This sucks. This is an update to my recent post titled DC voting rights back on the table.
Well its back off the table thanks to a bunch of Republican assclowns who aren't even from the city trying to flood the streets with guns. Never mind the safety of the citizens of the city. These people see no justification for commonsense local exceptions to violate the broadest possible reading of the Second Amendment.
Never mind that we allow commonsense exceptions to the freedom of speech.
Last week, I posted a diary -- prematurely as it turns out -- announcing that a voting rights for DC bill would likely be considered this session, likely within weeks.
Today, the Washington Post reports the legislative equivalent of "just kidding."
Hoyer: D.C. voting rights bill won't come up this session
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said a D.C. voting rights bill will not come up this session, in part because of opposition to an amendment that would have eliminated most of the District's gun-control laws.
"At this point in time I do not see the ability to move it in this session of Congress," said Hoyer (D-Md.), who added that he was "extraordinarily disappointed."
D.C. has long sought a vote in the House, but many city leaders have expressed concerned about the gun amendment, and Hoyer blamed the amendment for preventing the measure from advancing.
As I pointed out last week, there are more people living in the District of Columbia -- and a large number are Democrats and minorities -- than live in Wyoming. However, those folks have no vote in either the House or Senate. S160, which is the bill that the Senate passed last year, would have given the delegate from DC a vote on the floor of the House. The delegate does have voting rights in committee.
The price for this reliably Democratic vote was high. For one thing, heavily Republican Utah would temporarily get one extra seat until the next redistricting when it would be distributed like any other seat. Of all people, Utah Senator Orrin Hatch threatened a filibuster because he doesn't like the fact that it would be an at large seat. Never mind the fact that this would require a full Utah redistricting two years before another full redistricting.
The more insidious provision is the Ensign Amendment which would weaken the city's gun control laws. If you check that link, you will find that it passed the Senate 62-36. (Ted Kennedy did not vote and Al Franken had not been seated.) The relevant section is here and makes this sweeping statement:
(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.
The reasoning, of course, is that violent crime will decrease if there is a possibility that everyone is armed. Instead of addressing root causes of crime, these Republicans and some Democrats presumably feeling NRA heat would rather solve the problem by arming everyone.
If that is the policy for dealing with violent crime, I wonder if I get a tax credit to buy my new revolver.
If you have all of that, Republicans from way out West want control over DC's internal affairs while crying about Washington's growing federal power and the expense of the states.
As some commenters pointed out last week, it is probably not a good idea for DC to accept a guns for a vote deal. I don't disagree. So the new call to action is to contact your members of Congress (those of us in DC don't have that option) and urge them to pass stand alone legislation to give DC a voice in Congress without being forced to repeal local laws.
On the bright side, the DC City Council did pass a bill to allow medical marijuana in the city.
Crossposted at Progressive Electorate