Skip to main content

DC gun laws are important, but its citizens' voting rights are even more important in my humble opinion. And no doubt it would've been very painful to accept National Rifle Association-sponsored gutting of Washington DC's gun laws in exchange for Congressional voting rights, but bad call Tuesday by Steny Hoyer, DC 'sorta Congressional rep' Eleanor Holmes Norton and the Democratic Party establishment to abandon the chance for voting rights for DC citizens.

The Senate in February 2009 had passed the first voting rights bill for Washington DC in 32 years. Too bad that historic vote's now wasted. Hoyer said it's unlikely he'll bring the bill to the House floor in 2010.

And how the hell did the NRA amendment get onto the Senate's bill in the first place? . . .

Didn't the Democratic Party have a 60-vote majority there last year? Well, my sense is that the party leadership and President Obama didn't want to expend political capital offending the NRA. In fact Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid voted for the pro-guns provision, which would, according to the Washington Post, "remove the District's ban on military-style weapons, repeal the city's firearm registration system, allow teenagers to possess semiautomatic assault rifles and undermine federal anti-gun trafficking laws."

Read here for the anti-gun lobby spin on how things went down, blaming the gun lobby. But that boat had sailed more than a year ago, and both Hoyer and Holmes Norton had grudgingly overcome their revulsion and accepted the 'NRA amendment' as the price for DC voting rights, Holmes Norton saying just last Friday, "This is the best chance we’ve had to get a House vote for D.C. in my lifetime."

But in the end, this week, the Democratic Party leadership (including President Obama) have flip flopped and decided they don't want to expend political capital offending the anti-gun lobby either, after The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and its allies put the heat on Hoyer and Holmes Norton.

The conclusion: DC voters, 55% African American and mostly working class or poor, still have no Congressional voting rights 223 years after ratification of the Constitution. In contrast to the pro and anti-gun lobbies, they can be safely abused by a Democratic Party leadership that throughout this year and a third of waffling and disunity just hasn't given enough of a damn.

Originally posted to newnewfairleft on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 12:47 PM PDT.

Poll

Did Democratic Party leaders make the right decision in deciding not to bring to the House floor a voting rights bill for Washington DC?

37%23 votes
50%31 votes
3%2 votes
8%5 votes

| 61 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Doi-yee, of course I'm fairleft (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Randy Flagg

    Banned in 2007 for offending free speech hunter condoleaser/bottles/viola. Or as a sacrificial 'P' in dailykos's pursuit of artificial balance between 'P' and 'I' in the I/P diaries. I don't know, no one has ever explained, and I've asked the apparent chief censor here, meteor blades, multiple times.

    See you again soon.

    By the way, definitionally 'sockpuppets' pretend not to be who they are. So, censors and censorship supporters, think of a different term of abuse for me.

  •  asdf (4+ / 0-)

    Voting rights in the House in exchange for DC not being able to make its own laws.  Couldn't the people of DC simply change their gun laws if they wished to do so?

    The wolfpack eats venison. The lone wolf eats mice.

    by A Citizen on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 12:54:13 PM PDT

    •  the amendment wouldn't've allowed them to (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ocdiamond, IndieGuy

      But going back to early 2009, where was the leadership to make sure that crap amendment wasn't added? Nowhere.

    •  No. The Constitution gives the Congress (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueyedace2, newnewfairleft

      the authority to govern the District. in subsequent "Home Rule' statutes, the Congress relinquished SOME of that authority, but kept to itself the power to over-ride when they deem it fit. The Courts have upheld that power, so long as the Congress isn't violating Constitutional rights of individual DC residents.

      The most interesting case on point was the 1998 Barr Amendment blocking the counting of votes for, and implementation of, a medical marijuana initiative.

      The Court first voided the countoing provision, as a violation of free speech rights, but let stand the block on implementation.

      Last year the Congress finally, in another Budget Amendment, finally lifted the ban on implementation, and the City Council just yesterday passed implementing regulations.


      "Do your taxpayers a favor, and leave him alone." (My State Assembly Rep, Marc Pocan, to Denver's City Atty before 2008 DNC)

      by ben masel on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 03:16:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Nice move, Democrats. (8+ / 0-)

    You denied people one set of rights in order to deny them another.
    Ya gotta be good to pull off some shit like that.
    Jesus, and now this "gun show loophole" nonsense.....it's like they want to heal the rift between the GOP and the Bag O' Tea just to make sure that schism and the Scozzofava Effect doesn't save our ass in November!
    You want them mfers to put aside their differences, and damn quick?
    Push gun control. They'll vote as a neutronium fuckin bloc in a HEARTBEAT as well as energizing other righties who might not have otherwise voted, right along with giving not a few Democrats a reason to stay home.
    ...teh st00pid....it SO burns.........
    Mid-90's asshanding redux, here we come.

    (bangs head against wall)

    "Sorry about interrupting the pootification and kestralization of DK" - freelunch

    by kestrel9000 on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 12:58:17 PM PDT

    •  Easy, kes . . . (6+ / 0-)

      . . . it's just been a long week already.

      Read or *listen to* my SF novel for free. (-7.13/-7.33)

      by Shadan7 on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 01:11:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  oh, shit (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shadan7, Tom Seaview

        this has been a NIGHTMARE.

        And now this?

        xxx: and what is with that "close the gun show loophole" ad?
         why is that everywhere all of a sudden?
        me: BECAUSE THESE MOTHERFUCKERS ARE GODDAMNED STUPID THAT'S WHY
        4:11 PM xxx: hahaha
        me: http://www.dailykos.com/...
         ARGH
        4:12 PM here i been all this time makingfun of wigers i know that are gunnies going "so where's all this gun grabbin shit you said they was gonna do?"
         well gues what. It's here. THANKS A LOT<ASSHOLES <br>  fuck this is actually bad shit
        4:13 PM there's all kinds of fucked up nonsense in there
        xxx: click the crap outta the gun show ads
         cost 'em lots of money
         ;)

        "Sorry about interrupting the pootification and kestralization of DK" - freelunch

        by kestrel9000 on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 02:01:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Our rights would have been denied... (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aexia, A Citizen, MKinTN, Gemina13, m00finsan

      ...no matter what happened to this bill.

      If the bill had passed, it would have been another Congressional imposition on our basic right to govern our own affairs through our own elected government.

      And if it passed, it still wouldn't have fully secured our rights. Our right to representation in the Senate would still be denied. Our right to govern our own affairs would still be denied. And our right to a voting representative in the House would be revocable at any time, subject to the whims of the next Republican Congress and/or the next Republican President.

      Not to mention that the bill is probably unconstitutional.

      No, the only option is statehood for the 600,000 residents of the District of Columbia.

      Call Congress and demand 2 Senators, 1 VOTING Rep, and full home rule for DC citizens. Anything less is un-American.

      by mistersite on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 01:20:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Tricky (6+ / 0-)

        I think it can be done, but it would require creating a new pocket state for the GoOpers. Or maybe dividing up Texas into two blue states and four red states. Anything that nets the Democrats two more Senate seats by fiat isn't going to fly.

        •  Statehood requires only a majority vote. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Aexia, newnewfairleft

          Our Democratic Congress could do it tomorrow if they wanted, and have it done by next week. We could shove it down the Republicans' throats if progressives actually gave a shit about DC residents' rights and pressured their members of Congress to act.

          Call Congress and demand 2 Senators, 1 VOTING Rep, and full home rule for DC citizens. Anything less is un-American.

          by mistersite on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 01:28:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Just like progressives did with the PO, right? (4+ / 0-)

            Progressives have been shown to have almost no negotiating power on the big issues; whatever they propose can and will get hijacked by conservative Democrats like Stupak and Lieberman. That's the fact of the matter now that health care reform is done.

            So, forget for a moment that DC statehood, without some sort of concession to the Republicans, is unquestionably going to get filibustered successfully. Let's ignore, also for sake of argument, that the Republicans will probably filibuster this even with a Republican concession. And let's assume that this will pass the House. NOw: how do we get Lieberman, Landrieu, Nelson, Conrad, Bayh and Lincoln on board, in a manner that doesn't somehow screw over DC? And are we sure that no more than three of the other 53 won't defect?

          •  wow (4+ / 0-)

            that would be way cool.  But what would y'all call your new state?

            •  Why not just call it the District of Columbia? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              blueyedace2, kestrel9000

              After all, not all states are called "State of XXXXX". Pennsylvania and Virginia, to name just two, are "Commonwealths."

              Alternatively, the state constitution approved by the voters of DC back in 1983 called the state "New Columbia."

              Call Congress and demand 2 Senators, 1 VOTING Rep, and full home rule for DC citizens. Anything less is un-American.

              by mistersite on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 02:20:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Just dumb, here's what the GOP needed (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shadan7, kestrel9000, m00finsan

    to lend credence to their, "Democrats want to take away your guns!" line.

    •  Washington DC sure does (0+ / 0-)

      Don't think hunters really absolutely MUST have a right to go pheasant hunting in DC's public parks. Seriously, DC's gun laws don't matter hardly anything to most hunters and 'guns rights' people in the real world. It's a minor but effective fund raiser issue for the NRA, that's all. And it would've been a minor expenditure of Dems' political capital to make sure that crappy amendment didn't get onto the DC voting rights bill.

      •  Really? (7+ / 0-)

        Seriously, DC's gun laws don't matter hardly anything to most hunters and 'guns rights' people in the real world.

        I assure you that I take the right of DC residents to defend themselves very seriously.

        •  Even more seriously than the rights... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          A Citizen, m00finsan, newnewfairleft

          ...of DC residents to make their own laws through their elected representatives, like the residents of any other state?

          It isn't the overturning of our gun laws to which I object - though Rep. Norton's account of the NRA-sponsored bill makes it clear that the bill would make our city a much more dangerous place.

          It's the overturning of our gun laws by a Congress that's completely unaccountable to us that offends me. It's the imposition of Congress on our basic right to govern ourselves that insults me.

          Why are DC residents treated like children, unable to make our own laws without Mommy Congress looking over our shoulders to make sure we're doing it right?

          If DC's residents were 600,000 white, middle-class people, wouldn't this problem have been solved 50 years ago?

          Call Congress and demand 2 Senators, 1 VOTING Rep, and full home rule for DC citizens. Anything less is un-American.

          by mistersite on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 01:33:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Let's take that point by point (5+ / 0-)

            Both the right to self-defense and the right to fair representation are serious concerns.

            I agree that Congress needs to get off their asses and address both problems, but if not both, at least the matter of fair(er) representation. I'm disturbed that the Democratic leadership has deep-sixed what looked like a good compromise.

            Racial issues aside, I think that if DC's residents were mostly Republicans, this problem would have been solved in the mid-1990s. Fifty years ago was a lot more conservative of a time in many ways, and I think it's doubtful that Eisenhower would have supported DC statehood. If he did, though, it would have come about as part of a compromise that gave the other party two more Senate seats and a House seat.

            •  There should be no compromises. (0+ / 0-)

              We shouldn't have to give up our right to self-government in order to have a paltry fraction of our right to representation recognized.

              Those are rights. They are owed us. We should have all of them. We deserve one voting Representative, two voting Senators, and full home rule - and nothing less than that.

              But nothing's going to happen if progressives in the 50 enfranchised states don't make action on DC statehood a condition for their support of any given candidate.

              Call Congress and demand 2 Senators, 1 VOTING Rep, and full home rule for DC citizens. Anything less is un-American.

              by mistersite on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 02:31:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Again (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kestrel9000

                Progressives alone aren't going to be able to do this, and certainly not without some sort of deal.

                I appreciate that you're trying to move the Overton Window on this, but targeting progressives is at best a first phase. Here's hoping you realize this.

                •  I'm targeting progressives here... (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  maxomai, buddabelly, m00finsan

                  ...because progressives are my audience here.

                  Elsewhere, I target others. When talking to conservatives, I base my arguments in conservative ideals.

                  Quite frankly, there is no rational and coherent theory of democratic or republican government that permits disenfranchisement like that being perpetrated on the citizens of the District of Columbia. Neither liberal nor conservative thought supports it.

                  The only reason the residents of the District of Columbia don't have the rights of statehood is that Republican members of Congress put the good of their party before the principles they espouse, and Democratic members of Congress haven't seen that there will be rewards for doing the right thing or consequences for failure to act on this issue.

                  Both Republicans and Democrats need to be pressured by their constituents on this issue and set right.

                  Call Congress and demand 2 Senators, 1 VOTING Rep, and full home rule for DC citizens. Anything less is un-American.

                  by mistersite on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 02:38:10 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  change a few words... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kestrel9000, theatre goon

            ...and you have the states' arguments against civil rights legislation.

            Congrats.

            "She's petite, extremely beautiful, and heavily armed." -1995 Michael Moore documentary Canadian Bacon

            by Tom Seaview on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 02:21:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not really, no. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              newnewfairleft

              The states had representation in both houses of Congress. Congress wasn't completely unaccountable to them.

              No state's laws are subject to a unilateral veto by Congress outside of the powers enumerated to Congress over above the States in the Constitution. No state has to wait for 30 Congressional days to enact a law, to give Congress a chance to overturn the law before its implementation. No state can have its entire government broken up and reformed by Congress on Congress's own whim, or have state laws dictated to it by Congress.

              DC residents alone are subject to these indignities, to this form of tyranny.

              What have you done, Tom Seaview, for DC statehood? Have you acted for my civil rights today? Called your representative or Senators? If not, why not? What quality do I and the 600,000 other residents of DC lack, that we're not worthy of full citizenship in your eyes?

              Call Congress and demand 2 Senators, 1 VOTING Rep, and full home rule for DC citizens. Anything less is un-American.

              by mistersite on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 02:28:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Not enuf to impose your opinion on them, right? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Aexia

          Most DC residents think they're safer with great restrictions on gun possession and ownership, and have voted in city council members who have carried out their will.

          •  Self-defense is an individual right... (5+ / 0-)

            ...and therefore should not be subject to undue restrictions by the will of the majority, any more than freedom of speech or religion.

            •  It's not a right found in the Constitution (0+ / 0-)

              (except by right-wing loons), I think probably because it is not even close to an absolute right essential for freedom or the functioning of a democracy. It needs to be made a lower priority than the right of law-abiding citizens not to be murdered.

              •  Actually, it is. (5+ / 0-)

                And if the best you can do is call people "loons" who understand that we have not only the right but the RESPONSIBLITY to defend ourselves, then I don't know what to tell you in the short time you will be here.

                "Sorry about interrupting the pootification and kestralization of DK" - freelunch

                by kestrel9000 on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 02:11:07 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I did mention you and that in my post (0+ / 0-)

                  If you can find "right to self-defense" in the Constitution my description of you is accurate. Being able to defend yourself with a gun is something you want to be able to do. Why not defend that without pretending it's a 'right' that can't be argued with? Defend making unregulated gun ownership a higher priority than the fact that that unregulated freedom causes a unacceptably and tragically large number of murders, manslaughter and accidental deaths? Because you can't.

              •  Well, no. (4+ / 0-)

                The right is found in the Second Amendment. It's not just right-wing loons who read the Constitution this way. There's overwhelming evidence that this was intended by the authors of the Bill of Rights as an individual right intended in part to fulfill a practical obligation. That's why, for example, SCOTUS ruled the way it did on Heller.

                Furthermore, the statistical evidence is that whether one recognizes this right or not has no bearing whatsoever on whether law-abiding people get murdered. (Anecdotally, the right is not recognized in the UK and law-abiding people there are being murdered all the time.)

            •  Parse it out further. (4+ / 0-)

              An individual right to self-defense for residents of the District is now settled law. Heller found that right subject to reasonable, but not, as found in the prior outright ban on handguns, unreasonable regulation. any regulation is subject to judicial review for reasonableness.

              At issue now, is whether the appropriate body to make the reviewable regulations is the Congress, or the local Government. In the general case, unless the District  (minus a sliver to remain Federal?) is granted Statehood, that ultimate power resides in the Congress, which has, by statute, waived a degree of that authority, withholding a power of review.


              "Do your taxpayers a favor, and leave him alone." (My State Assembly Rep, Marc Pocan, to Denver's City Atty before 2008 DNC)

              by ben masel on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 02:54:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Actually, "reasonableness" is expressly ruled (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ben masel, kestrel9000

                out in Heller, although I think the passage is dicta.

                Basically, you're looking at a minimum of intermediate scrutiny, and strict is more likely. The 7th Circuit has an interesting decision on this point, basically applying strict scrutiny to the core right to keep and bear arms for defense and intermediate for everything else.

                "Reasonableness", or rational basis review, will not be the standard. And, for an enumerated right, it shouldn't be.

                --Shannon

                "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
                "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

                by Leftie Gunner on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 06:29:32 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  hear hear nt (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theatre goon, Tom Seaview

          "Sorry about interrupting the pootification and kestralization of DK" - freelunch

          by kestrel9000 on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 02:07:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  DC Statehood is the way to go (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aexia

    If there is a concern about preserving a Federal District, then make it an area containing the Mall, and make the rest of DC the new state Columbia.  I have no idea why we're talking about one House member in exchange for an added Utah member, when DC should get one House member and two Senators.

  •  I have to say that as a DC resident... (7+ / 0-)

    ...I'm not too broken up about the loss of this bill.

    For one thing, it was probably unconstitutional.

    For another, it was incredibly weak. They're talking about acknowledging just one of the many rights being denied to residents of DC, and I'm supposed to fall over myself in gratefulness? No thank you. It was a pathetic, half-a-loaf response.

    And with the gun bill added, it went from weak to insulting. The cost of our getting just a fraction of our rights was another Congressional imposition on one of our other rights - the right to make our own laws without an unaccountable and irrevocable Congressional veto hanging over our shoulders? That only illustrates the oppression of DC citizens - that at any time, any one of our laws can be invalidated by a Congress completely unaccountable to us. And yet we're expected to shoulder the full burden of federal taxation. Sounds like the Founding Fathers' textbook definition of tyranny to me.

    So, to Congress I say this: No thank you. Try again. Sorry, I won't accept anything less than everything I and my 600,000 fellow DC residents are owed: one voting Representative, two voting Senators, and full and unrestricted home rule. We are American citizens - and as American citizens, we are owed all of those things. Not just one of them, all of them.

    To progressives: It is the job of every progressive in the 50 enfranchised states to make DC statehood a priority in their political lives. Press your representative and Senators on it. Press your candidates on it. Protest at local offices. Call your representative and Senators daily. Call your representative and Senators out at town-hall meetings, at fundraisers, in the local newspaper. If you aren't making DC statehood a significant priority in your political decision-making, please stop calling yourself a progressive. No true progressive could sit idly by while 600,000 of their fellow taxpaying American citizens are denied the most basic of civil rights - the right to vote.

    Call Congress and demand 2 Senators, 1 VOTING Rep, and full home rule for DC citizens. Anything less is un-American.

    by mistersite on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 01:16:00 PM PDT

    •  The story of the bill (0+ / 0-)

      indicates the low priority voting rights for DC has for the Democratic Party leadership. Do they get away scot free on this?

      •  Only if progressives in the 50 states let them. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Aexia, ortcutt, m00finsan

        From the pretty deafening sound of the crickets every time this issue is brought up here - signaling to me, a DC resident, that the progressives in the 50 enfranchised states are thinking "we've got ours, so we don't give a shit about your rights" - I'm not too optimistic.

        It seems that progressives in the 50 enfranchised states also only give a shit when they've got skin in the game. The basic civil rights of 600,000 taxpaying Americans, a majority of whom aren't white, don't mean jack or shit to them

        If progressives in the 50 enfranchised states cared about my civil rights, I'd occasionally see a diary calling for full DC statehood that wasn't written by a DC resident.

        If progressives in the 50 enfranchised states cared about my civil rights, I'd see videos of progressives disrupting their representatives' town hall meetings and asking when they're going to see action on DC statehood.

        If progressives in the 50 enfranchised states cared about my civil rights, I'd see kos, FDL, and other major progressive bloggers calling for a boycott of the DNC, DCCC, DSCC, and any Congressmember or Senator who failed to take action on DC statehood, until action was taken.

        If progressives in the 50 enfranchised states cared about my civil rights, I'd see a call for action on DC statehood in every single diary that asked readers to contact their member of Congress on any issue - either in the diary text itself or, shortly thereafter, in the comments.

        Since I've seen none of these things, it's apparent to me that the basic civil rights of 600,000 Americans don't actually matter one whit to the progressive movement.

        To those reading this, I ask: What have you done for DC statehood today? If the answer is "nothing," then it's time to get going.

        Call Congress and demand 2 Senators, 1 VOTING Rep, and full home rule for DC citizens. Anything less is un-American.

        by mistersite on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 01:26:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Big, big correction needed... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buddabelly, fizziks, MGross, theatre goon

      the right to make our own laws

      You have only the right to make your own laws to the extent that those laws are (a) made by a process that is itself lawful (which is true of DC's gun laws) and (b) not in violation of the Constitution (which isn't).

      --Shannon

      "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
      "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

      by Leftie Gunner on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 02:37:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We ask only for the same rights... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ranger995

        ...as any other state has.

        The Supreme Court has yet to incorporate the Second Amendment to the states in the same way as it incorporated it to the District of Columbia in Heller.

        Within the confines of the rights granted to a self-governing State, we demand that our right to self-government be recognized.

        Call Congress and demand 2 Senators, 1 VOTING Rep, and full home rule for DC citizens. Anything less is un-American.

        by mistersite on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 02:40:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Making the District into a State (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theatre goon

          would likely require either (a) the approval of the Virginia and Maryland legislatures, plus Congress, or (b) a Constitutional amendment.

          It's not something that Congress can just do, even if they wanted to, which they clearly don't.

          --Shannon

          "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
          "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

          by Leftie Gunner on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 02:47:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Yeah, great bill (0+ / 0-)

    You get voting rights, in exchange for not being able to make your own laws.

    Where was YOUR leadership? Why did YOU let it fail?

    It must have been that the bill was put together while you were banned. I get it, now. Kos doesn't want DC people to have voting rights, or is insanely pro-gun.

    klaatu barada nikto

    by JohnGor0 on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 01:32:03 PM PDT

    •  It's about caring enough to sacrifice a little (0+ / 0-)

      political capital. And then not doing so. At least that's what my diary sez.

      •  And you wouldn't have jumped on poor poor Obama (0+ / 0-)

        if he pushed for this, taking away the right of a municipal entity to make their own gun laws?

        klaatu barada nikto

        by JohnGor0 on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 02:30:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It would've been better to have a rep in Congress (0+ / 0-)

          in my opinion. But if the citizens of Washington DC disagree with me, I'll flip flop on that. It's their call, but I imagine they'd prioritize voting rights over gun restriction rights. And the right to restrict gun ownership is pretty limited under the current Supreme Court anyway.

          •  Much like those emails that circulated (0+ / 0-)

            at the beginning of the Iraq war, where an ex-patriot explains how a few thousand deaths were a small price to pay for freedom from Hussein.

            I would think that the Democratic caucus picked the brains of DC advocates, and decided the bill was a loser.

            How about if DC gets a vote, but you have to wear a clown suit and makeup for the rest of your life?

            klaatu barada nikto

            by JohnGor0 on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 08:04:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  I came in here to say that DC's government, plus (0+ / 0-)

    Eleanor Holmes Norton, supported pulling this bill.  I tipped and rec'ed based on that.

    Dunno nothin' 'bout no banning back in 2007, so didn't bother reading all that stuff.

    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid." -Ben Franklin

    by IndieGuy on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 02:34:55 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site