Restoring the 2nd Amendment in D.C.

Human Events ^ | Jul 18, 2003 | Chris Field

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

Citizens of the District of Columbia, who have long been subject to laws preventing them from protecting themselves and their families, now are a small step closer to having their constitutionally protected right to bear arms restored.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah), introduced S. 1414, the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act, on Tuesday, July 15. In his introduction, Sen. Hatch noted that D.C. has the "highest, the absolute highest, murder rate per capita in the country. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and despite the most stringent gun control laws in the country, in 8 out of 9 years between 1994 and 2002, Washington, D.C., had the highest murder rate in the country. . . . The District of Columbia has again reclaimed its rather unenviable title as the 'Murder Capital of the United States.'"

According to Hatch's office, the provisions of the D.C. Personal Protection Act include the following:

"Permitting law-abiding citizens to possess handguns and rifles in their homes and businesses;
"Repealing the registration requirements for firearms and ammunition;
"Eliminating criminal penalties for possession and carrying of firearms in their homes and businesses; and
"Correcting an erroneous provision which wrongly treats some firearms as if they were machineguns."

The bill language begins with the following congressional findings:

(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.

(3) The law-abiding citizens of the District of Columbia are deprived by local laws of handguns, rifles, and shotguns that are commonly kept by law-abiding persons throughout the rest of the United States for sporting use and for lawful defense of persons, homes, and families.

(4) The District of Columbia has the highest per capita murder rate in the Nation, which may be attributed in part to local laws prohibiting possession of firearms by law-abiding persons who would otherwise be able to defend themselves and their loved ones in their own homes and businesses.

(5) The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended by the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986, and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, provide comprehensive Federal regulations applicable in the District of Columbia as elsewhere. In addition, existing District of Columbia criminal laws punish possession and illegal use of firearms by violent criminals and felons. Consequently, there is no need for local laws which only disarm law-abiding citizens.

(6) Legislation is required to correct the District of Columbia's law in order to restore the rights of its citizens under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and thereby enhance public safety.

It is high time that Congress addresses this issue, and Sen. Hatch and all the Senators co-sponsoring the bill deserve praise. While many local political leaders have been spending their time pushing for the "rights" of D.C. residents via D.C.-statehood, they have ignored the rights of those same Americans to protect themselves. And crime rate has increased. Why? Because laws that restrict gun rights don't deter gun-wielding scofflaws, they only serve to disarm good Americans and make it easier for criminals to violate the innocent.

Here are the current co-sponsors of S.1414:
-Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah)
-Sen. Zell Miller (D.-Ga.)
-Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R.-Tex.)
-Sen. Larry Craig (R.-Idaho)
-Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.)
-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R.-Ala.)
-Sen. Pete Domenici (R.-N.M.)
-Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R.-Ga.)
-Sen. Conrad Burns (R.-Mont.)
-Sen. John Sununu (R.-N.H.)
-Sen. Mike Enzi (R.-Wyo.)
-Sen. Jim Bunning (R.-Ky.)
-Sen. George Allen (R.-Va.)
-Sen. Ted Stevens (R.-Alaska)
-Sen. Ben Campbell (R.-Colo.)
-Sen. Chuck Grassley (R.-Iowa)
-Sen. Craig Thomas (R.-Wyo.)
-Sen. Lindsay Graham (R.-S.C.)
-Sen. Mike Crapo (R.-Idaho)

[MonroeDNA]

Bump-a-mundo!

Wooo Hooo for DC!!!

[Support Free Republic]

She wants to look her best for her subjects.
>	Make a fashion statement. Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[Beelzebubba]

Bang

[Centurion2000]

It won't pass ... too many democrats (and RINO's) are fearful of the population being armed and being close to where they work.

If Rome didn't trust the Legions to be in the city, the DC boy will not trust it's 'peons' with guns either. Cynical but probably true.

[spodefly]

Now this sounds like "Common Sense" gun legislation. Does anyone think Eleanor Holmes Whatever will go along with it?

Also, you gotta love Zell Miller, the lone (D) in a sea of (R)'s.

[Orangedog]

She and the rest of CBC (the klan with a tan, as Walter Williams calls them) will oppose this. Why?... Because if the DC residents weren't spending so much time being scared and at the mercy of criminals, they might realize that they are being used by those poverty pimps.

[Shooter 2.5]

The only democrat to make the honor roll is Zell Miller.


Does anyone want to bring up the "there's no difference in the parties" argument?

[Gringo1]

Zell Miller is a Georgia boy, that is the difference in this case. He also isn't an idiot.

[Grut]

Does anyone want to bring up the "there's no difference in the parties" argument?

Both parties favor big government, but the 'pubbies want it to do one set of things while the Dems want it to do the opposite set. By alternating power and never repealing anything, the two parties combine to ensure that big government does everything.

Anything sponsored by Orrin Hatch is doomed, by the way.

[Shooter 2.5]

Since the Second Amendment is my number one priority, I'll support the Republican Party over all others.

[El Laton Caliente]

I agree, once the 2nd is gone the rest will follow rapidly.

[jdege]

Truthfully, I'd rather see the D.C. ban overturned by the Courts.

[Grut]

Since the Second Amendment is my number one priority, I'll support the Republican Party over all others.

Why? The 'pubbies may not be for gun control but they're not so against it that they'll fight the Dems to keep it from happening.

[Shooter 2.5]

You apparently haven't been following the state CCW laws lately.

The CCW laws have stopped the handgun bans in their tracks and it's all because of the Republican Party. The dem party has constantly been against the carry laws.

As far as reversing the Assault Weapons Ban or the Gun Manufacturers Protection Bill, check to see which party is against them and which one is for it.

[Grut]

The CCW laws have stopped the handgun bans in their tracks and it's all because of the Republican Party.

I admit I haven't been following things too closely, but my impression is that CCW reform is largely the result of private efforts the GOP has been willing to 'go along' with, not anything they've initiated themselves. The trouble with that is, they're also often willing to 'go along' with the Democrats.

[Shooter 2.5]

Wrong.

The next time a CCW vote is on the net, watch the debates between the two parties. The Minnesota Senate vote was on FR. You should have taken the time to watch it for a real eyeopener. Ask someone like Dead Corpse or Jdege what it was like.

The vote on the Missouri CCW law is going to be next. Do a little research.

[jdege]

There were Republicans who opposed shall-issue in Minnesota, but not many of them. Of the four Minnesota GOP Senators who voted against shall-issue carry in 2001, only one returned to the Senate in 2003, and she was refused endorsement by the district GOP convention, and ran as an Independent.

There have been some Democrats who were strong supporters of shall-issue, but even so, they voted for a rabidly anti-gun Senate leadership. The GOP leadership was openly pro-gun. Not all of them truly see the light on the issue, understanding how fundamentally important it is to ensure that we maintain an armed citizenry, but some do. And the rest understand the political reality.

The shall-issue bill passed in Minnesota because over the last seven years, through three election cycles, the pro-carry advocates turned out people at the caucuses, the primaries, and the general elections, and put pro-carry candidates in office.

[Shooter 2.5]

Exactly.

If anyone looks at the debates, the rift between the parties is evident.

The dem party is starting to abandon gun control as a campaign issue but that doesn't mean once they get in office they still continue down that path.

They will continue to lose until they start supporting the Bill of Rights.

[Dead Corpse]

For the most part, you are right on this one. Where you are wrong is in thinking that the Republicans are the most pro-2A. That would be the Liberatarians.

Didn't Alaska just vote in Vermont style carry? 2 down 49 to go....

[Shooter 2.5]

According to the votes for the Second Amendment, the Republicans support it at least by 80 per cent.

The High Road website has a thread about a anti-gun Libertarian.

[Dead Corpse]

So you were able to find one anti-gun "libertarian"? I wonder if they realize that being anti-gun violates every precept of property Rights, self-ownership, taking responsibility for ones safety and actions, ect...

A pacifist can be a libertarian, in theory. Logically, they cannot. Got a link to that thread? I searched on "libertarian" and got a few thousand hits. Scanned the first couple, but those all had libertarians pointing out pro-2A positions.

80 percent means that 1 in 5 Republicans are anti-2A. You were able to find one annomoly in the libertarian fold. Every other libertarian I have ever met would be termed a "gun nut" by even the conservatives here on FR.

[Shooter 2.5]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=5a93a9d4e7766682cf619424d2b28fe8&threadid=31571

There you go. I have no idea how many Libertarians personally are against guns. I suppose it's rare enough to warrant the thread.

My son did go to a Libertarian meeting at one time. He described it as the druggies in one corner and the gunnies in the other, his words.

When I wrote the 80% number, I categorize anyone who believes in some restrictions as "anti-gun".

[Dead Corpse]

Uhhh... the link is an even further cross-posting from a website called "morons.org". In the lead article, the guy never claims to be a "libertarian". In fact, a bunch of the people who responded to him cut his anti-gun argument to shreds.

Even the "druggie" libertarians I know are pro-2A. MOST of the Libertarians I know who are active within the party are more interested in repealing tax law and anything that smells un-Constitutional. Not JUST un-Constitutional gun control meassures.

Not necessarily an unworthy goal.

[aristeides]

Who says the population of D.C. near the Capitol is not armed? I understand virtually the entire population of Southeast D.C. is armed. The weapons may be illegal, but they have them.

[aristeides]

Anything sponsored by Orrin Hatch is doomed, by the way.

Isn't the D.C. ordinance also being challenged in court? If the Second Amendment confers any personal right to bear arms at all, it's hard to see how a ban as sweeping as the D.C. one could be constitutional. D.C. is federal territory, after all, so the issue of whether the Second Amendment binds the states does not arise.

[sandydipper]

Is there a correlation between black populations and murder rates?

[tpaine]

Uhhh... the link is an even further cross-posting from a website called "morons.org". In the lead article, the guy never claims to be a "libertarian". In fact, a bunch of the people who responded to him cut his anti-gun argument to shreds.

Even the "druggie" libertarians I know are pro-2A. MOST of the Libertarians I know who are active within the party are more interested in repealing tax law and anything that smells un-Constitutional. Not JUST un-Constitutional gun control meassures.
Not necessarily an unworthy goal.
24 -DC-


FR's 'Republican' zealots are getting ever more bizarre. Scratch one and frequenty you find big government loving, gun law appeasing anti-libertarians all dressed up in 'conservative' cloaks.

They bleat about how just a few more election cycles of RINO control will bring us constitutional restoration, when the exact opposite is happening every day in political reality.

Mindnumbing blindness.

[Ken H]

If this is not sufficient for the gun grabbers:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Then this should reinforce it:

Amendment XIV. Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The RKBA is an enumerated Right that no government at any level may infringe.

[Dead Corpse]

Unfair tpaine. Normally, Shooter is one of the good guys in regards to the Second Amendment at least. Never really had a discussion with him beyond that topic that I remember. Then again, I haven't SEEN him on any other threads. ;-)