In DC
Gun rights and representation seems to be the flavor. The WaPo says that getting representation isn’t worth it since it comes with a bill to prohibit the district from regulating guns.
DC’s symbolic rep seems to be on board though.
Gun rights and representation seems to be the flavor. The WaPo says that getting representation isn’t worth it since it comes with a bill to prohibit the district from regulating guns.
DC’s symbolic rep seems to be on board though.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
Find Local
|
April 19th, 2010 at 11:54 am
The only reason non-Rep. Elanor Holmes Norton is in favor of this is she wants to be Sen. Elanor Holmes Norton.
April 19th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
The real question is: When the blatantly unconstitutional addition of a voting DC representative is overturned… do the lessened gun restrictions stay?
April 19th, 2010 at 9:35 pm
I’ve read the bills. There is a section stating that any amendments to the bill will be null and void if any part of the bill is declared unconstitutional by a court (I paraphrase). In short, if the new legislative positions are killed in court, the whole thing is dead.
I have not seen the gun rights amendments, however, which could contain a “severability” clause that supercedes the “noseverability” section of the original bill.
April 20th, 2010 at 10:00 am
So WaPo’s position is that everything DC folks have always wanted is now to be thrown away just because gun rights are too much of a burden. Because of course nobody ever gets killed in DC with a gun…oh, wait…
Anyway, I’m with #2 anon: US Constitution sez NO, quite plainly. If DC residents want representation, then residential neighborhoods should be withdrawn back into Maryland.
“the disenfranchisement of Americans who pay their taxes and defend their country is an abomination”? No, it’s the plain, and neutral, language of the Consitution.
“allow teenagers to possess semiautomatic assault rifles”? Well, if they are 18 or 19, then they can “defend their country”, so why isn’t it an “abomination” to deny them their right to bear arms?
I would comment at WaPo if they allowed comments.