Forgo representation rather than allow legal gun ownership?

[fickman]

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03 ... ng-rights/

Firearm Provision Blows Up D.C. Voting Rights Bill
The House Democratic leadership Tuesday decided to delay a plan to grant a seat in the House to the District of Columbia.

By Chad Pergram and Mosheh Oinounou
FOXNews.com
Tuesday, March 03, 2009

For the second time in as many weeks, the House has had to postpone action on a major bill important to Democratic leaders.

The House Democratic leadership Tuesday decided to delay a plan to grant a seat in the House to the District of Columbia. Since it is not a state, Washington, D.C., does not get a vote in Congress.

The Senate approved a similar bill to give the District voting representation. And approval in the House seemed all but assured. But an amendment attached to the Senate version of the legislation by Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., created problems in the House.

Ensign's amendment would give Washington residents better access to firearms. The Supreme Court last year ruled that the District's 32-year-old ban on firearms was unconstitutional.

Washington, D.C. delegate Eleanor Holmes-Norton ripped pro-gun Democrats following the news.

"There is no choice between a vote for American citizens and a completely unrelated and reckless gun bill. That is a non-choice," Norton said during an emotional impromptu press conference following the Democratic caucus meeting Tuesday afternoon. "That's not a fair exchange. That's not even an unfair exchange. That is an absurd exchange that no one would accept."

Passing the District of Columbia legislation was supposed to be easy in the House compared to the Senate. But the National Rifle Association signaled it could make a procedural vote on the issue a test case for lawmakers' Second Amendment voting records.

Nearly every piece of legislation that comes to the House floor must receive what's called a "rule." The rule establishes the guidelines for how lawmakers will handle the measure on the floor. Everything from time allotments to amendments are contained in the rule

However, the Democratic leadership faced a potential revolt from moderate and conservative Democrats on the vote to approve the rule if the leadership failed to include Ensign's firearms provision.

The House cannot debate a bill if the procedural vote on the rule fails.

So this conundrum forced the Democrats to punt on representation for the District of Columbia for now.

Norton asked House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) to temporarily pull the bill until they can come up with a strategy to move forward.

"The gravest insult is to pit the safety and security of everybody in the District -- from the president down to the kids who can now get hold of military weapons plus District residents -- put all that at risk by putting this reckless bill forward," she said.

This episode mirrors a scenario two years ago when Republicans forced Democrats to yank a similar bill for Washington, D.C. off the floor when they attempted to make pro-Second Amendment lawmakers to either vote for the legislation or against gun rights.

Last week House Democrats had to postpone a vote on a bill designed to ease the nation's housing crisis. Democrats intended to approve a plan that would grant bankruptcy judges the right to lower mortgage rates and interest payments for struggling homeowners. Concerns about whether there were enough Democrats to support the plan made the leadership delay a vote on that plan until later this week.

For her part, Norton let loose on her fellow Democrats, threatening that they should consider the potential loss of black voters in 2010 if they support the gun amendment.

"If members are here by virtue of some support of the NRA, I have news for them. Many of the Democratic members are because there is a solid group of Democrats who vote for them. The most solid group are African-Americans," she said. "It will not help any Democrat to go home this time and say he killed a civil rights bill with a gun bill."

Norton said she is patient but wants a resolution soon.

"I certainly think the delay should not be very long," she said. "We certainly don't want this to stretch out so it fades away."

[mr.72]

A gun bill is a civil rights bill.

[fickman]

A gun bill is a civil rights bill.

Good point. I honestly don't get how civil liberties champions can be advocates for the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh amendments while largely ignoring the second, ninth, and tenth.

[tarkus]

Since it is not a state, Washington, D.C., does not get a vote in Congress.

That's how it should be.

[waffenmacht]

"Since it is not a state, Washington, D.C., does not get a vote in Congress."

Agreed. Why this has anything to do with run rights makes no sence to me. I would be ashamed to know that we traded one part of the constitution for another. This should be a case where we can have our cake and eat it too.

[stevie_d_64]

"Governments made and paid with paper should consider the unintended consequences of starting firestorms."

[fickman]

"Since it is not a state, Washington, D.C., does not get a vote in Congress."

Agreed. Why this has anything to do with run rights makes no sence to me. I would be ashamed to know that we traded one part of the constitution for another. This should be a case where we can have our cake and eat it too.

I agree. . . if anything, they are overrepresented since almost every Congressperson has a place in the district and the United States Congress acts at times as D.C.'s city council.

[LaUser]

Since it is not a state, Washington, D.C., does not get a vote in Congress.

That's how it should be.

The only place in the United States that does not get equal representation in Congress is Washington D.C. and they pay taxes to the IRS.
What are people afraid of if Washington D.C. gets a voting member in Congress? It may be a Democrat? Contrary to what the hate pedlers such as Rush Limbaugh, Ann Colter, and Mike Savage say, not all Democrats are the devil personified.

If a person has to resort to what these people have said, then something is seriously wrong with them. What Rush, Ann, and Mike say is a direct reflection on themselves. They really do more damage to themselves. They are using the same trick of identifying a group as the enemy and getting people worked up and hating that group. It is an age old tactic used my Hitler against the Jews, Iranians against Americans, and extremist religious leaders against other religions, to name a few.

[Liberty]

The only place in the United States that does not get equal representation in Congress is Washington D.C. and they pay taxes to the IRS.
What are people afraid of if Washington D.C. gets a voting member in Congress? It may be a Democrat? Contrary to what the hate pedlers such as Rush Limbaugh, Ann Colter, and Mike Savage say, not all Democrats are the devil personified.

If a person has to resort to what these people have said, then something is seriously wrong with them. What Rush, Ann, and Mike say is a direct reflection on themselves. They really do more damage to themselves. They are using the same trick of identifying a group as the enemy and getting people worked up and hating that group. It is an age old tactic used my Hitler against the Jews, Iranians against Americans, and extremist religious leaders against other religions, to name a few.

Our founding fathers understood that DC was too politically charged tolet them run anything, they elect crack smocking whore mongering mayors, totally reject the bill of rights. and give home to the the biggest bunch of crooks the world. Those people don't deserve democracy or representation. Those that did moved out a long time ago.

[ELB]

The Democrats know very well that a statute to give D.C. a representative is unconstitutional. They know that actually passing a constitutional amendment would fail miserably. They are blatantly ignoring this a) so they can pander to the liberal community in general and the black community in particular; b) counting on delaying and/or beating back any challenges in court (especially since the DC federal courts have very strict standing rules, and it may be difficult to actually mount a legal challenge even tho this is blatantly unconstitutional), so they may get yet another Demo vote in the House. Quickly following along behind that, of course, would be a Senator for D.C.

As the center of the republic, the founding fathers explicitly ruled out letting that location have a vote in the legislature. People have known that for more than 200 years. There is no requirement for anyone to live in D.C, except perhaps the President and the Vice-President, and they of course have representation through their home districts. If D.C. voters want to vote for a representative, it's easy -- move to Maryland.

As for calling Rush et al "hate pedlers" (sic); yes demonizing your opponents is an age old tactic used by Hitler, Iranians, extremist religious leaders (Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrahkan, Jeremiah Wright...)...the left in general, the Democratic Party, especially against George W, Hillary against the whole "vast right wing conspiracy", Air America...and most recently a poster denouncing "hate pedlars" as a way to avoid dealing with the actual constitution.

elb

p.s. You really need to read Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism." Would clear a lot of things up about what's going on in Washington these days...

[bayouhazard]

Since it is not a state, Washington, D.C., does not get a vote in Congress.

That's how it should be.

The only place in the United States that does not get equal representation in Congress is Washington D.C.

That's false.

Other non-states like Guam and the US Virgin Islands do not get full voting representatives in congress. Many US military bases overseas are also considered US soil but don't have representation in congress. The same was true for the Panama Canal Zone when McCain was born there.

The men who founded this nation and wrote the constitution intentionally made the federal district a non-state and intentionally provided for the states to get seats in the house and senate. When they carved DC out of MD and VA they intentionally excluded it from being a state.

If people in DC want to live in a state they should move to a state. There are fifty to choose from. Two within walking distance of DC.