Morning Roundup: Where There's Smoke Edition
Gay Couple to Get Married at Ben & Jerry's in Georgetown
Morning Roundup: Remember When Edition
Conan O'Brien Tour to Stop in D.C. on June 8
Speed Restrictions Contributing to Metro Delays
D.C. Wire is reporting that House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) says he is "hoping" to get a vote by the end of next week on legislation that would grant the District a voting seat in the House. But what will the legislation look like? Will it have a gun law-gutting amendment, which most voting rights advocates oppose? No one's really sure. According to the Post's Mary Beth Sheridan, "Hoyer has been considering compromises on the bill that could deliver a House seat for the District but would also be acceptable to city leaders who oppose the gun amendment." D.C. Wire also reports that the special D.C. Council Committee on Statehood and Self-Representation will be meeting today at 4 p.m. in Room 502 of the Wilson Building.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookTips
Contribute
Latest Tip:
Tony Kornheiser advocates hitting cyclists on dc streets
http://www.thewashcycle.com/2010/03/tony-k
[more]
To all the people who are ready to sink this attempt at getting a vote for DC, do you really think our stringent DC gun laws are really keeping us safer? If I'm a criminal in need of a gun, Virginia isn't so far. Lose some useless gun laws and gain a vote in Congress? Sounds like a steal of a deal to me.
Oh lawdy lawdy! They done put pepper in me britches again!
Where's my gun at ma!? What they took it? Why on Earth would they take a mans gun? Oh lawdy lawdy! This District of Columbia is the backwerdist cantankerist abusurdurist
absorbine Juniorist town I've ever been too.
"Most voting rights advocates oppose" Bah! I'd actually be interested to see a breakdown of votes here on DCist, the cutting edge of public opinion. Everyone would have to promise not to post a link to the poll in various anti/pro websites.
Also, I'm really getting a nice image of a law gutted, spilling clauses out all over the pavement into a garbled mess.
Martin, I think we all, Timmeroo and myself included, wish the bill was not like this-but the real question is "are you willing to sacrifice the closest chance we've had for a vote over this issue?" I think you will find a big split.
HCE,
I'd also be very curious to see the split. It seems like most voting rights advocates and activists are against the gun amendment compromise, but I am curious how a normal D.C. resident would react. To be honest, I would imagine they would be against overturning the city's gun laws even if it meant getting a voting seat in the House because imagining the immediate negative consequences of no real gun laws (whether real or not) is much easier than imagining the immediate positive consequences of having one voting seat in the House.
Lemme see if I got this straight. The proposed legislation would give voting rights to DC residents who, while not collectively known as a beacon of enlightenment in the desert, are still Americans deserving of the franchise. In the meantime, it smacks down an overly rigid set of laws designed by a petulent local government that wants to stick it to Congress and impose their own silly-goose measures that ignore a recent SCOTUS ruling. Hmmm, sounds OK to me. My libertarian ass wants my gunz and my votez.
Dodgecitydave,
Again I have to stress this point: just because you don't like that "overly rigid set of laws designed by a petulant local government" does not make it right for Congress to again intervene in our local affairs. Period. Your libertarian ass should sympathize with the right of D.C. residents to be governed by their elected representatives, not just any yahoo from a conservative district that needs to get a good grade on the annual NRA scorecard. If you're a D.C. resident, you have a number of ways to go about changing those rigid laws. Use them before you throw your weight behind a congressional intervention that in any other district in this country would be met with absolute anger and opposition.
Martin, Congress DOES have the right to intervene in our local affairs. Period. What part of that statement don't you understand!? Whether you like it or not, they have that right, and that is the universe in which we have to operate.
I understand your point, Martin, but we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't think there's an absolute right for a citizenry to be governed by their elected officials. Let's say the majority of a state government was voted into office by citizens who thought that it was OK to discriminate against pro-acrylic left-handed knitters, and that the state legislature and executive branch followed through on those wishes despite a SCOTUS ruling to the contrary. Wouldn't there be some federal intervention to compel adherence to that decision?
And I'm glad you weighed in, Martin (really, no sarcasm here!). I learn a lot of stuff when you put your thoughts in writing. Like when you fire back to correct me on this line of reasoning!
Dodgecity, that is EXACTLY what happened with voting rights in the South
Dodgecitydave,
I'm sure there would be federal intervention, but the type of federal intervention is the issue at hand. I don't know of any case where Congress has directly legislated for another state. That's what's happening here. Has the federal government punished states that don't comply with Supreme Court decisions or federal laws? Sure. But it hasn't done so by stepping in to make decisions for local lawmakers.
Martin--
The federal government absolutely HAS stepped in to make decisions for local lawmakers who wouldn't comply with Supreme Court decisions or federal laws. In the 1950s and 60s they sent the U.S. Army to desegregate any number of Southern localities that wouldn't follow the SCOTUS ruling.
They can take away your voting rights when they can pry them from your cold dead fingers.
Martin, do you think it was "right" that blacks in the south continued to be disenfranchised from voting despite several supreme court rulings over 10-15 years?
Oooohhh. Much better example than my pro-acrylic knitters, HCE!
HCE,
No, that wasn't right at all. But it's also a huge, huge jump to make that comparison.
First off, one case involved human beings that were denied rights because of the color of their skin. The other involves residents of one city not being able to own a specific type of gun. Is that a violation of a constitutional right? Sure. But in the larger scheme of things, I don't think it's comparable.
Second, you're now allowed to own a handgun in the District, which is what Heller was about. While there are still disputes over the issues of semi-automatic weapons, the meat of the issue has been settled. As for regulations and restrictions, those will have to be settled in court. The Supreme Court never said that any restriction or regulation is unconstitutional.
Finally, to my knowledge Congress has never directly legislated for a state the way they do with the District. Have they used their power to punish states somehow for ignoring Supreme Court decisions or federal laws? Sure, but I can't think of one case where they have stepped in a passed laws for a specific state or city.
I think I need to re-stress one final point: the amendment won't only gut the city's gun laws, it will also actively prevent the city from imposing any new ones. That's absolutely a non-starter with me.
Martin, they HAVE regulated against individual states. The voting rights act calls out several states by name who still have to get Federal approval for changes in voting rules due to past violations. Below is a simplified version of what happened. Wikipedia for the details.
Georgia says: We'll just open the polling places at odd hours in black districts
Scotus says: you can't do that
Georgia says, okay, we'll put in place a literacy test for voters:
Scotus says: you can't do that
Georgia says, fine, we'll put in place a poll tax
Scotus says: you can't do that
Congress says: enough is enough, and introduces the Voting Rights Act of 1965-specifically telling Georgia that since they have no disregarded the intent of scotus, that they will now and forever more have to get federal approval to change their voting laws.
Martin (circa 1965) says: That's not fair!!! You should let the courts work it out and Congress should not legislate against individual states.
Sorry, but I don't see a big difference.
HCE,
In that case, you're right -- Congress used powers granted in the Fifteenth Amendment to punish states not complying with the terms of the amendment itself. The same doesn't necessarily apply to the Second Amendment since it is still an unsettled debate if that amendment applies to the states or only the federal government (it's a debate over a legal term known as incorporation). But heck, I'm no constitutional lawyer, so I'll avoid that.
I still think the cases are different because the notion of having local restrictions and regulations to gun ownership has never been disputed -- in fact, even Justice Scalia said that he wasn't completely against gun limitations. D.C. has made it so that residents can own handguns, which was the crux of the issue in the Heller case. They've also set up a cumbersome bureaucratic process, but that's a local decision that can be justified to a court based on public safety concerns.
Finally, I still think the comparison is bunk. Denying someone a right to vote based on the color of their skin is absolutely wrong. Denying someone a right to own a certain type of gun in a specific urban environment is nowhere on the same map.
Martin, many long-time residence in this town understand that the connection between civil rights and gun rights are not "bunk."
From recent WaPo article:
Valencia Mohammed, director of Mothers of Unsolved Murders, a D.C. advocacy group for mothers of homicide victims, said she would welcome the deal, although she has lost two sons to gun violence in the city.
"This is one of the inalienable rights that I wanted," she said. "I want my vote to be counted. I want representation in Congress. And I also want the right to bear arms. I'm just looking at the history of my ancestors and what they went through and how they were shot and killed, tarred and feathered and burned to death," she said. "Guns was one of those things that they could not have and a tool for other people that kept them enslaved. I'm saying no more of that. I want to enjoy all of those rights that they were denied. . . . It's time."
Martin wrote, "Denying someone a right to vote based on the color of their skin is absolutely wrong. Denying someone a right to own a certain type of gun in a specific urban environment is nowhere on the same map."
Thankfully, that decision isn't yours to make, Martin. SCOTUS says you can't do either.
Well, not really, because SCOTUS said in the Heller case that the government is allowed to stop people from owning certain weapons (i.e. assault weapons, anti-tank guns, etc.). So there is a lot of nuance in the Second Amendment debate, and even the court recognized that.
Agreed. However, the SCOTUS majority concurred that DC's handgun ban was unconstitutional, and--I may be wrong here--that burdensome, unresonable regulation is, too.
Hold your horses. There was no "the government is allowed to keep people from owning certain weapons". I'm going to pull a Wikipedia here:
[However, "[l]ike most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." The Court's opinion, although refraining from an exhaustive analysis of the full scope of the right, "should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
Therefore, the District of Columbia's handgun ban is unconstitutional, as it "amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of 'arms' that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense".]
Given this, where do you see "assault weapons?" They constitute a very popular class of weapons (basically semi-automatic rifles) used for lawful purposes.
BTW, anything greater than .50 caliber is considered a destructive device, not a firearm by ATF, so no need to include anti-tank RPGs, etc.
Last post
Whoooaaaoo!!! Martin, get your terms right. Scotus said NOTHING about "assault weapons." That is a political term invented by Josh Sugarman at VPC to confuse the public into thinking a that semi-automatic rifles, that are less powerful than most hunting rifles, yet LOOK scary, are actually machine guns. They are not automatic,military weapons.
Now, what our relatives in Swiss land have under their beds? THOSE are bad ass assult rifles.
What Heller said was that restrictions could be put on weapons that 1) had no militia application (e.g. sawed off shotgun) and 2) were especially dangerous or unusual (no rocket propelled grenades for you).
current dc regs ban the most most popular centerfire rifle in america today as well as dick heller's revolver that was at the center of the Heller case.
HCE out.
Feedback for Martin & DCist: As a reader I find Martin's relentless editorializing on his pet issues (voting rights, stadia, etc.) extremely annoying.
More so than anyone else in DCist's stable of writers, it feels like whatever 'beat' Martin has becomes his personal soapbox. I would like to read posts on these issues that aren't so heavily colored by Martin's views, assumptions and biases. Even unrelated posts (Morning Roundups, etc.) from Martin often end up editorializing on this.
I'm not suggesting that DCist should have an impersonal or rigidly objective voice. But it shouldn't read like an individual's opinionated personal blog either. Having Martin pen opinion peices is one thing (and would be dandy), but when virtually every post on a topic ends up being one, it's annoying.
The comments here are a case in point. There are plenty of reasonable voting rights supporters that are willing to accept the gun amendment, but DCist's posts don't even acknowledge that as a valid viewpoint.
Maybe I'm the only one who feels this way, but I'm voicing it FWIW.
gbert,
I do editorialize on the subject, sure. But if you read over all the writing I've done on this over the years (and it's a lot of posts), I've also gone back and forth on what I believe to be the best approach to gaining voting rights. While I used to side with the incremental approach, I suppose this most recent charade with the gun amendment might be changing my mind.
I don't pretend to have the final answer here, and I do believe a lot of the comments raise great issues that we need to debate. Sure, I guess I do somewhat have a soapbox, but I'm also willing to engage with people that disagree with me.
I suppose the generic stand DCist takes on voting rights is simple -- we want 'em, alongside the ability to govern ourselves. If I sometimes take that too far, I apologize, but it seems like an issue that we really shouldn't have to compromise on. It's painful to think that D.C. residents are being forced to give up one right just to gain another.
It's painful to think that D.C. residents are being forced to give up one right just to gain another.
Welcome to married life. In exchange for half your $h!t and most of your dignity, another human being might touch you down there on a regular basis. That is, if you remember to take the recycling out.
that doesn't sound like a bad trade-off to me. i think you got it pretty good...
I forgot to mention that whole keeping-your-dick-and-balls-in-a-jar-on-the-shelf thing. You know that song "Detachable Penis?" It's like that, except not funny.
Fingers crossed for a clean bill. And if we don't get one, I'm hoping MPD's crime stats report the numbers of guns stole from homes while their owners are off at work- when the vast majority of break-ins occur.
i don't even read these threads anymore. someone tell me if something other than the usual rehash happens in them...
The thing with this particular bill is that I don't see Congress writing legislation regarding gun rights in any other city, even though Heller applies nationwide, including in the many cities that have strict gun control laws and haven't amended them yet, in light of Heller.
And the bill doesn't give gun rights District-wide. It allows people to carry guns in residential areas in DC.
But I guarantee you that 'gun right' ends at the steps of any federal facility and at the steps of the Capitol.
If guns really do make us safe why can't we take them with us when we go to see our Congressman?
And from what I've heard the gun amendment strips away the overly restrictive things the DC Council put in place, but it also removes restrictions on the mentally ill carrying weapons, etc.
Correction: I'm assuming technically it doesn't allow people to carry guns. I'm assuming it's limited to home ownership.
But if guns really do make us safer, why bar them at the Capitol?
Three things. One, the amendment does NOT provide for ANY carry rights through the city for normal citizens. You can only own/keep to defend your house.
Two, you don't need guns to visit your Congressman because Congress, federal buildings, etc are secure buildings enforced with metal detectors so that no one (good or bad) can carry weapon aside from police. Outside of those buildings, you have no idea who has what or what their intentions are, so some people (such as off-duty cops) like the idea of being able to defend themselves and others.
Three: The mentally ill (as defined by law) were never able to carry weapons in DC. They are also unable to legally buy them, thanks to upgraded NICS background checks after VA Tech.
Any other concerns?