gun control
house AMENDMENT blocking enforcement of d.c. gun laws comes under fire
Gun-control advocates consistently try to garner more support for their cause, with tragedies involving gun violence and requests for tighter fun-control laws as the base for their group's foundation. The newest wave of controversy related to firearm accessibility has reached our nation's capital. District leaders criticized Republicans for creating a proposal that would undermine a vast portion of Washington D.C. local gun laws. Opponents of the proposal claim that it would make the nation's capital less safe. Republican Senator Thomas Massie, the Kentucky representative who spearheaded the proposal, attended a Capitol Hill new conference to acknowledge the amendment that passed through the House on Wednesday July 16th, 2014. The amendment would prevent the city from using funds to enforce essentially all of the previously-instated local gun laws--meaning that police officers and city officials will now only be able to enforce federal laws regarding firearms, their accessibility, and their usage. previous to the passage of the amendment, Washington D.C.'s gun-control laws were considered among the strictest and air-tight in the nation. D.C. local laws prohibited the " open or concealed carrying of guns outside the home" and banned "assault-type rifles and high-capacity magazines." Furthermore, the laws required that gun owners register each of the weapons in their possession with the MPD.
As the fight over the correct interpretation of the Constitution's second amendment has been lengthy and arduous, the Washington D.C. gun-control laws have faced challenges and opposition from bills and amendments in the past. However, the previous attempts to denounce the laws have seemingly never measured to the gravity of the newly passed amendment. According to Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, the fact that Senator Massie's proposal actually passed the House "presented a "clear and present danger" to District residents and visitors." Inter-municipal conflict can be seen in the differing opinions of D.C. officials--D.C. Vincent C. Gray claims that the District's guns laws helped decrease violent crime in the city whereas, Alfred Durham, an assistant D.C. police chief, believes it has become harder for the police to protect the city. To support his claims, Mayor Gray cited the September 2013 Navy Yard shooting, in which the mentally-unstable gunman purchased his firearm outside of D.C. city limits--proving that gun-control laws were effectual. Further proving his point, Mayor Gray stated: "That gun was not gotten from the District of Columbia. It came from...Virginia, whose guns laws are far more permissive...and [don't] have the level of background checks that we have." Adopting the opposite viewpoint, Massie uses the September 2013 Navy Yard shooting to prove the futility of D.C. gun's laws--Massie claims that "all their laws do...is...keep honest citizens from having firearms and bearing firearms."
The fate of the amendment is now in the hands of the Senate, and Norton hopes that Democrats find a way to nullify the amendment during late-year budget negotiation talks. Additionally, Norton believes that an "appropriations bill was an "inappropriate vehicle"" to try and combat D.C.'s gun-control laws. The aftermath of Massie's amendment is "legally ambiguous" and would garner complicated contentions and litigation were it to become a law. Phil Mendelson, a D.C. Council Chairman who drafted a majority of the gun-control laws that are now being undermined, criticizes Massie's combative approach as well; Mendelson called Massie's amendment "poorly drafted" and predicted that the proposal might actually make gun-control laws stricter--the pure opposite of its intended purpose. Taking heed of opinions from both wings of the political spectrum, Massie acknowledges the risk of pushing an amendment to an appropriations bill. Senator Massie has stated that he is "confident that [the amendment] will get killed by Harry Reid," the Senate majority leader. Nevertheless, Massie recognizes the trajectory of the amendment proved a huge opportunity to garner more support for the gun-rights movement.
In my opinion, I believe huge gun-rights organizations like the National Rifle Association (NRA) and political leaders such as Senator Massie, are looking only at the short-term repercussions of making firearms more accessible. In the long-term, making guns more available to a nation already heavily impacted by gun culture, is a mistake; the rate of people killed by guns in the United States is 19.5 times higher that similar high-income countries in the world and there were 13 school shootings recorded in the first six weeks of 2014. Being able to store an AK-47 under your mattress to "protect your family from the burglar next door" may conjure up some sense that you are exercising your Constitutional rights. However, I believe that guns don't prevent violence, but lead to the unnecessary and senseless, gun-provoked tragedies that impact our nation.
As the fight over the correct interpretation of the Constitution's second amendment has been lengthy and arduous, the Washington D.C. gun-control laws have faced challenges and opposition from bills and amendments in the past. However, the previous attempts to denounce the laws have seemingly never measured to the gravity of the newly passed amendment. According to Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, the fact that Senator Massie's proposal actually passed the House "presented a "clear and present danger" to District residents and visitors." Inter-municipal conflict can be seen in the differing opinions of D.C. officials--D.C. Vincent C. Gray claims that the District's guns laws helped decrease violent crime in the city whereas, Alfred Durham, an assistant D.C. police chief, believes it has become harder for the police to protect the city. To support his claims, Mayor Gray cited the September 2013 Navy Yard shooting, in which the mentally-unstable gunman purchased his firearm outside of D.C. city limits--proving that gun-control laws were effectual. Further proving his point, Mayor Gray stated: "That gun was not gotten from the District of Columbia. It came from...Virginia, whose guns laws are far more permissive...and [don't] have the level of background checks that we have." Adopting the opposite viewpoint, Massie uses the September 2013 Navy Yard shooting to prove the futility of D.C. gun's laws--Massie claims that "all their laws do...is...keep honest citizens from having firearms and bearing firearms."
The fate of the amendment is now in the hands of the Senate, and Norton hopes that Democrats find a way to nullify the amendment during late-year budget negotiation talks. Additionally, Norton believes that an "appropriations bill was an "inappropriate vehicle"" to try and combat D.C.'s gun-control laws. The aftermath of Massie's amendment is "legally ambiguous" and would garner complicated contentions and litigation were it to become a law. Phil Mendelson, a D.C. Council Chairman who drafted a majority of the gun-control laws that are now being undermined, criticizes Massie's combative approach as well; Mendelson called Massie's amendment "poorly drafted" and predicted that the proposal might actually make gun-control laws stricter--the pure opposite of its intended purpose. Taking heed of opinions from both wings of the political spectrum, Massie acknowledges the risk of pushing an amendment to an appropriations bill. Senator Massie has stated that he is "confident that [the amendment] will get killed by Harry Reid," the Senate majority leader. Nevertheless, Massie recognizes the trajectory of the amendment proved a huge opportunity to garner more support for the gun-rights movement.
In my opinion, I believe huge gun-rights organizations like the National Rifle Association (NRA) and political leaders such as Senator Massie, are looking only at the short-term repercussions of making firearms more accessible. In the long-term, making guns more available to a nation already heavily impacted by gun culture, is a mistake; the rate of people killed by guns in the United States is 19.5 times higher that similar high-income countries in the world and there were 13 school shootings recorded in the first six weeks of 2014. Being able to store an AK-47 under your mattress to "protect your family from the burglar next door" may conjure up some sense that you are exercising your Constitutional rights. However, I believe that guns don't prevent violence, but lead to the unnecessary and senseless, gun-provoked tragedies that impact our nation.