Norton Calls Another Try by Senator Paul to Overturn D.C.’s Gun Safety Laws a Transparent Attempt to Breathe Life into Flagging Presidential Candidacy and a Violation of His Professed Libertarian Principles

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) today blasted Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) after he announced plans to introduce a bill to eliminate the District of Columbia's gun safety laws. Norton said Paul is a "repeat offender" when it comes to introducing bills to eliminate D.C.'s gun laws, but this time he has added a provision that would go even further by allowing firearms on "public, non-sensitive areas of federal property." Norton said that all of areas of federal property are considered "sensitive." Norton noted that if Paul had the courage of his conviction, he would introduce a bill allowing firearms on federal properties in his own state, where his jurisdiction and the right to legislate are clear. Norton said that according to a recent survey, a majority of D.C. residents support banning guns in the city entirely, but that the District's gun safety laws have been carefully revised in keeping with the Second Amendment, and have been tested and mostly upheld by federal courts.

The Congresswoman said Paul's "most recent foray into interfering with the local business of a jurisdiction not his own follows the shameless trend of Republican presidential candidates interfering with the District's right to self-government to raise their national profiles." Earlier this year, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) similarly introduced a bill to wipe out D.C.'s local gun safety laws, and, not coincidentally, the National Rifle Association almost immediately upgraded his rating from a B-plus to an A. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), shortly before announcing his presidential bid, also looked around for D.C. legislation to target in order to help his presidential candidacy, and introduced bills to overturn two D.C. anti-discrimination laws.

Norton said Paul has gone to the "D.C. well" on other occasions as well. Last year, Paul introduced an amendment to eliminate D.C.'s gun safety laws as part of an unrelated hunting bill. In 2012, Paul torpedoed a bipartisan bill to grant D.C. autonomy over its own local funds by attaching a poison pill amendment to eliminate some D.C. gun safety laws. Norton said Paul's sabotage of D.C.'s local control over its local funds was perhaps his most hypocritical deviation from his libertarian principles. Libertarians often do not want funds spent for long-recognized federal matters, and almost certainly would draw the line on federal interference with local funds, which the federal government has no role in raising. Last year, Norton was quick to praise Paul in a press release when he said in response to a reporter's question that the District should be able to legalize possession of small amounts of marijuana through a local referendum, although he took no position on marijuana legalization itself. Norton said she had hoped Paul had turned a corner when it came to interfering with D.C.'s local affairs, but his latest stunt to overturn the city's gun safety laws seems to have proved otherwise.

"Senator Rand Paul should right now decide whether he is a true libertarian or not," Norton said. "Last year, I issued a statement thanking and commending Senator Paul when he supported the local democratic rights of District residents to pass a referendum legalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana. Paul at the time said, ‘I'm not for having the federal government get involved. I really haven't taken a stand on…the actual legalization…but I'm against the federal government telling them they can't.' That was a classic case of principled libertarianism. Senator Paul took no stand on the underlying local issue of marijuana possession legalization, but he stood on the principle of keeping the federal government out of local affairs. The opportunism of now taking a cheap shot at a local jurisdiction, which cannot easily fight back, is shamelessly and patently aimed at boosting his languishing presidential campaign. When a member repeatedly contradicts his self-professed principles of local control over local affairs, on which he has stood upon his entire life, no one will see him as presidential."