Guns, votes and D.C.
By Angela Canterbury
Last Thursday, the Senate finally approved at least one vote in Congress for the long-disenfranchised citizens of the nation’s capital. That was the hand that giveth . . .
The other hand promptly took away the commonsense gun control laws put into place by the locally elected government of Washington, D.C.
Senator John Ensign (R-NV) offered an amendment to the D.C. House Voting Rights Act (61-37) that – should become law – could make D.C. one of the most free-wheeling,-gun-toting places in the country. It passed by 62-36. That’s right – more guns got one vote more than democracy.
First of all, what business does Congress have removing safeguards on selling and possessing firearms that meet the standards set by the highest court? The D.C. Council recently amended its local gun laws to comply with a Supreme Court ruling. There is no sound reason for Congress to use extraordinary powers to pre-empt the democratic will of the people of D.C. – especially to make the city less safe.
This gun measure is more than symbolism or politics: It’s about public safety. Specifically, the gun amendment would undermine federal anti-trafficking laws, repeal D.C.’s ban on military-style weapons, allow teenagers to possess semiautomatic assault rifles, and prohibit D.C. from passing laws that could “discourage” gun possession or use, by anyone – even children or felons.
And exactly what do gun laws have to do with the right to vote? House leadership should not consider this or any other non-germane proposal with this civil and voting rights bill. This is about righting a historic wrong and bringing democracy to the so-called capital of the free world.
It seems some in Congress think it is within their power to rule over the more than half a million people who live in the District of Columbia, even if those people have no democratic representation in Congress. This has got to change. It’s time to tell members of the House that We the People are more powerful than the gun lobby that is pushing to have its interests imposed upon District residents.
The House likely will vote on the bill on Wednesday, March 4. Hopefully, lawmakers will walk our nation’s democratic talk and do right by the people of D.C. by restoring their voting representation in the House AND rejecting any attempts to undermine their local democratic government. If they succeed, members of the House will then need to negotiate with the Senate for the removal of the dangerous and unnecessary gun amendment. President Obama should not have to consider whether to sign a divisive gun measure into law at the same time he acts to return voting rights to the citizens of the District.
If you live outside of Washington, D.C., please feel enfranchised to give your rep. a nudge to take a stand for more democracy now. District residents can thank their non-voting delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton, for tirelessly fighting for their rights.
April 3, 2009 @ 12:42 pm
I was under the impression that all citizens of the United States have a right vote on issues and have the right to have representives to watch over thier rights as a citizen of this country.This is reguardless of their race, religion,gender or locallity of residence. How then can the city that is called the capital of our nation can restrict their own residents of the same
April 4, 2009 @ 3:01 am
As far as guns and the right to vote – two very different subjects but with one answer. The citizens of Washington, DC deserve to have both.
I’d like to comment on your statement that this bill would allow teenagers to own automatic weapons? Really – teenagers? You say it would prohibit DC from passing laws that would discourage gun ownership by children? Felons? Seriously?
Also you say that this law will make Washington DC less safe? And many readers would automatically agree after all, those states (33?) that allow their citizens to “carry” guns – most certainly should have higher crime statistics than say states that have the most stringent gun control – right (like New York, New Jersey)? With this in mind, we can admit that the stringent gun control in Washington DC has kept the crime rate low (after all – guns = crime right).
Or is it ILLEGAL guns = crime regardless of the location? (I’m assuming you equate crime with safety of course)!
Well I just want to prompt people to STOP and think and ask – Do the states with the most lenient gun control have the highest crime rates? Do states with the most stringent gun control have the lowest crime rates? Unfortunately the answer to both is No. My point is perhaps you can stop equating SAFETY with Less Guns and begin to equate SAFETY with less “illegal” guns.
This bills only address’s “legal” gun ownership and of course the right to vote for the citizenry of DC.
April 19, 2009 @ 11:15 pm
K.H. says:
“Well I just want to prompt people to STOP and think and ask – Do the states with the most lenient gun control have the highest crime rates? Do states with the most stringent gun control have the lowest crime rates? Unfortunately the answer to both is No. ”
Incorrect.
In the 90s, while crime nationally was dropping an average of 30%, in states with less stringent gun laws crime dropped dropped only 15%. [Dept of Justice]
The only scientific study on the issue of concealed carry and crime was done by the National Academy of Sciences, which showed it had NO impact on reducing crime, but DID decrease public safety.
Where more legal guns are present, it is more likely that a crime would involve violence, and the level of that violence is higher. [Natl Acad of Sci]
Forty percent of guns used in crimes in the US are obtained through legal channels; which means more legal guns lead to more crime, not just more illegal ones.[Dept of Justice]
A member of a gun-owning household is 43 times more likely to be killed by a gun than a member of a non-gun-owning household. [Dept of Justice]
Since guns are as good as cash on the street, a gun in a home makes it 3% more likely that that home will be burgled; that’s 63,000 more burglaries in 2004 alone just from gun ownership. [Dept of Justice]
For well over 30 years, police-run personal self-defense courses in the U.S. have taught that carrying gun is counter-productive in that the risk of it being taken away from you and used against you is greater than the likelihood that you will be able to use it effectively.
Extrapolating from the last two points, being known to be carrying a gun makes you more likely to be a victim of a crime, rather than less (or, as I like to put it: “Sneak, sneak, sneak, bonk! Now I have a gun.”)
So we see that actual science, actual facts – as opposed to your wishful thinking – shows us that less stringent gun laws DO mean more crime.
But that was not the question: the question was, what do guns and voting have to do with each other? The fact you didn’t answer it – and substituted a different question – would seem to indicate you don’t have an answer.
“As far as guns and the right to vote – two very different subjects but with one answer. The citizens of Washington, DC deserve to have both.”
The citizens of Wasington DC decided they didn’t WANT guns, whether they “deserve” them or not is again not the issue – another attempt on your part to mislead.
“I’d like to comment on your statement that this bill would allow teenagers to own automatic weapons? Really – teenagers? You say it would prohibit DC from passing laws that would discourage gun ownership by children? Felons? Seriously?”
Yes, the bill overrides all local gun laws, present and future. In other words, it is in taking away DC residents right to vote for gun laws which are in keepng with the US Constitution.
Sergei Rostov
May 19, 2011 @ 2:02 am
This gun measure is more than symbolism, or politics: It’s about public safety. Specifically, the gun amendment would undermine federal anti-trafficking laws, repeal D.C.’s ban on military-style weapons, allow teenagers to possess semiautomatic assault rifles, and prohibit D.C. from passing laws that could “discourage” gun possession or use, by anyone – even children or felons.