Norton on House Floor Strongly Opposes Non-Binding Gun Resolution That Could Weaken Gun Safety in D.C.

Washington, D.C.—The Office of Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) announced today that the House passed Representative Phil Gingrey's (R-GA) amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (H.R. 4310) that expresses the sense of Congress that active duty military personnel in the District of Columbia, in their private capacities, should be exempt from all D.C. gun laws. Norton has already been in touch with her Senate allies so that the amendment does not make it into the Senate version of the Defense Authorization bill or survive an eventual conference committee. On the House floor late last night, Norton said: "If Representative Gingrey believes that active duty military personnel should be exempt from federal or state or local firearms laws, why did he not offer an amendment that would apply nationwide? Perhaps he did not offer such an amendment for the same reason that the Republican sponsor of the bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks in the District of Columbia did not introduce a 20-week bill that would apply nationwide, either. They pick on D.C. because they think they can." There is no federal law that exempts active duty military personnel, in their personal capacities, from otherwise applicable federal firearms laws, except with respect to residency requirements, or from any state or local firearms laws.

The Gingrey amendment represents the third attack this Congress on D.C.'s gun safety laws. In November 2011, Norton scored a victory for D.C. home rule and public safety when the House Judiciary Committee defeated, by a vote of 3-24, an amendment offered by Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX) that would have allowed people with any state-issued concealed carry permit to carry concealed guns in the District. The amendment was offered to the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 (H.R. 822), which would allow people with concealed carry permits to carry concealed guns in any jurisdiction that allows concealed carry, but not in jurisdictions that prohibit concealed carry. However, the amendment would have created a unique exception to allow people with state-issued permits to carry concealed guns in D.C., even though D.C. law prohibits carrying concealed guns. Furthermore, despite the fact that a federal district court and a federal appeals court have upheld the constitutionality of the District's post-Heller gun laws, the National Rifle Association-backed D.C. gun bill (H.R. 645), which would eliminate D.C.'s gun safety laws and which forced Norton to pull the D.C. House Voting Rights Act from the House floor last Congress, was reintroduced this Congress and now has 173 cosponsors. As Congress begins the fiscal year 2013 appropriations process, Norton and her allies are preparing to defeat any effort to attach the D.C. gun bill to the D.C. appropriations bill.

Norton's floor remarks, as prepared for delivery, follow.

Statement of the Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton

of the District of Columbia

in the U.S. House of Representatives

Thursday, May 17, 2012

I rise to strongly oppose Amendment #39 to H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. The amendment reflects a pattern by Republicans in this Congress of singling out and bullying the District of Columbia. There is no federal law that exempts active duty military personnel in their personal capacities from otherwise applicable federal firearms laws, except with respect to residency requirements, or from any state or local firearms laws. Yet the amendment expresses the sense of Congress that active duty military personnel, in their personal capacities, should be exempt from the gun laws of only one jurisdiction, the District of Columbia. If my friend on the other side who sponsored this amendment believes that active duty military personnel should be exempt from federal, state, or local firearms laws, why did he not offer an amendment that would apply nationwide? Perhaps he did not offer such an amendment for the same reason that the Republican sponsor of a bill (H.R. 3808) to ban abortions after 20 weeks in the District of Columbia, on which the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution held a hearing today, did not introduce a 20-week bill that would apply nationwide, either. They pick on the District because they think they can.

The proponents of this amendment, as well as of the D.C. gun bill (H.R.645), which would eliminate D.C.'s gun laws, live in the past, acting as if the changes D.C. made to its gun laws after the Supreme Court's Heller decision in 2008 never happened. They also act like the Supreme Court's McDonald decision in 2010 never took place. In McDonald, the court said that the Second Amendment does not confer the "right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." The sponsor of this amendment also acts as if a federal district court and a federal appeals court did not uphold the constitutionality of the District's post-Heller gun laws.

This amendment represents the third attack by this Congress on the District of Columbia's gun safety laws. Although the amendment is non-binding, we will fight every attack on our rights as a local government, particularly when we are singled out for unique treatment. This amendment does nothing less than attempt to pave the way for actual inroads into the District's gun safety laws. Republicans have spent this week bullying D.C., instead of focusing on jobs, and our allies, our city, and I have spent the week fighting back equally as hard. The majority can expect a fierce fight from us whenever a bill degrades our citizens and treats them, in any way, as second-class citizens.

Published: May 18, 2012