Editorials Washington Post Editorial: The Gun Ruse
| Taxation Without Self Government is Subjection. - mlw? |
| Washington Post Editorial: The Gun Ruse |
 |
|
The Gun Ruse Opponents of D.C. voting rights reveal their true motives. Wednesday, April 1, 2009; A20 TO HEAR proponents of the congressional effort to rewrite the D.C. gun laws tell it, their only interest is in upholding the Second Amendment. They say that the best way to undo what they see as unlawful restrictions on firearms in the city is by amending the D.C. voting rights bill. What they can't explain is why they didn't simply use the powers of congressional review to short-circuit any gun restrictions they found objectionable. Their failure to do so suggests that what they really care about is not the right of D.C. residents to bear arms but denying those same citizens any hope of getting a rightful say in their government. Today -- by coincidence, April Fools' Day -- marks the end of the congressional review period for the Firearms Registration Amendment Act of 2008. Adopted by the D.C. Council, this legislation rewrites the District's regulation of firearms in response to the Supreme Court's historic ruling ending the city's decades-old ban on handgun possession. Among its provisions are requirements for gun registration and safety training and rules making it harder for those with a history of violence to own guns. At any point during the mandatory review period, Congress could have acted to change or reject the measure. Its power of review is absolute and it did . . . nothing. Instead, Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) targeted the city's cherished voting rights bill. By successfully offering an amendment stripping local officials of much of their ability to regulate guns, he imperiled a bill that for the first time would give D.C. residents a voting member in the House of Representatives. Now the legislation is stalled in the House, its future uncertain. No doubt that is exactly what Mr. Ensign and other opponents of D.C. voting rights had in mind. Indeed, for all of Mr. Ensign's thundering about Congress not being able to "idly stand by while city officials thumb their noses at the Supreme Court and the Constitution" (as he wrote in a column published recently in these pages), that's exactly what happened when Congress sat on its hands and allowed the locally enacted gun bill to become law. It's one thing to go after the voting rights bill on the grounds that it may be unconstitutional (the view, as The Post reports today, of key lawyers at the Justice Department). We think it's a close enough question, and the current situation such a large injustice, that the courts ought to have a chance to decide. But let's separate that from the question of what gun laws make sense for the nation's capital. A good place to start, as we've noted before, is with an examination of the Ensign amendment. D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) is trying to alert her colleagues to its dangers (go to http://www.norton.house.gov for a thumbnail sketch). Now Maryland and Virginia officials are questioning its ramifications for their states. Key is a provision that would permit D.C. residents to purchase handguns in Maryland and Virginia. So worried is Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) about the extra costs of background checks and resulting threats to public safety that he has written to House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) to urge that the gun measure not be allowed to become law. "Maryland," he wrote, "should not be expected to become properly equipped to regulate D.C.'s gun market; nor should this duty be imposed without hearings to determine the extent of federal assistance necessary to regulate this expanded market." It's easy for Congress to disdain the District; let's hope it shows neighboring states more respect. © 2009 The Washington Post Company
|
Editorials Washington Post Editorial: The Gun Ruse