's Lisa Murkowski (R).
This is a very big day for D.C. voting rights. That the bill has passed the Senate makes it almost certain that it will now pass the House and eventually end up on President Obama's desk for his signature. Today's vote marks the first voting rights measure to pass the Senate since 1978.
"This is a historic moment for DC Vote and all who have worked on this issue," said Ilir Zherka, DC Vote Executive Director. "Through the efforts of our coalition, volunteers, donors and supporters across the nation and world - we did it."
The bill would grant the District a single voting member in the U.S. House, along with an additional seat that would at first go to Utah, and after the 2010 Census would then be allocated to whichever state's population has grown the most.
The victory was surely somewhat bittersweet for the D.C. government, however, as just before voting on the bill, the Senate added an amendment which repeals the District's gun registration laws.
D.C. Wire is citing "proponents of the bill" who said they hoped the gun amendment could be removed during negotiations between the House and the Senate, since the two bills are now quite different from one another.
Two other amendments were also added to the bill before it was approved. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) successfully added language that would ban the re-adoption of the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a law that was originally struck down during the Reagan administration which required broadcasters to provide "balanced" coverage of controversial issues. At the same time, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) attached a rival amendment which called on the FCC to encourage "diverse media ownership" and included language that would preserve regulations mandating a certain amount of public interest programming on the part of broadcasters.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Yay!
And: anyone know if they can take the gun amendment out in committee?
Anyone know if voting rights part of the bill is struck down in court does the gun amendment stand?
They're tied together in the Senate version of the bill, so a failure of the bill would mean a failure of the entirety, amendments and all.
See the talk about the line-item veto....
Ko-rect-amundo.
I don't think that's true. It looks like this amendment specifically excludes itself from the nonseverability clause, so even if the rest of the bill goes away, it remains:
If that is the case, the Republicans just pulled the good old Okie-Doke on DC.
Wow! My dreams of being a gun-toting mentally impaired super-hero are coming true.
Yeah!
Taxation Without Two-Thirds Representation here we come!
Now with more guns!
Look what the NRA gave to DC residents:
SA 575. Mr. ENSIGN (for himself, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Coburn, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Burr, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Thune, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Risch, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Corker, Mr. Martinez, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Graham, and Mr. Roberts) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 160, to provide the District of Columbia a voting seat and the State of Utah an additional seat in the House of Representatives; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
TITLE __--SECOND AMENDMENT ENFORCEMENT ACT
SEC. X01. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Second Amendment Enforcement Act''.
SEC. X02. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(2) As the Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States have recognized, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.
(3) The law-abiding citizens of the District of Columbia are deprived by local laws of handguns, rifles, and shotguns that are commonly kept by law-abiding persons throughout the United States for sporting use and for lawful defense of their persons, homes, businesses, and families.
(4) The District of Columbia has the highest per capita murder rate in the Nation, which may be attributed in part to local laws prohibiting possession of firearms by law-abiding persons who would otherwise be able to defend themselves and their loved ones in their own homes and businesses.
(5) The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended by the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986, and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, provide comprehensive Federal regulations applicable in the District of Columbia as elsewhere. In addition, existing District of Columbia criminal laws punish possession and illegal use of firearms by violent criminals and felons. Consequently, there is no need for local laws which only affect and disarm law-abiding citizens.
(6) Officials of the District of Columbia have indicated their intention to continue to unduly restrict lawful firearm possession and use by citizens of the District.
(7) Legislation is required to correct the District of Columbia's law in order to restore the fundamental rights of its citizens under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and thereby enhance public safety.
SEC. X03. REFORM D.C. COUNCIL'S AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT FIREARMS.
Section 4 of the Act entitled ``An Act to prohibit the killing of wild birds and wild animals in the District of Columbia'', approved June 30, 1906 (34 Stat. 809; sec. 1-303.43, D.C. Official Code) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``Nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall authorize, or shall be construed to permit, the Council, the Mayor, or any governmental or regulatory authority of the District of Columbia to prohibit, constructively prohibit, or unduly burden the ability of persons not prohibited from possessing firearms under Federal law from acquiring, possessing in their homes or businesses, or using for sporting, self-protection or other lawful purposes, any firearm neither prohibited by Federal law nor subject to the National Firearms Act. The District of Columbia shall not have authority to enact laws or regulations that discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms. Nothing in the previous two sentences shall be construed to prohibit the District of Columbia from regulating or prohibiting the carrying of firearms by a person, either concealed or openly, other than at the person's dwelling place, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person.''.
SEC. X04. REPEAL D.C. SEMIAUTOMATIC BAN.
(a) In General.--Section 101(10) of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2501.01(10), D.C. Official Code) is amended to read as follows:
``(10) `Machine gun' means any firearm which shoots, is designed to shoot, or may be readily restored to shoot automatically, more than 1 shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger, and includes the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any combination of parts from which a machine gun
[Page: S2491] GPO's PDF
can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment to Provisions Setting Forth Criminal Penalties.--Section 1(c) of the Act of July 8, 1932 (47 Stat. 651; sec. 22--4501(c), D.C. Official Code) is amended to read as follows:
``(c) `Machine gun', as used in this Act, has the meaning given such term in section 101(10) of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975.''.
SEC. X05. REPEAL REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT.
(a) Repeal of Requirement.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Section 201(a) of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2502.01(a), D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking ``any firearm, unless'' and all that follows through paragraph (3) and inserting the following: ``any firearm described in subsection (c).''.
(2) DESCRIPTION OF FIREARMS REMAINING ILLEGAL.--Section 201 of such Act (sec. 7-2502.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) A firearm described in this subsection is any of the following:
``(1) A sawed-off shotgun.
``(2) A machine gun.
``(3) A short-barreled rifle.''.
(3) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.--The heading of section 201 of such Act (sec. 7-2502.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking ``Registration requirements'' and inserting ``Firearm Possession''.
(b) Conforming Amendments to Firearms Control Regulations Act.--The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 is amended as follows:
(1) Sections 202 through 211 (secs. 7-2502.02 through 7-2502.11, D.C. Official Code) are repealed.
(2) Section 101 (sec. 7-2501.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking paragraph (13).
(3) Section 401 (sec. 7-2504.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``the District;'' and all that follows and inserting the following: ``the District, except that a person may engage in hand loading, reloading, or custom loading of ammunition for firearms lawfully possessed under this Act.''; and
(B) in subsection (b), by striking ``which are unregisterable under section 202'' and inserting ``which are prohibited under section 201''.
(4) Section 402 (sec. 7-2504.02, D.C. Official Code) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``Any person eligible to register a firearm'' and all that follows through ``such business,'' and inserting the following: ``Any person not otherwise prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal or District law, or from being licensed under section 923 of title 18, United States Code,''; and
(B) in subsection (b), by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
``(1) The applicant's name;''.
(5) Section 403(b) (sec. 7-2504.03(b), D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking ``registration certificate'' and inserting ``dealer's license''.
(6) Section 404(a)(3) (sec. 7-2504.04(a)(3)), D.C. Official Code) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ``registration certificate number (if any) of the firearm,'';
(B) in subparagraph (B)(iv), by striking ``holding the registration certificate'' and inserting ``from whom it was received for repair'';
(C) in subparagraph (C)(i), by striking ``and registration certificate number (if any) of the firearm'';
(D) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by striking ``registration certificate number or''; and
(E) by striking subparagraphs (D) and (E).
(7) Section 406(c) (sec. 7-2504.06(c), D.C. Official Code) is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Within 45 days of a decision becoming effective which is unfavorable to a licensee or to an applicant for a dealer's license, the licensee or application shall--
``(1) lawfully remove from the District all destructive devices in his inventory, or peaceably surrender to the Chief all destructive devices in his inventory in the manner provided in section 705; and
``(2) lawfully dispose, to himself or to another, any firearms and ammunition in his inventory.''.
(8) Section 407(b) (sec. 7-2504.07(b), D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking ``would not be eligible'' and all that follows and inserting ``is prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal or District law.''.
(9) Section 502 (sec. 7-2505.02, D.C. Official Code) is amended--
(A) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
``(a) Any person or organization not prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal or District law may sell or otherwise transfer ammunition or any firearm, except those which are prohibited under section 201, to a licensed dealer.'';
(B) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
``(c) Any licensed dealer may sell or otherwise transfer a firearm to any person or organization not otherwise prohibited from possessing or receiving such firearm under Federal or District law.'';
(C) in subsection (d), by striking paragraphs (2) and (3); and
(D) by striking subsection (e).
(10) Section 704 (sec. 7-2507.04, D.C. Official Code) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``any registration certificate or'' and inserting ``a''; and
(B) in subsection (b), by striking ``registration certificate,''.
(c) Other Conforming Amendments.--Section 2(4) of the Illegal Firearm Sale and Distribution Strict Liability Act of 1992 (sec. 7-2531.01(4), D.C. Official Code) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or ignoring proof of the purchaser's residence in the District of Columbia''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``registration and''.
SEC. X06. REPEAL HANDGUN AMMUNITION BAN.
Section 601(3) of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2506.01(3), D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking ``is the holder of the valid registration certificate for'' and inserting ``owns''.
SEC. X07. RESTORE RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE IN THE HOME.
Section 702 of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2507.02, D.C. Official Code) is repealed.
SEC. X08. REMOVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR POSSESSION OF UNREGISTERED FIREARMS.
(a) In General.--Section 706 of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2507.06, D.C. Official Code) is amended--
(1) by striking ``that:'' and all that follows through ``(1) A'' and inserting ``that a''; and
(2) by striking paragraph (2).
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to violations occurring after the 60-day period which begins on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. X09. REMOVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR CARRYING A FIREARM IN ONE'S DWELLING OR OTHER PREMISES.
(a) In General.--Section 4(a) of the Act of July 8, 1932 (47 Stat. 651; sec. 22-4504(a), D.C. Official Code) is amended--
(1) in the matter before paragraph (1), by striking ``a pistol,'' and inserting the following: ``except in his dwelling house or place of business or on other land possessed by that person, whether loaded or unloaded, a firearm,''; and
(2) by striking ``except that:'' and all that follows through ``(2) If the violation'' and inserting ``except that if the violation''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 5 of such Act (47 Stat. 651; sec. 22-4505, D.C. Official Code) is amended--
(1) by striking ``pistol'' each place it appears and inserting ``firearm''; and
(2) by striking ``pistols'' each place it appears and inserting ``firearms''.
SEC. X10. AUTHORIZING PURCHASES OF FIREARMS BY DISTRICT RESIDENTS.
Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended in paragraph (b)(3) by inserting after ``other than a State in which the licensee's place of business is located'' the following: ``, or to the sale or delivery of a handgun to a resident of the District of Columbia by a licensee whose place of business is located in Maryland or Virginia,''.
SEC. X11. REPEALS OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ACTS.
The Firearms Registration Amendment Act of 2008 and the Firearms Registration Emergency Amendment Act of 2008, as passed by the District of Columbia, are repealed.
SEC. X12. SEVERABILITY.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this title and amendments made by this title, and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
not so bad as far ae the gun laws go, but big thing is this is that it strips out the Council fron naking gun laws, that is their fault for putting forward illegal racist laws
racist? what the hell does this have to do with race?
It's a known fact that people of a certain ethnic persuasion have lousy aim. I am, of course, referring to gypsies.
Actually, most gun control laws have their roots in racism, and I am not even talking about the reconstruction era. It used to be legal to carry a shotgun on the street in California, but when black activists started exercising this right, new laws were passed. The exact same thing happened in Chicago in the 60s.
Fast forward to DC in 2008. The training requirement, coincidentally championed by a councilwoman representing the whitest and wealthiest Ward in DC, requires a 5 hour course, including 1 hour of range time. The reason for the range time is that it forces you to travel out of the District. It also adds $125-$150 to the cost of exercising your "right."
Whom do you think this will impact the most? The Rock Creek crowd who spend more than that every week at Starbucks and can just jump in their hybrids and go to Rockville or people from the poorest, largely African American communities who, in fact are most at risk of being crime victims.
It is not overt, but it is the practical result.
Yes. Yes. Yes.
Does the line-item veto work on amendments like the gun law repeal?
What line-item veto?
Look at the bright side. Maybe EHN will exercise her newly-minted rights to carry a piece onto the House floor. I smell a new Majority Whip!!!
Don't forget that EHN would need to actually run for the newly-minted office before anything could happen.
That said, I'm not that thrilled with the outcome of the vote - especially the pro-gun crapola tagged onto it. And you can be quite sure that it won't get stripped during negotiations between the Senate and House, as it's a key to a lot of fence-sitters' votes in the smaller chamber.
Very good point. None of this matters anyway...even if Barry O signs it, SCOTUS will most likely shoot it down quicker than a 5-dude hitting on a 9-babe.
Line item veto was declared unconstitutional years ago.
Conference is where you would need to get rid of amendments. Overlooked was DeMint putting in a ban of the Fairness Doctrine, a non-issue which keeps conservatives foaming at the mouth.
They could still do line item veto via constitutional amendment. Maybe they slap that in this thing while they're at it.
But yeah, conference is where unwanted provisions go to mysteriously die. DeMint has said he was only offering the amendment to force the Democrats to go on record with a vote since for some reason this is the current raison d'etre for conservatives (nevermind more pressing matters to deal with). So I suspect he won't cry too much when it is lopped off in committee. In the House it's 1000x easier to keep amendments off a bill.
Conferencing is the next step and then the Conferenced Bill goes back to both chambers for passage. Then the bill goes to the President for signing into law.
The handgun ammendment could be a poison pill; if the House doesn't want it and it is removed, it can be used to make the conferenced bill in the Senate unpassable. Leave it to Congress to screw over DC even when it's finally trying to correct past screw overs...
The problem with the amendment is not as much which side of the issue it is on, but the very fact that it is Congress legislating DC matters, making the bill bittersweet and ironic.
That's what I thought. If Congress tried meddling with a particular state's affairs like that, the conservatives would be crying "States Rights!" faster than a Confederacy apologist.
Well, to be fair, I didn't hear them crying "States' rights!" when they forced the renaming of National Airport, which is in a state, so Reaganolatry is more important than states' rights too.
Your point is a good one, but perhaps the ultimate irony is that the authority to grant us a vote is being found in Congress's power "[t]o exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District ... as may ... become the Seat of the Government of the United States ...." It's the ability to meddle in local affairs that's getting us a vote in the first place.
@Fartynonsense --
You can't say that the "power [t]o exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District" gives Congress the right to ignore the rest of the Constitution. Otherwise Congress could just ignore the First Amendment in DC (no more protests) or the Fourth Amendment (no more search warrants).
This is, was, and will always be unconstitutional.
The District of Columbia has the highest per capita murder rate in the Nation, which may be attributed in part to local laws prohibiting possession of firearms by law-abiding persons who would otherwise be able to defend themselves and their loved ones in their own homes and businesses.
Or maaaaaybe, it's attributable to asshat's like you insisting on comparing statewide statistics to a city like DC. DC isn't the highest city per capita (and even that number is suspect, seeing as it measures municipalities, not metropolitan areas).
So yes, DC has a higher murder rate than the 50 states. BUT AS YOU CAN'T SEEM TO STOP TELLING US, WE'RE NOT A STATE! Stop using childish statistical tricks to make your nakedly political point.
oh shit, that's actually in the bill? good lord, small penis brigade, fuck off.
I don't want to defend myself. I outsource that to... the police. I'm ok with them having all the guns.
I guess you can't please all the people, all of the time.
Which is more important: obtaining voting rights for D.C. residents, or forcing non-felon D.C. residents to jump through a bunch of hoops to register their weapon?
I'm still waiting for the wave of legally-purchased gun-related violence that was supposed to sweep through the city as soon as handguns were legalized last year. Of course, it never materialized.
If you don't like DC gun laws, then get the city council to change them, or vote the council members you don't like out. That's how local government works everywhere else. Don't run to Congress and ask them to overrule the people we voted for to make our laws. Ensign's gun amendment is directly opposed to the whole spirit of the bill, which is supposed to be giving DC residents more control over our government.
Amen Island. Even if you don't like guns you gotta get behind this. If you are a DC, Liberal Dem, Pro gun, pro-statehood guy like me, today was like Christmas
Actually, when SCOTUS rules this unconstitutional, and sends this back to Congress, it's going to be like Xmas after the Grinch steals all of your toys. But at least you can all join hands and sing,
Fah who for-aze!
Dah who dor-aze!
Welcome Christmas,
Come this way!
Welcome, Welcome
Fah who rah-moose
Welcome, Welcome
Dah who dah-moose
Christmas day is in our grasp
So long as we have guns to clasp
If you are a DC, Liberal Dem, Pro gun, pro-statehood guy like me, today was like Christmas
I want to make it clear that I am speaking as a pro-statehood, DC-resident liberal who wasn't particularly attached to the District's gun laws. What I'm going to say next is not meant as political in any way.
HCE: get professional medical help. You are losing your mind.
First, you are not a liberal. You are a self-described libertarian who strongly prefers conservatives to liberals: Screw you. You are case in point that while I hate conservatives, I really, really hate liberals.
Second, you live in Arlington, not DC: DC is for criminals. Come stop by Arlington some time. People can have guns and carry them openly or concealed with a permit. Funny, but we have far fewer violent muggings and even fewer Wild West shoot-outs. Maybe it's just that river we put there to keep out the DC criminals.
And, frankly, there's not a lot of evidence you're a Democrat or pro-statehood either. Pro-gun, I'll give you.
wow, cminus, good job of dreging up some old quotes there...
Here's some thoughts on why the gun amendment might not be such a big deal:
Link
"The only vote that changed from Tuesday's cloture vote was that of Alaska's Lisa Murkowski (R)."
Not to be picky but, Thad Cochran (R-MS) also changed his vote to against (and a few more people voted who hadn't on Tuesday)