search
top

What Happened with DC’s Gun Laws

This is a great story in Washington City Paper about what happened with the DC Voting Rights Act that NRA was moving. It provides some interesting insight into what might have happened to scuttle the bill:

Some aides on the Hill believe the Childers changes ultimately provided a convenient excuse to escape the pressure. “She got some bad editorials,” an aide to the Democratic leadership says of Norton. “She was looking for an offramp and she found one.”

“The language on guns was still being finalized,” adds another aide. “In that final go-around, Delegate Norton made a determination that it was not something the District could accept. She indicated that to the majority leader and a decision was made to pull the bill.” As reporters gathered Tuesday morning for Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s weekly briefing, they were first told the vote was a go—and moments later they were told that it was being shelved. Again.

On the Hill, few people think that the bill will resurface. “At this point in time I do not see the ability to move it in this session of Congress,” Hoyer told the Washington Post.

So sounds like Norton might have been having doubts and getting cold feet, and the Childers amendment was her cover from pull out of a deal she wasn’t sure she wanted to make anyway. I can’t vouch for the authenticity of any of this account, as NRA does not share details of its legislative strategy with me, but it sounds plausible, and this is what the Dems are saying happened. Read the whole thing. It’s a great insight into the chess game Joe was talking about a few days ago.

5 Responses to “What Happened with DC’s Gun Laws”

  1. Kim du Toit says:

    “moderate Democrats who fear the gun lobby”… nope, no bias there — especially as moderate Democrats are almost all 2A supporters as well. They’re not AFRAID of the gun lobby: they SUPPORT it.

  2. mike says:

    DC Voting rights is a bad, bad idea. For one, senators weren’t intended to represent the people. They were intended to represent the state. DC isn’t a state. And another reason is that it would give DC voters disproportional senatorial power compared to most other states. One person, one vote. That’s what congress is all about – one congresscritter per X people. The senate screwed that up when they went from representing states to representing people (via popular vote). IMHO, this screwed up lots of things and was one of the things that led to the erosion of states powers.

    Also, any senators elected in DC would be collectivist, big-government, anti-gun, anti-freedom leftists anyway.

  3. Flight-ER-Doc says:

    Well, I said my (main) piece over there.

    But here’s another idea: An Amendment that gives DC the privileges and responsibilities of a state. BUT, it also requires that Representatives be apportioned at the rate of 1 per 30,000 legal citizens of that state, just like the founders planned.

    Sure, it would mean a House with some 1,100 or so members, but they’d be accountable! Or at least unable to accomplish anything.

  4. Countertop says:

    I’ve lived in DC for 12 years straight now. City Paper comes out, FOR FREE, every Thursday. They even have a stand in the lobby of my building. But, with the exception of looking at bands aceduked to play at various venus around town, that’s probably the first City Paper article I’ve actually read in 10 years.

  5. Mikee says:

    So basically Delegate Norton decided all by her lonesome that the people she supposedly represents don’t deserve to enjoy the rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, as do so many other citizens? Shame on her!

top