Go Home Already: Shouts and Murmurs
Man Stops Traffic at 17th and K to Demand $200 Million
Morning Roundup: Goodbye, Abe Edition
Judge Throws Out WTU Suit Over Teacher Layoffs
Vegetate to Close at the End of the Month
The Hill is reporting that D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton indicated during this morning's subcommittee hearing that she now expects the D.C. House Voting Rights Act to pass the House with a controversial amendment that would wipe out most of the District's existing gun registration laws.
“For the first time, the leaders in both houses are looking very seriously at this gun law,” Norton said a hearing this morning. “And they are aware the gun law is going to become law.”
She continued, “Because we're going to pass the D.C. House Voting Rights Act. We're not letting anything stand in the way of that. There is no question in my mind these leaders are going to get this done. There's also no question in my mind that if you have this attached to both bills, it's law.”
This is a big change for Norton, who up until recently had been publicly scolding D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty for even suggesting that the city ought to consider accepting the gun amendment in order to get the voting rights bill passed. It appears as though Norton has since been convinced that moderate Democrats in the House are simply unwilling to let the bill come to a vote without the amendment, out of fear that the influential National Rifle Association will negatively "score" their votes if it does.
Here's the problem with this plan: Republicans in the House largely don't support granting the District a voting member, so most of them are likely to vote against the bill anyway. And liberal Democrats will surely have a hard time explaining to their constituents that they voted for the bill with the amendment. So now the question is, can the Democratic leadership even be assured that the bill itself will pass with the amendment? We'll just have to wait and see.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
and, i think you have to ask, at what point does ms. norton's championing of this bill at all costs begin to simply reflect upon her desire to get the right to vote on the floor for herself. it's clear that if it doesn't pass now, she's probably done for. some future DC rep. might have the ability to carry this across the finish line, but this is her last hurrah...
I can't believe I am saying this, but you are right.
IMGoph - do you mind if I reference your comment in my blog today?
upton: don't know if it's too late, but sure, go ahead and quote me all you want.
You may expect me to be jumping for joy. That is not the case. I am saddened that it has come to this and that the District needs to give up some of its home rule to get voting rights. My anger is not towards Congress or the NRA, but aimed at the DC Council. THEY had 3 chances to get this right and blew it with their myopic views and political naivete.
They still have a chance to make it right, however. Go back and change the laws, get Congress of our backs and get the vote.
Don't forget, our mayor is a dumb ass, too.
There's also the question of severability. I have not read the bill, but what if the DC representation part is struck down by the courts, but does the rest survive? Meaning Utah gets its rep and Congress gets to re-write DC gun laws, both of which are unquestionably within its purview?
Congress gets to rewrite our laws whenever they want. I think there is a serverability clause in there (in that if we lose in court, the gun laws stay.) If they are linked, I imagine the line at Atlantic guns will be ten deep while it is before the court.
Sommer, you got something wrong here.
"And liberal Democrats will surely have a hard time explaining to their constituents that they voted for the bill with the amendment. So now the question is, can the Democratic leadership even be assured that the bill itself will pass with the amendment?"
Yes, it will pass. Do the numbers. There are very few Democrats who have put a stake in the ground on the pro-gun control side. My guess is that the vast majority, which ever way they lean, wish they never have to vote on gun control at all. Pelosi will even vote for it.
Also, although many have won elections for being "pro gun," I don't see the reverse happening. (maybe except in NYC or parts of California). It is just not the huge issue on people's minds that the Brady Campaign would have you believe.
I've said it before and I'll say it again...
Given all the scandal, controversy, blunders, and inept leadership present in the DC Government; perhaps voting rights are not worth the cost of losing our ability to regulate and control guns in the District.
If Ms. Norton is so desperate to get a vote that she'll throw away every other issue, than I question her logic and fitness to be in her position.
I do not believe the voting rights bill's benefits are going to outweight the costs--and I say, let it die (this time) and let's get some fresh blood in who may be able to champion the issue down the road--I think it's worth waiting for and doing right, not half-assed and out of sheer desperation!
I also want to say a big "shame on you" to the spineless democrats who are allowing their vote to be dictated by the NRA. Let the NRA "score the vote", screw them and do what we elected you to do! If you bend over backwards to the NRA on something this local, imagine what other strings the NRA might pull! Also a "shame on you" to the NRA for meddling in affiars that have NOTHING to do with them! Also "shame on you" to the shadey republicans who introduced this bill, knowing full well it could quite possibly de-rail the entire thing--you're greed in getting what you want, will someday be your undoing!
"It's worth waiting for and doing right."?
You havent lived here very long have you.
You really need to put your hand on your hip and wag your index finger to get the full "shame on you" effect. That $h!t moves mountains.
Also, EVERY gun is technically a "machinegun" because they've been made by machines. So. There.
The DC Council responded to the Supreme Court with a Bull-Cheh make-work-for-attorneys law and the Congress was forced to correct the ill-advised Council's mistake.
I'm so going to enjoy my seat in the middle of the bus because that's what this is: DC residents getting to move from the back of the bus (no voting representation at all) to some b.s. half-assed compromise that doesn't give us full representation in a government we're taxed to fund.
Would now be a good time to point out that "change" doesn't always mean "things get better" ?
the bill is unconstitutional anyway!