Repeal Of D.C. Gun Ban Urged - Hatch

[dArKeR]

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee wants District residents to be able to own handguns legally, reviving a pitched debate over gun control in a city with some of the toughest restrictions in the nation.

The D.C. Personal Protection Act, introduced Tuesday by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), would repeal the District's ban on handguns, end strict registration requirements for ammunition and other firearms, and lift prohibitions on the possession or carrying of weapons at homes and workplaces. The legislation also would loosen the District's definition of a machine gun, possession of which is subject to additional sanction. The term now includes many semiautomatic weapons.

Although the District's 1976 gun law has been a frequent target of gun rights activists, it has withstood assaults as recently as 1999, when the House of Representatives failed to enact national gun-control legislation that included its repeal. But the involvement of Hatch, a senior Senate Republican leader, and the recent success of congressional candidates supported by gun rights groups provide fresh impetus for a showdown over gun limits in the nation's capital.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2789-2003Jul16.html?nav=hptop_tb

http://darkerxdarker.tripod.com/

[lcordero]

1. I urge the Democrats to support this bill

:evilgrin:

[Noordam]

2. About time the Repugs

found out the Congress and the NRA wanted DC to be gun free because that is where they live and work.....

[Ponderer]

3. The town's 70% black

Do you really think federal politicians will support repealing the gun ban?

[w4rma]

4. I see a surge of "hits" if this law is passed (n/t)

[Divernan]

5. What's made Orrin so legislatively aggressive this week?

First he wants to scrap the constitutional requirement that presidential candidates be native born Americans; now he wants to put handguns back on the streets of DC? I have friends and relatives who lived or are living in the Capitol Hill area, around DuPont Circle (NW) as well as Arlington. The place is dangerous enough now. They don't want more guns added to the mix. What they do want is a voting voice/representation in the U.S. Congress.
Hatch is one of the more frustrated and angry presidential wannabes. His fulsome endorsements for the most extreme conservative judicial candidates is a real and present threat to our judicial branch.

[saigon68]

7. Unfortunately the THUGS already are armed

If you have protection like the secret service ---this is a no brainer---Why would you have anyone protecting themselves?

Better to let the AUTHORITIES protect everyone. Oh ---they don't have to and you can't sue them if they fail to protect you

Message to fellow DEMS.

This is the stuff that cost AL Gore Arkansas and Tennessee

A few legal guns on the street is not a bad thing

[markbark]

8. Agreed

This is the one point of contention that I have w/ the Dems.

My only wish is that the courts start treating guns the same way they treat drugs. What usually happens now is that some perp is busted on a combination of charges... Drugs, evading police and gun charges. They're offered a plea bargain.... cop to the drug charges and we'll drop everything else (prosecutors know they can get a good long sentence on dope... Thanks "War on Drugs!")
Why not drop the drug charges and nail 'em hard on the gun charges.
Hell, I'd be in favor of a law that says ANY crime committed while in posession of a firearm automagically makes you a "violent criminal" eligible for a minimum 10 year sentence. (If having one ounce of marijuana makes you a "dealer", why not?)
The Dems have GOT to change this argument from "get the guns off the streets" to "get the CRIMINALS WITH GUNS off the streets"

</rant>


--MAB



--edited for typos MAB

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. Most Congressmen and Senators do not have Secrect Service protection

Usually only the members of the leadership have any type of protection.

[really-looney]

24. Senator Clinton

Currently only Senator Clinton has Secret Service protection. As the Presidential race heats up, those Senators who reach a certain threshold will get protection. Other than that, the Senators and House Members are protected by the Capitol Police when on the Hill.

[primavera]

10. None of us want them

That's the great irony: Repukes, who tend to be so into states' rights über alles, keep trying to force guns down the throats of District residents who are 90% Democrat and, by a huge, overwhelming majority, don't want them. Unfortunately, the District, since it's not a state and doesn't enjoy the same status under the law, nor do its residents enjoy voting representation, is an easy target for Repukes who want to grandstand on their favorite issues. Take Washington National Airport - pretty much every man, woman, and child in the DC metro area, in other words, the ones who own and use National, vehemently protested the Repuke renaming to include Herr Raygun's name, but the Repukes steamrolled us, saying that our airport belong to the nation and so the people who actually use, support, and pay for the airport have no say. Now to impress their NRA campaign contributors, Repukes want to force guns on us, even though no one here wants them. Same old, same old.

[Muddleoftheroad]

11. Wrong

Some do. I lived in D.C. and still have family and friends there. Whether D.C. is a state or not, it doesn't have a right to overrule the Constitution.

The thugs in D.C. have guns, let the honest people even the odds a bit.

[primavera]

15. Of course some do

I doubt there's any place so homogenous that one can claim that there truly is a 100% consensus, but in the District, we come pretty damned close on this issue: advocates for responsible gun control vastly outnumber a very small minority who want free access to guns.

As for overruling the constitution, I always wonder how gun nuts manage to see this issue so conveniently. Heavy military arms have always been restricted, yet none of of you seem to perceive it as a violation of your constitutional right to bear arms that you aren't allowed to bear Hellfire missiles. Why not? They're arms, aren't they? The constitution guarantees you the right to "bear arms," doesn't it? So why aren't you all outraged that you're barred from owning nuclear ICBMs? Conversely, if you're willing to acknowledge that the constitutional guarantee is not an absolute granting you the right to carry any and all weapons, no matter how inappropriate, how do you decide that one ban is any more or less "constitutional" than any other? DC allows people to own rifles and shotguns, it's not like they're saying you can't bear arms, just you don't have the right to bear certain arms. How is that any different from any of the other restrictions which you accept for other categories of arms?

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. All rights

Have limits. But by your definition of the Second Amendment, the First Amendment wouldn't protect anything either and this website wouldn't exist. I am for all of the Amendments and believe they are all equally strong.

All D.C.'s law does is keep handguns from the law-abiding citizens. Lord knows, the crooks sure have them in large quantities.

[primavera]

20. That doesn't answer the question

As you say, all rights have limits. But you haven't answered my question of where you think those limits should be drawn and why. I too believe in the Amendments, but I believe they need to be understood within the context in which they were written. At the time the right to bear arms was guranteed, the most fearsome weapon available was a flintlock rifle and allow me to assure you, I will stand cheek to jowl with anyone to defend people's right to own as many flintlock rifles as they like. I do not believe that the framers of the constitution envisioned that the guarantee they offered should or would extend to include the right to bear Stinger missiles. Judging from the laws which restrict ownership of such military hardware, I would hazzard a guess that most lawmakers would agree with me on that point. So plainly a majority of both lawmakers and public alike, and you as well, acknowledge that the right to bear arms is not a limitless one. So who decides what limits are reasonable? The residents of DC have overwhelmingly expressed their desire to bar handguns in their own community. They haven't attempted to tell anyone else that they can't own whatever weapons of mass destruction they like, they've simply stated a preference for their own community which, just like every other gun law in existence, allows some arms while banning others, and that preference has been repeatedly and vigorously supported by the vast majority of the people affected by it. The courts have not had any problem with the District's policy in this area, neither have the people who live and abide by it, so why should you have a problem with it? If you don't like it, great, live someplace else where you can own all the guns you like.

If you don't like my solution, great, share with me yours. How do you think limits should be determined? Or do you think every household should be allowed to own their own M-1 Abrahams tank just in case they ever need to defend themselves against a brigade of infantry?

[Muddleoftheroad]

22. Hanguns

I don't see where any restriction that prevents me from owning handgun (I do) is Constitutional. Should I have a nuke also? No. Somewhere between those two a reasonable line needs to be drawn.

However, I don't see that happening because so many who oppose guns oppose all guns. As a response, gun owners know that they face an enenmy that keeps chipping away at their rights.

As for limits on the rights, I still say that the residents of D.C. can't overrule the Constitution. I still have a right to keep and bear arms and that does include handguns. All D.C. has done is given criminals a license to rule the city.

[primavera]

23. Well, the courts don't seem to agree with you

It has always been within the power of the courts to strike down as unconstitutional DC's ban (or any one else's) on certain types of firearms, yet they've never done so, so plainly they don't perceive it to be unconstitutional. Certainly DC residents don't perceive themselves to be violating the Constitution in supporting these laws, nor do the lawmakers who passed the laws, nor do the courts who uphold the laws, so I'd have to say most of the principals directly involved in this law don't share your opinion of what the Constitution guarantees. Maybe they're all wrong. Can you direct me to the passage of the Constitution that stipulates the right to bear handguns specifically? I'll go look it up directly. I was under the impression that what the Constitution guaranteed was the right to bear "arms," whatever that means, and, since we've agreed that said "arms" doesn't include all arms, I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that a ban on handguns is constitutionally prohibited.

But plainly your personal opinon is that handgun ownership should be allowed and that's great, you'll have no problem whatsoever finding other communities throughout this great and large country of ours in which a majority of residents agree with you and you'll be right at home and you all can have just as many guns as your hearts desire. Why do you need to impose your opinion on others who don't happen to share it?

[Muddleoftheroad]

25. Courts

Courts in this land also allowed my ancestors to be enslaved, so they are not always correct. And though the courts can be mistaken and the people of D.C. might try to change the Constitution on their own, there is hope Congress might kick them in the ass and stop them from this ridiculous practice. The people of D.C. cannot short-circuit the Constitution. If they want to ban handguns, then change the damn Constitution. (Of course, that wouldn't happen.)

As for the handgun mention, it doesn't have to be there. Just like the 1st Amendment doesn't mention the Internet. All it needs to say is, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If you wish a narrow interpretation of the Constitution, then by all means do so. Of course, our nation would completely suck because so many things are NOT in that document that we now take for granted.

All rights are designed to be reasonable. There is nothing unreasonable with owning a handgun or 20, since I can only use two at one time anyhow. Is it reasonable to own a nuke? No.

[primavera]

27. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you

Fine, so everyone else is wrong - the lawmakers, the courts, the voters, everyone else is wrong in their interpretation of what a reasonable limit to the right to bear arms is and your personal interpretation is the one correct interpretation which must be imposed upon all of us whether we like it or not. Congratulations, I commend you for your insight and wish you luck in achieving your vision.

[Romulus]

14. the same article

says that there are 99,000 presently licensed shotguns, rifles, and pre-1976-registered handguns in the District. I think that undercuts the argument that "the overwhelming majority" want to ban guns.

(edited to add: With the DC population from the 2000 census at 572,000, and if certain statistics are to be believed then roughly half that population is legally barred from firearms ownership, that means that there is roughly one firearm in the District for every 2.5 people eligible to legally own firearms)

(edited again to add: those licensed firearms must, by law, be dissassembled, unloaded, and locked up while in the District. This requirement makes them useless for self defense, which is what Hatch's bill is supporting.)


I also disagree that allowing an option is the same as forcing something down someone's throat. That line of reasoning sounds like the argument that reproductive choice "forces abortion down womens' throats."

FYI: I dispute your second "every man, woman, and child" argument re:National Airport. I heard of/know plenty of right-wingers here in Virginia and in MD that fully supported the renaming of National. Ignoring people's views that weren't on the "approved" list got us Bush II as resident.

[primavera]

16. Rifles and shotguns have never been restricted

I never said that DC residents overwhelmingly favored banning all guns, so it doesn't surprise me that there should be a fair number of rifles and shotguns in the District, nor do I think it in any way undercuts the support that the overwhelming majority of District residents have frequently expressed for the banning of handguns.

I also dispute the convenient arithematic you use to arrive at your guns to residents ratio. How many of the those 99,000 guns are part of collections of multiple guns used by hunters for different purposes? One person may own several guns, hell, Charlton Heston probably owns 99,000 guns all by himself. So by what logic do you assume that 99,000 rifles and shotguns translates into 99,000 District residents who support free access to any and all weapons?

ed. sp.

[onehandle]

6. Give them statehood...

Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

[underpants]

9. Jeez the Bullets changed their name because things were so bad

Hatch has lost it.

[AntiCoup2K4]

13. So, to summarize what Orrin Hatch wants from us this week....

We should all have our guns ready when President Ah-nold sends the TimeWarner cops out to arrest us for downloading fucking Mp3's, clearing all of the heathens out of the way for the second coming of Joseph Smith.

Did I forget anything? :eyes:

[David__77]

17. Not a bad idea...

Why should DC residents be prevented from owning handguns? I really look forward to the progressive movement realizing "gun control" is anathema to "people power" politics. People have a right to bear arms not just for "sport" but for self-defense, broadly speaking. That's what's at the heart of our nation's Constitution--government by the people.

[CBHagman]

19. So much for local control or a "well-regulated millitia"

And I suppose our dear Orrin ignored the recent study, published in a medical journal, that the presence of a gun in the home INCREASED the likelihood of death or injury, not the opposite.

At any rate, the GOP in Congress, from the representative (I think it was Tom Davis) who offered D.C. a seat in the House if the Utahans got back the one they lost because of resdistricting, to the voucher proponents, to dear old Orrin, are feeling their oats and trying to shove their agenda down the people's throats. It saves them from having to deal with issues that will bite them back down the road, such as the deficit, foreign policy, and the like.

[Romulus]

21. you mean that "study"

that failed to control for criminal behavior of the deceased (including whether law enforcement had killed the deceased), never asked whether the firearms were legally owned, that found that most of the deaths occured outside of the home, that never established a causal relationship between firearms ownership and homicide, and never said that the homicide deaths were facilitated by those owned firearms?

Citing that study for the anti-gun-owner agenda is as effective as claiming that "owning blue jeans in the home is a risk factor for death or injury."

the recent study, published in a medical journal, that the presence of a gun in the home INCREASED the likelihood of death or injury, not the opposite.

:nopity:

[jody]

28. Didn't the study also include guns stored in a garage? In addition,

DoJ says "A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon." Guns and Crime: Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self-Defense, and Firearm Theft

In 2001, victims defended themselves in over 4 million crimes of violence. Only 6.8% said their efforts made the situation worst. Self-protective measures employed by victims

Victims of crime do choose to defend themselves and the odds are 2.5 times better if that defense is with a gun. :shrug:

[Ready4Change]

26. Isn't it interesting...

Isn't it interesting that the only citizens of the US, in the continental states, who have NO voting representatives in congress, are also subject to the highest limitations on gun ownership in the nation?