The NRA's Cheap Gun Trick on Washington D.C. Voting Rights
By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
Every time I hear that gun issues have ground the D.C. voting rights bill to a halt in the House of Representatives, I wonder to myself: Didn't the U.S. Supreme Court already strike down D.C.'s ban on handguns as unconstitutional?
The answer of course is "yes." So why is it still an issue? Well because, despite what some advocates would have you believe, the gun issue isn't about constitutional rights.
I've had a, ahem, running battle with Doug Heye over at The Hill's "Pundits Blog" on the voting rights issue. He wrote:
Robert—you've also argued that the right to keep and bear arms is a "secondary" issue compared to D.C. voting rights. Let me assure you that when someone in the District is the victim of a crime, proper self-defense is their primary concern, not Eleanor Holmes Norton's voting status or committee assignments.
Thanks to the Supreme Court, D.C. citizens can keep and bear arms. They simply have to register them, and cannot have any of the semi-automatic variety. Only radical gun rights advocate suggest these are unconstitutional limitations—and if they are unconstitutional, then under-armed D.C. citizens can gain redress through the courts.
What they can't do is try to gain redress through Congress, where the 600,000 D.C. residents lack a real voice. Which wouldn't stop Congress from dictating what kind of gun laws D.C.'s 600,000 residents should have.
So yes, in this instance the right of representation before government is unquestionably more important than whether a D.C. resident has to register his gun.
My friend Doug advocates that instead of their right to representation in their government, D.C. residents should trade that right for freedom from taxation. I'd bet that voting rights are more popular with D.C. residents than the right to own a gun, so I wonder: Would he trade a gun ban for freedom from taxation?
Keep watching the D.C. voting rights battle; keep in mind that 600,000 Americans are being denied their fundamental rights. And remember that the National Rifle Association used an attempt to solve this basic outrage as a cheap vehicle to advance their agenda.
On Facebook? You can keep up with Thomas Jefferson Street blog postings through Facebook's Networked Blogs.
- Read more by Robert Schlesinger .
- Read more from the Thomas Jefferson Street blog .
- Read more about Washington, D.C.
Tags: NRA | Supreme Court | guns | voting | Washington, DC
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (53) | Print
Reader Comments
+gun control
england has gun control and took away peoples rite to own hand guns and the bobbies there say that they now have to wear protective vest and cary automatice weapons to control the crimanals i would say that proves that less gun in the hangs of good people doesnt make crime go away criminals will always get guns you wont stop them if you destroyed every gun owned by good people criminals would still get guns from other places like mexico so banning guns is not the answer what is i dont pretend to know but i shot and my children shot we dont hunt but we like shooting is that wrong i dont think so is it wrong for me to tell you you should own a gun if you are afraid of them i do think so so dont pretend to know what someone else should do or not do freedom is just that the rite to chose your's and mine
Max of DC
First let me state that I have no problem with voting rights for D.C. residents. The problem lies in the way it is being done. A law can not override the Constitution. It requires an Amendment or, possibly, annexation of D.C. into Maryland.
As for gun rights in the district, the law prohibiting the exercise of Second Amendment rights was struck down by Heller. The D.C. City Council is now simply trying to circumvent the ruling. BTW, D.C. became "the murder capital of the world for about a decade" in the 1980s, after the 1976 gun ban took effect. To state that the ban curbed any crime is irrational.
Anti-gun nuts, vegenazis, bunny-kissers and others
I also send my thanks for reminding me to send my contribution to GOA. My NRA membership for the next several years is current. I am thinking about the Tree of Liberty that needs to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots. It draws near, but I am not afraid. I am happy to know that I'm not alone in these thoughts. I have a large extended family who think the same way I do and they are not happy about the wannabe tyrants who now run things in DC. By the way, why are the places where "gun crime" is out of control, there is strong gun control? Chicago, D.C., Los Angeles, New York, New Jersey, Baltimore? Can anyone tell me without lies?
James Madison wrote, "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed; unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (The Federalist, No. 46 at 243- 244)
Thomas Jefferson wrote, "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal to Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334, [C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950] )
George Washington wrote, "A free people ought ... to be armed ...." (George Washington, speech of Jan. 7, 1790, in the Boston Independent Chronicle, Jan. 14, 1790)
Samuel Adams wrote, "The Constitution shall never be construed ... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)
Finally, Thomas Paine wrote, "Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property ... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." (Thomas Paine, Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775)
Horrid mischief, indeed! That's why the law-abiding "We The People" won't stand for being disarmed by hoplophobes.
advertisement
