Two Senators Want Fewer DC Gun Laws

‘GUNS AMMO PAWN LOANS’
courtesy of ‘rutlo’

Even though the District has given up the ban on semi-automatic handguns, and allowed for the storing of loaded guns in one’s homes, with proper permitting, that’s not enough for Senator ~~Cranky Old Man~~ John McCain (R-AZ) and Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) who want a Second Amendment Enforcement Act which could strip the District of any ability to regulate firearms within its borders, forcing the city to default back to the Federal standard, including the ability to open-carry in the city.

You can call Sen. McCain’s office at (202) 224-2235, and Sen. Tester’s office at (202) 224-2644, if you wanted to make your voice heard on the issue.

Tom Bridge

I live and work in the District of Columbia. I write at We Love DC, a blog I helped start, I work at Technolutionary, a company I helped start, and I’m happy doing both. I enjoy watching baseball, cooking, and gardening. I grow a mean pepper, keep a clean scorebook, and wash the dishes when I’m done. Read Why I Love DC.

6 thoughts on “Two Senators Want Fewer DC Gun Laws”

Go for it!! Because of DC’s “public safety” laws, I need to pay $200 to learn how to shoot a glock in order to re-register my shotgun. How does that make sense?

Thanks! I’ll call him up and thank him for being a second amendment supporter and using some common sense. Realizing that law abiding gun owners aren’t the problem, its criminals who, even if a ban goes into effect, won’t register or surrender their firearms. And with police forces in short supply and spread extremely thin, I’m glad you guys want to disarm law abiding folks so they can’t fend off attacks.

Law Abiding Gun Owners aren’t the problem here: it’s about self-determination. These are politicians not elected by us, telling us what our laws should be, despite significant outcry from local lawmakers to the contrary.

Here’s some common sense: if I’m attacked in the kitchen, and my gun is in the bedroom, how does it help me?

That aside – echoing Tom – this is not about guns. It’s about self-determination.

This can be a conflicting issue if you love guns AND you love home rule but an easy issue if you just care about one. However, I do wonder how some people would feel about a gay marriage legalization bill from Congress if the DC council had voted against the issue. Where would supporters of both gay marriage AND self-determination fall? This is particularly pertinent given that it was feared that a city-wide referendum would’ve likely voted against gay marriage.

Nacim,

Speaking as someone who thinks firearm ownership ought to be legal, the issue pretty straightforward: local jurisdictions should be allowed to set the conditions for firearm ownership. The right of the public to bear arms is clear in the second amendment, but case law suggests that jurisdictions can, for public safety reasons, restrict who may own a firearm, and what kind of firearms are permissable for private use.

This is a matter of self-governance, as the right is not currently abridged, merely restricted. The Gay Marriage parallel is thus inadequate.

beatbox on April 27, 2010 at 6:10 pm said:

Go for it!! Because of DC’s “public safety” laws, I need to pay $200 to learn how to shoot a glock in order to re-register my shotgun. How does that make sense?
Jack B on April 27, 2010 at 6:19 pm said:

Thanks! I’ll call him up and thank him for being a second amendment supporter and using some common sense. Realizing that law abiding gun owners aren’t the problem, its criminals who, even if a ban goes into effect, won’t register or surrender their firearms. And with police forces in short supply and spread extremely thin, I’m glad you guys want to disarm law abiding folks so they can’t fend off attacks.
Tom Bridge on April 27, 2010 at 6:20 pm said:

Law Abiding Gun Owners aren’t the problem here: it’s about self-determination. These are politicians not elected by us, telling us what our laws should be, despite significant outcry from local lawmakers to the contrary.
Jenn Larsen on April 27, 2010 at 9:43 pm said:

Here’s some common sense: if I’m attacked in the kitchen, and my gun is in the bedroom, how does it help me?

That aside – echoing Tom – this is not about guns. It’s about self-determination.
Nacim on April 28, 2010 at 10:29 am said:

This can be a conflicting issue if you love guns AND you love home rule but an easy issue if you just care about one. However, I do wonder how some people would feel about a gay marriage legalization bill from Congress if the DC council had voted against the issue. Where would supporters of both gay marriage AND self-determination fall? This is particularly pertinent given that it was feared that a city-wide referendum would’ve likely voted against gay marriage.
Tom Bridge on April 28, 2010 at 10:37 am said:

Nacim,

Speaking as someone who thinks firearm ownership ought to be legal, the issue pretty straightforward: local jurisdictions should be allowed to set the conditions for firearm ownership. The right of the public to bear arms is clear in the second amendment, but case law suggests that jurisdictions can, for public safety reasons, restrict who may own a firearm, and what kind of firearms are permissable for private use.

This is a matter of self-governance, as the right is not currently abridged, merely restricted. The Gay Marriage parallel is thus inadequate.