Gun Amendment Impacts DC Voting Debate

By
February 26, 2009

Interesting. One amendment said to have some support to a bill that would give DC a seat in the House would repeal DC's stringent gun-control laws. Ensign of Nevada claims to have introduced the amendment due to the district's tendency to enact "onerous" and "unconstitutional" anti-gun regulations. He produced a chart displaying how DC's tough gun laws have done nothing to reduce violent crime over the years. Coming as it does while the national debate is heating up suggests we're in a shooting war now over the immediate future of changes to gun regulation in America.

… a blitz of amendments in the Senate, including one to repeal the city's gun-control laws that appeared to have significant support.

 "Clearly, today, there's been an orgy of amendments offered to the D.C. House Voting Rights Act, partially in an effort to derail the bill, but also people are using it as an opportunity to put their pet issue" on the Senate floor, said Ilir Zherka, executive director of DC Vote, an advocacy group.

He said the gun amendment "could be a big problem here."

That amendment closely resembles a bill passed by the House but not the Senate last year. It alarmed D.C. officials by calling for the removal of almost all locally imposed gun-control rules.

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) said he was introducing the amendment because the D.C. Council "has continued to enact onerous and unconstitutional firearms regulations" despite the Supreme Court decision last year overturning the city's ban on handguns.

He produced a large chart on the Senate floor that showed the city's murder rate over the years.

"Can you honestly tell me that gun control in D.C. has been effective?" Ensign asked.



AdSense 300×250
NewsMax Trending Now
Comments:
  1. Mrs. du Toit says:

    Except it is entirely unconstitutional. The residents of DC are technically residents of the state of Maryland, because Maryland gave the land that DC is built on. More simply, all that would be required is to establish that DC residents were residents of Maryland, for the purposes of the census, but Maryland doesn’t want them!
    Article IV: Section 3: “New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

    Maryland can retrocede their portion and gain an additional House member.
    The right of retrocession belongs to Maryland OR would require an amendment to revise the language in the Constitution which established DC, and a reversal of the 23rd Amendment, with the consent of Maryland.

  2. Light says:

    The residents of DC are technically residents of the state of Maryland, because Maryland gave the land that DC is built on.
    This would mean that West Virginia is actually part of Virginia since it gave up the land. This makes no sense. DC is it’s own entity and is not controlled or parts any other state. Of course, anything can be changed with enough consensus in congress. That really goes without saying.
    Maryland has no rights to reclaim DC since DC was created by congress in which MD was complicit. Stop spreading misinformation. It looks like you are trying to claim that DC split itself off illegally or something.

  3. Matt Groom says:

    Actually, West Virginia spliting off from Virginia was technically illegal, whilst the Confedrate states secceeding was never proven to be illegal. Since neither issue has been tried in the supreme court, the only thing we have to go on is the constitution which is clearly being violated on this and many other issues where DC is concerned.

  4. malclave says:

    I’m still confused as to who, if DC gets a voting Representative, will be legally allowed to vote for that Congressman.
    “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.”

  5. Mrs. du Toit says:

    Misinformation? Your confusion, Light, doesn’t mean I’m providing bad information.
    I provided the Constitution! It’s not long or difficult to read, and you can find it by googling it.
    Article I: Section 2: “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.”
    Article I: Section 8: “The Congress shall have Power… To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;”