Photo voteprime

It’s been something of a banner week on the Hill for D.C. autonomy. Not only did one Republican hold a hearing on a bill that would ban abortions in D.C. after 20 weeks (and prohibit D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton from testifying, to boot), but another proposed an amendment that would exempt all service-members from the city’s gun laws.

At the behest of Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.), yesterday the House added a non-binding amendment to a defense spending bill that would allow military personnel in D.C. to carry handguns. According to current D.C. law, residents are allowed to have handguns for use in the home, but cannot carry them outside unless they are being transported to a gun range. D.C. and Illinois are the two only states to completely forbid concealed carry.

Gingrey, who has proposed the same amendment in the past, said yesterday in a statement that allowing the 40,000 military personnel in the region to carry guns—even when not on duty—would help deter crime:

Studies have shown that firearms are a crime deterrent. The handgun ban leaves law-abiding citizens unable to protect themselves from violent acts or individuals breaking the law. This amendment recognizes that the D.C. handgun law, especially in regard to trained servicemen and women, punishes individuals well-equipped to protect themselves and others while emboldening perpetrators of violent crime.

Neither gun-control groups nor Norton were particularly amused by the amendment, even if it is only symbolic. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence called it “nothing more than an attempt to energize the Republican base at the direct expense of D.C. residents,” while Norton criticized Gingrey during a speech yesterday for only targeting D.C.:

If my friend on the other side who sponsored this amendment believes that active duty military personnel should be exempt from federal, state, or local firearms laws, why did he not offer an amendment that would apply nationwide? Perhaps he did not offer such an amendment for the same reason that the Republican sponsor of a bill (H.R. 3808) to ban abortions after 20 weeks in the District of Columbia, on which the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution held a hearing today, did not introduce a 20-week bill that would apply nationwide, either. They pick on the District because they think they can.

This week, Washington Times scribe (and now D.C. gun owner) Emily Miller highlighted one 2010 case in which an active-duty soldier was found with guns in D.C. while traveling through. He was subsequently arrested, charged with a misdemeanor and had his guns confiscated. (He’s trying to get the guns back, but hasn’t been able to.)

Currently, legal gun owners can drive with their guns in their cars provided they’re locked up—and if they’re going somewhere else that honors their permit and has negotiated a reciprocity agreement. As such, stopping in D.C. can be problematic, since there is no concealed carry law, nor is there any form of federal reciprocity. Last year Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) introduced legislation that would have forced D.C. to allow residents of other states with concealed carry permits to similarly carry their guns in D.C. (The bill never went anywhere.)

Though Gingrey’s amendment is non-binding, Norton is urging that the Senate not include it in its version of the spending bill.