Knock the Vote: How the NRA is Killing the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009
September 6th, 2009 Comments Off
The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 (S.160/H.R. 157) is being held up at gunpoint—literally. The landmark legislation that was supposed to grant D.C. delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton full voting rights in the House of Representatives in exchange for an extra seat for Utah became obscured by a last-minute, unrelated amendment (S.AMDT 575) introduced by Senator John Ensign (R-Nev). Endorsed by the National Rifle Association (NRA), S.AMDT 575 would shoot down the District’s strict gun laws by repealing its firearm registration requirements and its ban on semi-automatic weapons.[1] Senators who did not want to be dubbed soft on gun rights passed S.160 with the Ensign amendment on February 26, 2009, by a 62-36 vote. But a rumor that the NRA was threatening to “score” any representative who even voted to bring the D.C. Voting Rights Act to the floor without the gun amendment has stalled the bill indefinitely. The NRA craftily co-opted the debate, shifting the focus from full voting rights to full second amendment rights. But as long as Congress maintains a solid grip on the nation’s capital and as long as the gun lobby maintains a solid grip on Congress, District government officials will have to compromise with the NRA if they want to achieve full House representation.
Senator Ensign argues that his amendment helps D.C. conform to District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), in which the Supreme Court ruled that D.C. gun laws violated residents’ Second Amendment rights. The Court overturned the provisions of the Firearms Act of 1975 that prohibited the registration of handguns, required that firearms at homes be disabled, and prevented gun owners from operating a firearm at home without a license.[2] On January 6, 2009, Mayor Adrian Fenty responded immediately to the Supreme Court ruling by passing emergency legislation allowing residents to legally possess and store firearms in their homes for self-defense purposes. But the Mayor made it difficult for residents to own a gun in the first place by establishing an exhaustive handgun registration system that requires first-time gun owners to complete background checks and demonstrate proficiency on the use, handling, and storing of firearms in both a training course and multiple-choice exam.[3] Perhaps Mayor Fenty enacted such an arduous registration system to protest against the federal oversight of his city. In other words, he allowed residents to own handguns per the court ruling, but he purposely made gun ownership as difficult as legally possible to assert D.C. home rule.
Now Senator Ensign and the NRA contend that any type of gun-registration system infringes on Second Amendment rights. S.AMDT 575 would abolish D.C.’s firearm registration requirements, which Ensign dubs the most “burdensome” in the United States. But the District government argues that S.AMDT 575 overlooks the city’s recent overhaul of gun laws. Patton Boggs LLP, which is doing pro-bono work for the city, wrote in a memo that the Ensign amendment creates “unnecessary duplication and legal inconsistencies . . . and includes provisions that negate policies that are currently employed by other states.”[4] The law firm points out that even the Senator’s home state of Nevada maintains a firearm licensing and registration system. [5] Phil Mendelson, chairman of the D.C. Council’s Committee on Public Safety & the Judiciary, argued in a Washington Post editorial that the Ensign amendment would complicate the city’s ability to safeguard the President, the Vice President, the 535 members of Congress, and the more than 400 foreign dignitaries who visit the nation’s capital each year.[6] D.C. officials see S.AMDT 575 not just as a threat to public safety but also as a threat to home rule because the law would make it nearly impossible for the city to enact gun-control legislation in the future. [7] It is ironic that such a debasement of District home rule would be included in legislation that is supposed to increase residents’ rights.
Presumably, the NRA decided to latch onto the D.C. Voting Rights Act because the organization risks losing two House votes if it passes. The District’s seat would definitely be Democratic and a surefire vote against the NRA agenda. And the gun lobby could lose a second vote since Utah’s seat is only guaranteed until the 2010 census, after which each state will be assigned seats in proportion to its population.[8] That seat could very well be handed over to a Democratic or a less-reliably Republican district. Moreover, even if the amendment is removed, the NRA may test House members’ loyalty to pro-gun legislation by regarding the DC Voting Rights Act as a gun control bill. A “yea” vote to consider the bill would ruin perfect voting record of the House Republicans and the approximately 50 Blue Dog Democrats from the South and West who maintain A/A+ NRA ratings. [9] Without Blue Dog support, Democrats would only have 200 of the 218 votes needed for passage. The NRA’s shrewd political maneuvering is a cogent example of the gun lobby’s influence on the Hill. As the DCist points out, while the NRA would not confirm the validity of the rumor, the mere idea that the NRA would turn a procedural motion to consider the bill into one of its infamous “test votes” blocked the bill from being debated on floor.[10]
District officials are still holding out for a “clean” version of the D.C. Voting Rights Act. But trying to outrun Congress and the NRA will not ensure residents a voting House delegate. Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution permits Congress to “exercise exclusive legislation” over the District, meaning that Congress manages the city’s budget and maintains final say over all local laws. So D.C. will never be able to set its own gun control laws entirely. Since the city is still subject to Congressional oversight, the District should concede, not conquer, the sad political reality of the situation and tweak its firearm registration system to appease the omnipotent gun lobby. For instance, the D.C. Council could eliminate its required training class and multiple-choice exam for new gun-owners. Public opinion on gun policy will change with the times, but all DC residents can agree on the importance of achieving a vote.
Footnotes
[1] Emily Yehle. “Law Firm Memo Takes Issue With Ensign Gun Amendment.” Roll Call. 2 Apr. 2009.
[2] Antonin Scalia. “District of Columbia et. Al v. Heller.” 26 Jun. 2008. 20 Sep. 2009.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07slipopinion.html
[3] Metropolitan Police Department. “Gun Registration: Complete Procedures.”
http://mpD.C..D.C..gov/mpD.C./cwp/view,a,1237,q,566989.asp
[4] “Concerns Regarding the Ensign Amendment to the D.C. Voting Rights Act,” Patton Boggs LLP., 8, 6
[5] Ibid., 9
[6] Phil Mendelson. “D.C.’s Rights to Regulate Guns” Washington Post. 22 Mar. 2009.
[7] Emily Yehle. “Law Firm Memo Takes Issue With Ensign Gun Amendment.” Roll Call. 2 Apr. 2009.
[8] “S.160: District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009.” Lib. Of Congress. Washington.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.160:
[9] Mike Soraghan. “Hoyer Offers Dismal Take on D.C. Vote Bill.” The Hill. 9 Jun. 2009. 20 Sep. 2009.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/20018-hoyer-offers-dismal-take-on-D.C.-vote-bill
[10] “House Vote Derailed by Fear of NRA” D.C.ist. 4 Mar. 2009. 19 Sep. 2009.
http://D.C.ist.com/2009/03/house_vote_derailed_by_fear_of_nra.php
Bibliography
“House Vote Derailed by Fear of NRA” D.C.ist. 4 Mar. 2009. 19 Sep. 2009.
http://D.C.ist.com/2009/03/house_vote_derailed_by_fear_of_nra.php
Mendelson, Phil. “D.C.’s Rights to Regulate Guns” Washington Post. 22 Mar. 2009.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/21/AR2009032101843.html
Metropolitan Police Department. “Gun Registration: Complete Procedures.”
http://mpD.C..D.C..gov/mpD.C./cwp/view,a,1237,q,566989.asp
Phillips, Katie. “Gun Rights Hang Up D.C. Voting Rights in the House.” New York Times: The Caucus. 4 Mar. 2009. 19 Sep. 2009. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/gun-rights-hang-up-D.C.-voting-rights-in-the-house/
“S.160: District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009.” Lib. Of Congress. Washington.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.160:
Scalia, Antonin. “District of Columbia et. Al v. Heller.” 26 Jun. 2008. 20 Sep. 2009.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07slipopinion.html
Soraghan, Mike. “Hoyer Offers Dismal Take on D.C. Vote Bill.” The Hill. 9 Jun. 2009. 20 Sep. 2009.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/20018-hoyer-offers-dismal-take-on-D.C.-vote-bill
Yehle, Emily. “Law Firm Memo Takes Issue With Ensign Gun Amendment.” Roll Call. 2 Apr. 2009. 19 Sep. 2009.
http://www.D.C.vote.org/media/media.cfm?mediaID=2789&year=2009
