Gun control works! DC voting bill dies in House
posted at 8:55 am on March 4, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Those of us who have fought gun control for decades have to admit that the concept comes in handy on occasion. Yesterday, for instance, the House rejected an unconstitutional bill granting DC a voting Representative (and one for Utah for partisan balance) that passed the Senate last week — with an amendment that allowed DC residents easier access to firearms. The district’s non-voting representative, Eleanor Holmes-Norton, used the occasion to attack pro-gun Democrats while the bill languished:
The Senate approved a similar bill to give the District voting representation. And approval in the House seemed all but assured. But an amendment attached to the Senate version of the legislation by Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., created problems in the House.
Ensign’s amendment would give Washington residents better access to firearms. The Supreme Court last year ruled that the District’s 32-year-old ban on firearms was unconstitutional.
Washington, D.C. delegate Eleanor Holmes-Norton ripped pro-gun Democrats following news.
“There is no choice between a vote for American citizens and a completely unrelated and reckless gun bill. That is a non-choice,” Norton said during an emotional impromptu press conference following the Democratic caucus meeting Tuesday afternoon. “That’s not a fair exchange. That’s not even an unfair exchange. That is an absurd exchange that no one would accept.”
Passing the District of Columbia legislation was supposed to be easy in the House compared to the Senate. But the National Rifle Association signaled it could make a procedural vote on the issue a test case for lawmakers’ Second Amendment voting records.
Why did Holmes-Norton attack Democrats instead of John Ensign, who authored the amendment? As it turns out, those Blue Dog Democrats that Nancy Pelosi was so pleased to get in 2006 have pretty strong views on gun ownership and want to end the practice of disarming law-abiding citizens in DC. In order to get the bill to the floor, the bill has to clear a procedural vote on “rules”, and a significant number of House Democrats refuse to vote for the rules if the Ensign Amendment is not included in the House bill.
Instead of allowing that amendment to remain on the bill, Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi tabled it. Essentially, Ensign and the pro-gun politicians put a bullet through the heart of the bill. And while Republicans are reliable supporters of gun rights, the fact that so many Democrats supported the measure sends an interesting signal to Pelosi, Hoyer, and Barack Obama. If they plan to start taking guns away rather than just play keep-away as they’re doing with DC residents, they could find themselves in the minority very, very quickly.
In the meantime, those gun-control impulses have managed to keep Congress from passing a blatantly unconstitutional law and saved the Supreme Court some time. In this instance, gun control works — and firearms advocates exploited it skillfully.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Bang-go!
OmahaConservative on March 4, 2009 at 8:57 AM
Good news indeed, though such pro-gun machinations will make it difficult to convince the wife that I need more gear.
Bishop on March 4, 2009 at 8:59 AM
Thank Christ.
johnnyU on March 4, 2009 at 8:59 AM
Cool beans. To quote getalife, Well played Sen Ensign, well played.
hawkdriver on March 4, 2009 at 9:00 AM
So let’s see, EHN wants to unconstitutionally give DC residents a seat in Congress, yet also wants to suppress those same residents right to have firearms. Yet it was W. who ignored the Constitution.
It’s telling that not even Maryland wants DC back.
rbj on March 4, 2009 at 9:01 AM
God Bless the NRA, who I happen to belong to! We have one group in the country that still stands for freedom and they know how to get things done! Can they now attach a gun provision to the porkulus bill?
sabbott on March 4, 2009 at 9:01 AM
use the slowly building boiling pot and frog meme….
because it is, I fear, the reality…
people who rely on blue dogs invariably wind up with fleas.
sven10077 on March 4, 2009 at 9:02 AM
Yeah baby!
ExTex on March 4, 2009 at 9:02 AM
Some days I almost feel guilty going through Gander Mountain and buying with extreme prejudice knowing that SWMBO will be happy as long as I pick her up some 9mm too.
hawkdriver on March 4, 2009 at 9:04 AM
Interesting test of the Democrats REAL concern that DC residents have the same rights as everybody else in this country.
That should be exploited.
Saltysam on March 4, 2009 at 9:05 AM
My man…Ensign.
Saltysam on March 4, 2009 at 9:06 AM
Good work, John Ensign!
Eleanor Norton is an ass.
petefrt on March 4, 2009 at 9:12 AM
So the Left’s anti-gun agenda has priority over its suck-up to DC agenda. They can’t associate with any pro-gun legislation, and it signals what they have in mind concerning gun rights in the rest of America.
Mark30339 on March 4, 2009 at 9:12 AM
My CONgressman knows he would be one unemployed Blue Dog if he voted for any sort of gun control.
flyfisher on March 4, 2009 at 9:13 AM
I’m not sure I like the ingredients that make up this stew. Gun control AND no representation. Precedent?
BobMbx on March 4, 2009 at 9:14 AM
the DC vote for voting representation in Congress is unconstitutional anyway. but glad the NRA reared their head.
kelley in virginia on March 4, 2009 at 9:15 AM
Indeed. But if DC wants to vote, returning everything but the federal sector to Maryland is the only acceptable solution,IMV.
petefrt on March 4, 2009 at 9:16 AM
hysterical-rant impromptu press conference following the Democratic caucus meeting Tuesday afternoon. “That’s not a fair exchange. That’s not even an unfair exchange. That is an absurd exchange that no one would accept.”
OmahaConservative on March 4, 2009 at 9:16 AM
Like pouring water on the Wicked Witch.
unclesmrgol on March 4, 2009 at 9:18 AM
Very good. That’s what I’m talking about. Demonize the freakin enemy!!!
JiangxiDad on March 4, 2009 at 9:19 AM
Wish her emotional hysterical-rant impromptu press conference were on YouTube. It’d be fun to watch.
petefrt on March 4, 2009 at 9:20 AM
Completely agree with caution but…
I do come away with an event like this with a little more optimism in Blue Dogs. To the extreme members of their party, complete gun control is one of their lynchpin objectives. If they thought they had an even shot of ramming it through while they’re pretty much steam rolling every other piece of legislation, they’d try it. There is obviously some fear of the blue dogs.
I’m surprised Allah or Ed haven’t linked here yet with all the talk of Nan and her canine conundrums.
HIP HOP WARNING!
hawkdriver on March 4, 2009 at 9:21 AM
‘From my cold, dead hands..’
Come on, liberals, just try it! I double-dare ya.
apco on March 4, 2009 at 9:21 AM
Two birds with one
stonebullet. Now that’s gun control. I like it.johnsteele on March 4, 2009 at 9:22 AM
Remember the scene in The Incredibles when Bob figured out that the only way to destroy the robot was to convince the robot to attack and dismantle *itself*?
Yeah, it’s like that.
DarthBrooks on March 4, 2009 at 9:24 AM
The proper solution is to transfer the city to Maryland. But, tellingly, Maryland doesn’t want it. There’s a message in there, Washingtonians.
johnsteele on March 4, 2009 at 9:24 AM
What state would?
DC is the mecca that has proven definitively that you can’t solve education issues by simply pumping money into the system….
sven10077 on March 4, 2009 at 9:26 AM
This is great news. Even though it would have “helped” Utah, initially, we are going to get that 4th seat soon enough. No need to throw the Constitution out to get it!
LL
Lady Logician on March 4, 2009 at 9:26 AM
What is it about the SC ruling Nanny Peloser didn’t get. She can read, can’t she, or are her eyes covered over by all the face pulls. Never seen someone have so many different faces in so few days, have you?
tarpon on March 4, 2009 at 9:27 AM
It hasn’t been tabled, and it’s not dead. Dem leadership pulled it and will probably put it back on the floor next week after wrangling votes. The fight’s not over.
Cmont07 on March 4, 2009 at 9:29 AM
oh no. Norton’s money shot was when she said, ‘you killed a civil rights bill with a gun bill.’ DC getting a representative without a Senator attached when it’s not a state and has never had representation since the Founding Fathers created it is now a civil right? Giving Utah a representative without a census requiring it is a civil right? Sheesh. Bans on the second amendment are NOT banning a civil right? I see DC is well represented with constitutional scholars.
Sultry Beauty on March 4, 2009 at 9:30 AM
Perhaps the Dems realize that any issue involving the erosion of 2A rights could be the tipping point. I have to think WHEN the porkulous fails to get the economy going and jobs produced as promised that FINALLY America would wake up and see to changing the balence in 2010. More and more people I talk to ARE not confident and in fact scared about this administration and what has been shoved down the countries throat already. Start playing around with the rights of law abiding gun owners then you will see massive turnout in the midterms.
EagleClaw on March 4, 2009 at 9:31 AM
The kids can get ahold of military weapons?
Sugarbuzz on March 4, 2009 at 9:33 AM
sven10077 on March 4, 2009 at 9:02 AM
I actually live my gun life by the old standby that it’s easier to gain forgiveness than permission.
Guns are like stray dogs, if they follow you home then you should be allowed to keep it. For some reason firearms are always following me home.
Bishop on March 4, 2009 at 9:34 AM
Expand the government. Kill the economy. Disarm the populous. Vote Obama.
Man I love it when that guy fails.
BKennedy on March 4, 2009 at 9:36 AM
Not a civil right issue for sure and not even constitutional. If Republicans were trying such stuff, there would be pandemonium in the press. Remember the scrutiny Tom Delay got during Texas redistricting?
Dems will try anything legal or otherwise to pad the deck.
hawkdriver on March 4, 2009 at 9:36 AM
I would think that the supreme court would throw out an unconstitutional law even if passed, but this was well played. Let’s add this amendment to the next stimulus bill as well; in fact add it to every bill coming down the pike.
Vashta.Nerada on March 4, 2009 at 9:38 AM
WOOHOO!!! I love it! I live in here in Moscow West only until I can retire and get out…despite the Supreme Court ruling the local government put in so may rules that it is still pretty much illegal to own a gun. Holmes-Norton is an idiot and believe me they just KNEW they had it this time.
DCJeff on March 4, 2009 at 9:42 AM
Yep had a R-25 in .243 follow me home, i told it to get away but it did not listen.
Be_Aware on March 4, 2009 at 9:44 AM
…and the dems were really worried about safety during the messiah’s coronation weekend (actually from Fri. until Tues.) when DC bars were allowed to stay open later than usual…never been done before…the police were pissed because no one bothered to consult with them beforehand…
DCJeff on March 4, 2009 at 9:47 AM
Or, as we say in Texas, “come and take it”.
Johan Klaus on March 4, 2009 at 9:48 AM
Just had a Glock 45 single stack follow me home. It felt right at home with my colt 45 and my Ruger 44 magnum.
Johan Klaus on March 4, 2009 at 9:52 AM
So a move for an unconstitutional action was stopped by a proposal for enforcement of the second amendment of the constitution?
Somehow that doesn’t comfort me.
MadisonConservative on March 4, 2009 at 9:57 AM
Ensign, you magnificent bastard!
awake on March 4, 2009 at 10:03 AM
Excellent! Hope they can do this with every far-out left-wing bill that passes through the House.
joe_doufu on March 4, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Agreed. And the more folks begin to understand the agenda of government controlled medical/health care that will dictate the choices of proceedure, the level of professional care, and deny doctors a license who refuse to preform abortions, they will (hopefully) begin to realize that this will be another unfunded massive program that will pale the price of SS.
The democrats agenda is clear:
1st amendment = gone
2nd amendment = gone
No taxation without representation = gone
Privately owned banks and financial institutions = gone
Government control of food production = coming soon
Government control of health care = almost here
Term limits on Supreme Court Justices = coming soon
Term limits of U.S. Presidents = suspension coming soon
I could go on……and on……and on…..but today’s Hitler’s and Stalin’s might be reading this………
Rovin on March 4, 2009 at 10:16 AM
Like someond here said the other day “If you have to hide em, it’s time to use em”.
It sounds like the timg grows near.
saiga on March 4, 2009 at 10:19 AM
remember Kelo vs New London, you can’t get much more unconstitutional than that yet the SC upheld it. Interpretation is everything and it depends on whose doing the interpreting.
Oldnuke on March 4, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Well that stopped the Democratic Congress from one instance of violating the Constitution. I wonder what they’ll dream up next. After all, “We won”.
GarandFan on March 4, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Who’s (Sheesh, gotta get more coffee.)
Oldnuke on March 4, 2009 at 10:25 AM
Well this is good news. No one is going to take my guns. My hubby has been in the NRA longer before some of you were even born. (young ones). NRA is an important Organization to join. Life Long Member. He taught me the love and the respect of a fire arm.
sheebe on March 4, 2009 at 10:28 AM
I welcome this glimmer of good news.
This NRA member is pleased that this unconstitutional bill failed but I still wish the law abiding citizens of D.C. had their RKBA. Not everyone in D.C. is a left-wing tool after all. Still, the result of this could’ve been much worse.
Yakko77 on March 4, 2009 at 10:31 AM
Bishop at 9:34 AM, I have a couple of rather nice ones that are going to follow me home today when I just happen to go to see my FFL dealer…. :D
bikermailman on March 4, 2009 at 10:33 AM
The poison pill in the legislation is that Utah would get another rep. This would be temporary as down the line they would have to give the seat to California with a larger population. Folks don’t want CA to get even more power in the House. Pelosi does, but others will resist for reasons of self preservation.
Kudos to the NRA – another pebble in the pond sending out the Constitutional ripples.
InTheBellyoftheBeast on March 4, 2009 at 10:33 AM
And I join the chorus – Join the NRA today – civil rights are under assault daily with the new POTUS and gang. The NRA is doing yeoman’s work and needs all of our support.
InTheBellyoftheBeast on March 4, 2009 at 10:37 AM
sheebe on March 4, 2009 at 10:28 AM
Life Member here as well.
EagleClaw on March 4, 2009 at 10:38 AM
Woke up to the sound of Garryowen. Sweet.
Never thought I’d hear it coming from the direction of DC.
Limerick on March 4, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Are Blue Dogs like RINO’s? They sound about the same to me! One only hopes that they give Pelosi the same amount of heartburn as the RINO’s give to us Conservatives… My guess is that she has their onions in a lock box however with plans to feed them to her pet mice in SF if they get out of line…
sabbott on March 4, 2009 at 10:56 AM
Once again just so everyone is clear on this issue:
The 2nd amendment is not about owning a hunting rifle.
Some way, some how we need to defeat the Assault weapons ban, which by the way they want to make permanent this time around.
Badbrucskie on March 4, 2009 at 11:01 AM
I see no one has mentioned that this bill is the same one that has the Anti-Fairness Doctrine Ammendment attached to it.
I tried to point this out in that thread, but I don’t think anyone noticed. Stopping the dems from making DC a voting district with its own reps has been an important issue and a hard fight for conservatives for years. That’s why I was not excited about the anti-fairness ammendment. It was just a smokescreen to make us not see the bigger issue.
stefanite on March 4, 2009 at 11:07 AM
I am happy about this of course. But if we are keeping score lately, it’s about 19-1 them.
Hard to get too excited.
BierManVA on March 4, 2009 at 11:21 AM
I actually have a similar phrase I use:
The Second Amendment isn’t about hunting animals… it’s about hunting tyrants.
JohnGalt23 on March 4, 2009 at 11:29 AM
Hard to get too excited.
BierManVA
Small victories are still victories. These can be built upon as long as we keep moving forward. A moment’s rest = two steps back.
SKYFOX on March 4, 2009 at 11:34 AM
FANTASTIC!
NRA Lifer on March 4, 2009 at 11:46 AM
The Second Amendment isn’t about hunting animals… it’s about hunting tyrants.
JohnGalt23
Hey John, do you wear cammo or blaze orange for that?
SKYFOX on March 4, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Butternut.
Limerick on March 4, 2009 at 12:06 PM
I was sure the headline meant, “DC residents can’t get a representative because they’ve been disarmed.”
Kralizec on March 4, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Perhaps put an amendment on every bill that comes up for a vote: Weapons training funding for all citizens with initial priority for households of 5 or more. Grants (to those states who elect to participate) to provide State Armories with M-14 rifles for every person in the state above the age of 18 (well regulated militia)… That would table a few bills…
phreshone on March 4, 2009 at 12:10 PM
Not to hijack the thread, but not all is rosy in the land of the NRA. I have been a member for many, many years, and though I applaud their good work (such as the efforts under discussion today,) I’ve always been disappointed in their apparent unwillingness to state the Second Amendment case to those most likely to stand against us. The NRA makes little to no effort to ‘reach out’ to these people via print or TV to simply tell it like it is, in a language even they can understand.
Most Liberals hate guns. Most also hate Bush, and acede to him the most heinous of acts and attributes. Yet these same liberals would do everything in their power to ensure that only government has access to guns, even if the government in question is one headed-up by Bush. Who thinks like this? Yet except for the briefly run ‘I am the NRA’ campaign, you can read Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, and watch most cable shows without ANY NRA-supported counterpoint to the near endless lefty drivel. Why won’t the NRA spend a little less on preaching to the choir, and a little more on developing a marketing campaign that states the Second Amendment in a way that may have some relevance to the young, to minorities, to soccer moms, to the gay and lesbian community, ETC? For example (and picture images of Pol-Pot, Stalin, and — fine — George Bush if you must, floating around the ad-copy or across the television screen while you read this:
You DEMAND your right to peacable assembly.
You DEMAND your right to free speech.
You DEMAND your right to a government of the people, by the people.
But governments change, and sometimes… DEMANDING a thing simply isn’t enough…
“…The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
CaptFlood on March 4, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Tell that to the folks in the PR CA. I’d bet Arnie would jump at the chance to take in DC. Keep him in closer contact with his favorite uncle.
N4646W on March 4, 2009 at 1:12 PM
Camo, I believe a lobbyist’s suit is best.
darktood on March 4, 2009 at 1:27 PM
I’m sure it had to be–after all, it is for the children.
DrMagnolias on March 4, 2009 at 1:41 PM
BrooksBrothers
Alden Pyle on March 4, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Its good to see that there are some people on the hill using their heads and coming up with some constructive ways to block some of the agenda that the democrats are trying to push. I hope we see some more of it.
Dreadnought223 on March 4, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Don’t worry, they’ll try again in a more devious way next time. Remember, the Dems have no respect for the law especially the constitution.
docdave on March 4, 2009 at 3:20 PM
Profound – New England and the Left Coast have been losing population for a long time. There was a re-alignment a few years ago and some States lost districts while some states gained districts. It ain’t difficult to guess who the winners and losers were.
This is why moving the Census control from Commerce to the WH is a sinister calculation. He who can manipulate the census can manipulate the House of Reps. I posted somewhere else that Obama should be called The Great Manipulator.
Pelayo on March 4, 2009 at 5:30 PM
Limerick, how many commenters will know what that means?
Pelayo on March 4, 2009 at 5:35 PM
This artical was about the students right of free speach, but this part should scare the hell out of everyone:
That night, police called Wahlberg, a 23-year-old senior, and asked him to come to the station. When he arrived, they they read off a list of firearms that were registered in his name and asked where he kept them.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,504524,00.html
Badbrucskie on March 4, 2009 at 6:05 PM
I think it’s time we recalled our forebears:
“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents ‘interests,’ I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”
- Sen. Barry Goldwater
creekspecter on March 4, 2009 at 8:38 PM
Shorter Norton: How dare these bastards make us pick and choose which part of the Constitution we can ignore!
Xrlq on March 6, 2009 at 7:07 AM
Comment pages: