It appears that the DC Voting Rights act (H.R.157/S.160) has been shelved, much to the chagrin of its supporters. It was approved in the Senate by a 61-37 margin, despite the inclusion of Senator Ensign’s amendment, which imposed enactment of the Second Amendment Enforcement Act. It seems the House isn’t having it.
If this situation seems familiar, that’s because Congress was forced to authorize the carry of firearms in national parks last month if they wanted the Credit Card Holder’s Bill of Rights to pass. This situation ruffled more than a few feathers, but it set up an interesting precedent. Essentially, if Congress wants to get a spendy bill passed in a timely matter, they’re going to have to make concessions to gun rights.
And frankly, the irony is just delicious.
When the bill was winding its way through the Senate, legislators found that it was impossible to extricate the SAEA and still garner the votes necessary for passage. In fact, the amendment itself was ratified by a 62-36 vote. If they wanted the bill, they’d have to take the rider, no matter how much it stung. Dianne Feinstein went on a predictable tirade, proclaiming that the amendment was, “the first step to removing all common-sense gun regulation all over this land.”
“This land” being Washington DC, and “common-sense gun regulation” being DC’s onerous registration scheme, which flaunts their duty to comply with the Heller decision. The SAEA rectifies that, removing the registration requirement, the ammunition ban, and the ban on semiautomatic firearms. It confirms the right of lawful self-defense in the home, and it allows guns purchased in Virginia or Maryland to be possessed in the District.
I’m not even sure why she’s so worked up. She had her chance: one of the proposed amendments to S. 160 was her own bill to ban “.50 BMG Caliber Sniper Rifles.” Senator Lautenberg also chimed in with two of his own: a ban on possession of firearms by those convicted of misdemeanor sex offenses against minors, and his “no fly, no gun” bill, which would, in his words, “[grant] the Attorney General the authority to deny the sale, delivery, or transfer of a firearm (…) to dangerous [suspected] terrorists.”
There were also plans to scuttle the Fairness Doctrine, eliminate the Federal income tax for DC residents, reinstate the DC School Choice Incentive Act of 2003, and a survey on “self-determination” for Puerto Rico. The only one of these amendments that passed was the SAEA.
What’s particularly interesting is the “severability” clause, which states that, even if the Voting Rights Act is ruled unconstitutional, the SAEA would remain in force. DC Council Chairman Vincent Gray seemed to be well aware of this.
At the end of the day, Washington DC residents would still have their 2nd Amendment rights, but they would not be able to elect their own Congressmen. Which is exactly how it should be.
The whole idea of the District is that it is the insular province of the Federal government, neither belonging to or aligned with any one state. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives the government the authority, “to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States.”
In this case, Maryland gave up a small parcel of real estate for the District. The District itself is not a state, and is therefore not entitled to representation in Congress as per Article I, Section 2 and Section 2 of the 14th Amendment. The 23rd Amendment does allow the District to appoint electors for President and Vice President.
The question has been before the Supreme Court several times, and the Court has consistently found that the District is a separate, specialized entity and not a state.
The District of Columbia is an exceptional community. It is not a local municipal authority, but was established under the Constitution as the seat of the National Government. District of Columbia v. Murphy (1941)
With this unique status of the District of Columbia in mind, and in the absence of any indication in the language, purposes, or history of [USC 42] § 1983 of a legislative intent to include the District within the scope of its coverage, the conclusion is compelled that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the District of Columbia constitutes a “State or Territory” within the meaning of § 1983. District of Columbia v. Carter (1973)
The District is entitled to elect a mayor and a city council to manage their affairs, and they can’t even do that right. Bending the Constitution to allow Federal representation for a Federal prefecture will only serve one purpose: to create House and Senate seats which will be filled by legislators who will vote for the expansion of Federal powers over the States.
And we’ve already got enough of that, thank you.