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

WASHINGTON, DC – The office of Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) announced that the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (H.R. 1960) passed by the House today includes Representative Phil Gingrey's (R-GA) amendment that expresses the sense of Congress that active duty military personnel in their private capacity should be exempt from the gun safety laws of the District of Columbia, but not those of any other state or locality. Norton has already been in touch with her Senate allies to keep the amendment from becoming part of the Senate version of the Defense Authorization bill or surviving an eventual conference committee.

In her statement for the record, Norton said, "This amendment is part of what for many of our Republican colleagues is an obsession with singling out the District of Columbia for anti-democratic bullying…If the sponsor of 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 instead of only to the District of Columbia? Republicans, who profess to support a limited federal government and local control of local matters, pick on the District of Columbia because they think they can. They are wrong."

Gingrey earlier this year introduced the amendment as a stand-alone bill. Last Congress, Gingrey added the amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 on the House floor. However, Norton, with the help of Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI), House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-WA) and the gun safety community got the provision removed from the version of the bill the president signed into law. Last Congress, in addition to the Gingrey amendment, two other attacks on the District's gun safety laws were defeated. The House Judiciary Committee rejected an amendment that would have allowed out-of-state residents with state-issued concealed carry permits to carry concealed guns in the District. The National Rifle Association-backed D.C. gun bill, which forced Norton to pull the D.C. House Voting Rights Act from the House floor in 2010, was reintroduced in the House and got 174 cosponsors, but it did not come to the floor for a vote.

Norton's full statement follows.

Statement of Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton on Amendment #171 to H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014

June 14, 2013

Ms. Norton. Mr. Speaker.

I rise to strongly oppose Amendment #171 to H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. This amendment is part of what for many of our Republican colleagues is an obsession with singling out the District of Columbia for anti-democratic bullying. There is no federal law that exempts active duty military personnel in their personal capacities from otherwise applicable federal firearms laws, except for residency requirements, or from any state or local firearms laws. Yet this amendment expresses the sense of Congress that active duty military personnel should be exempt from the gun laws of only one local jurisdiction, the District of Columbia. If the sponsor of 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 instead of only to the District of Columbia? Republicans, who profess to support a limited federal government and local control of local matters, pick on the District of Columbia because they think they can. They are wrong.

The sponsor of this amendment lives in the past, acting as if the changes D.C. made to its gun laws after the Supreme Court's Heller decision in 2008 had never happened and as if a federal district court and a federal appeals court have not upheld the constitutionality of those revised gun laws. The sponsor also acts as if the Supreme Court's McDonald decision in 2010 had not happened. 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."

This amendment is the second time this year the sponsor has tried to interfere in the local affairs of the District of Columbia. Earlier this year, the sponsor introduced this amendment as a stand-alone bill. Although this amendment is non-binding, we will fight every attack on our rights as a local government, just as any member here would. This amendment does nothing less than attempt to pave the way for actual inroads into the District of Columbia's gun safety laws. The majority can expect a fierce fight from us whenever they treat the American citizens who live in the District of Columbia as second-class citizens. The House adopted this amendment last year, but, working with our allies, led by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin and House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Adam Smith, we were able to keep it out of the final bill, and we will fight to do so again this year.

Published: June 14, 2013