by Mark Silva
With the House's passage today of a bill supporting the District of Columbia's rights to ban guns - though this same group isn't interested in giving the residents of the federal district representation in Congress - the Bush White House is calling on the Senate to take up the gun bill soon.
What an interesting debate that would make for in the Senate, where two are running for president. Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain responded rather differently when the Supreme Court tossed out D.C.'s longstanding gun ban in June.
"The president strongly supports the Second Amendment Enforcement Act, which the House today passed with broad bipartisan support,'' White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said this evening.
"Congress's proposal guarantees the Constitutional rights of law-abiding individual Americans living in the District of Columbia to keep and bear arms,'' Perino said. "The resident wants to sign the bill this year and urges the Senate to take action on the House-passed bill as quickly as possible to ensure that the residents of the District are able to exercise their Second Amendment rights in a robust and meaningful way.''
A pro-gun majority in the House today acted to compel the nation's capital to broaden the rights of residents to buy and own firearms, including semiautomatic weapons. Critics, led by the District of Columbia's sole delegate to Congress, decried the action. They said the vote tramples on the district's right to govern itself and could endanger both residents and political dignitaries who often travel across the city.
But the National Rifle Association-backed bill passed easily, 266-152, with supporters saying they were determined to give D.C. residents the same Second Amendment right of self-defense that has been available to other Americans.
The legislation is unlikely to be taken up in the Senate in the few remaining weeks of this session, but it offered gun supporters a symbolic vote before Election Day.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote in June, ruled that the 32-year-old D.C.ban on handgun possession violated Second Amendment rights to bear arms. The D.C. Council responded the next month with a temporary measure allowing possession of unloaded weapons in homes but keeping the ban on semiautomatics. Today, the council went further, voting to let residents own most semiautomatic pistol and lifting a rule that weapons be stored unloaded and disassembled or secured with trigger locks.
That wasn't enough for the NRA and its congressional allies, which accused the council of trying to defy the Supreme Court ruling.
Should the candidates for president get a chance to vote on this - which seems unlikely - the rather equivocal statement that Democrat Barack Obama issued when the Supreme Court tossed the D.C. gun ban and the completely unequivocal statement that Republican John McCain issued should prove informative"
Obama said:
"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.
"As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe."
McCain said:
"Today's decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense.
"Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right -- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.''
• 
• 
• 
Comments
If all else fails, get out the gun vote. Next up, Orrin Hatch reintroduces a proposal for a constitutional amendment banning flag-burning.
When the economy collapses and those bitter, pissed-off gun owners are foraging for food, will the Republican elite feel safe behind their gated communities?
Will, "no assault weapon left behind" Sarah, be able to save you in the war against the machines?
When Madam President Barbie legalizes helicopter hunting to cull the starving masses, will you be ready?
Posted by: dt | September 17, 2008 7:49 PM
Don't forget, this is the same White House that said Iraq had nuclear weapons !! The Bush-Cheney Regime wouldn't now an Amendment, any Amendment, if it came up and it did a song and dance, for them !! A delusional 2nd amendment right , all the while, our children are being gunned down in our streets. That's the democracy our Founding Ancestors had in mind, I'm sure, when they founded America !! Leave it to the Bush-McCain Republicans to call militarism, a democracy, because that is what all of those guns amount to, an unregulated, fanatical, fake militia !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, Chicago | September 17, 2008 8:12 PM
Obama is right, McCain is wrong. Densely populated urban centers and sprawling countrysides can not have the same laws. Each town, community, city, village, etc. needs the right to enact the laws that they believe best suits their particular areas. Nothing can be treated as "one size fits all". As usual, a republican conveniently ignores the word "regulated" in the second amendment. Common sense regulations can be made without "infringeing" on the law abiding gun owners.
Posted by: David J | September 17, 2008 8:19 PM
So in the face of troubles on Wall Street, our hero Barak Obama wants to raise taxes – especially on those that are most responsible for investing in our capital markets. Not a great idea in the midst of a credit crunch. Of course he supposedly wants to raise taxes on only the (evil) top 5% of wage earners (if you don’t count his payroll tax increases). Apparently we are to believe that the top 5% aren’t paying their fair share of the burden. Here is a nice analysis for you to review and reference to your liberal friends next time they spout off on how the “rich” are making out like bandits under our current tax policy.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/250.html
Just some quick numbers: The top 1%, those who earn $388k or more are paying 40% of all income taxes. The top 5% ($150k or more) are paying 60% of income taxes. And those “super rich” top 10% ($108k or more) are paying a measly 71% of all income taxes. Where do these “rich” bastards get off thinking that they already pay enough? It seems that B.O. won’t be happy until all those in the top 5 or 10 percent hand over their ATM cards and pass codes to the public so they can have direct access to their accounts... That’s only “fair”. According to Obama, he wants to eliminate taxes for another 10 million Americans. By the way, the top 50% of wage earners now pay 97% of that tax bill for the nation. That means that half the people that are working and getting paid wages pay virtually no income taxes.
Let’s not forget that he also wants to make the payroll tax contribution towards Medicare and Social Security UNLIMITED! Today, that only applies to roughly the first $80k of income. Obama wants that additional 8% tax to apply to ALL wages ad infinium (how else will he pay for these entitlements for all the illegal aliens he wants to provide for?). This means that you wealthy 10 per centers will be paying almost 50% of your income to the federal government once all is said and done. This of course does not count state and local taxes. At this rate, you’ll be lucky to keep 30% of your earnings. But according to Obama, you are “lucky” to have that money to begin with. Hard work and risk of course don’t mean much in his book. It’s all luck. (I guess we can’t all be as lucky as B.O. In meeting convicted felon Tony Rezko who paid for part of his urban estate for him.)
Posted by: Matt | September 17, 2008 8:31 PM
The second amendment is not about hunting or skeet shooting or collecting antique weapons. It is simply intended to guarantee every individual's right to self-defense. The "castle doctrine" needs to be nationalized to implement this constitutional guarantee. That "doctrine" prevents criminal charges being brought and civil suits being filed against any citizen who uses deadly force to defend her/his home against any intruder. The D.C. rules instituted after the Court's decision are obvious actions in defiance of that decision. Requiring a license to carry a weapon, having real background checks before purchase, even registration of weapons owned are reasonable and in line with the Supreme Court decision. All the blanket bans are an offense against constitutional rights.
Posted by: Edward A Livingston | September 17, 2008 8:40 PM
In response to the economist among the urban guerillas, check out this interview by a fellow economist. A preview, 1% of the wealthiest households, in America own 38% of our nation's wealth !! 5% own over 50% of our wealth !! They better be paying more taxes !! Here is the interview, if you are really interested !!
/multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, Chicago | September 17, 2008 9:10 PM
Motivation to do well,
working hard to make your family comfortable,
working extra days to earn more money;
what happens when a couple or single achieve and do well?
They will be penalized!
Penalized for going to school, studying, working hard, and then boom Obama says oops,
you are now making too much money, pay more taxes.
There will be NO incentive to do well. You reach a plateau and then what?
You stagnate. You go underground. You do nothing.
You are penalized for your success and hard work.
If Obama is elected how many of you will make sure you DON'T reach that economic level where your taxes go up?
The government will nullify and curtail achievement. You will be brought down.
There will be no more upper movement. No need to achieve and succeed because you will be penalized.
Obama will psychologically destroy any desire to achieve for fear of more taxation.
Obama will get in your pocket, don't let him get in your head.
Posted by: Cain | September 17, 2008 10:48 PM
Ask any cop on any beat in any city, say Phoenix, McSame.
And I like the Perino typo, he is indeed "Resident of the United States." (If only he could remember who the landlord is).
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport☮ | September 17, 2008 10:48 PM
To Edward A livingston. Whats the big deal man? Go buy your gun and take the extra 10 minutes to get it registered and wait 24 hours for your background check so I know you're not some freeked out junkie ok! Geesh, is it so hard for you guys to be responsible at least once in your republican lives!! I dont get it. Why the heck do you care so much about what you have to do to get your pretty little gun?
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | September 17, 2008 10:53 PM
Mark, your first statement is incorrect:
"With the House's passage today of a bill supporting the District of Columbia's rights to ban guns.."
The bill that passed yesterday would ELIMINATE DCs authority ot ban guns.
Posted by: Carl in Chicago | September 18, 2008 7:54 AM
http://www.gunbanobama.com
The right to bear arms should have the same constraints as the right to free speech. I hope to see one blog a month laws, government licensing and registration of blogs, and background checks of potential bloggers. Surely the founding fathers did not foresee the massive impact modern technology could have for first amendment supporters.
Posted by: kimberland | September 22, 2008 10:44 AM