Inside the Beltway this. The Washington Post reckons that Congressional efforts to force the District of Columbia to get with the program—to end restrictive gun laws that violate the Supreme Court’s recent mandate to do so—are a “specious effort.” Cue Michael Jackson’s Earth Song. WHAT ABOUT US? “What lawmakers might want to think twice about, however, are the homeland security implications of making the nation’s capital wide open to guns. Surely currying favor with the gun lobby is not worth that risk, even if this is an election year.” C’mon. Seriously? D.C. gun laws prevent terrorism? How’d that work out during 911, then? Never mind. The Post picks on a provision of bill 3265 to make its case . . .
As bad as that noxious amendment crafted by Sen.John Ensign (R-Nev.) was, this new proposal is even worse. Particularly pernicious are provisions that would prohibit private property owners, along with the D.C. government, from restricting possession of firearms by anyone who leases space on that property. So, as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence points out, this means the District wouldn’t be able to restrict guns in government buildings if space were leased to a sandwich shop.
Imagine parents who have lost a family member to gun violence having to allow a renter to possess firearms. No state imposes such restrictions on private landowners, so why is this a good idea in a city where motorcades of high government officials and foreign dignitaries are an almost-daily routine?
Imagine someone who has to try and earn a living or raise a family in this nation’s crime-infested capitol without the Constitutionally-guaranteed right to protect themselves with a firearm. Or a homosexual man trying to get on with his life whose life is threatened by a band of gay bashers.Jackson again: WHAT ABOUT US?
Hello? WaPo? Check your Wikipedia: “Violent crime [in D.C.] is still more than three times the national average of 454.5 reported offenses per 100,000 people in 2008.” Now read More Guns, Less Crime and try and dispute a single fact within its covers. Go on. I dare you.
Oh wait. Sorry. Those are average people at the sharp end of that violent crime. Not “high government officials” (insert Mayoral drug joke here) and foreign dignitaries. With armed bodyguards.
In case you think I’m just being paranoid about the Post’s elitism, check this:
Whether the National Rifle Association succeeds with this dangerous legislation is largely up to Democratic leaders in the House and Senate. There will be a strong push, particularly from Blue Dog Democrats in the House, to bring these measures up for a vote so that lawmakers up for reelection can secure favorable ratings from the NRA. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) must ensure that those political considerations don’t trump what’s in the best interest of the city as well as the nation’s security.
Yeah, can’t let democracy get in the way of political correctness. Where’s the sense in that?