By Dave Workman
Senior Editor
On a 241-181 roll call vote, the House of Representatives passed a budget amendment that prohibits the District of Columbia municipal government from using any funds to enforce the city’s strict gun laws, which include a ban on carrying firearms for personal protection outside the home.
The vote was considered as something of a warning shot at the city’s political bow, and an indication that many House members are tired of the city’s on-going efforts to discourage residents from buying and keeping guns in their homes.
Sponsored by Kentucky Republican Congressman Thomas Massie, the amendment was added to the $21.3 million spending bill. The Washington City Paper said it “would gut D.C.’s gun laws.” Jennifer Fuson, spokesperson for the anti-gun Brady Campaign told the newspaper that if this amendment ultimately becomes law, it could open the door to concealed carry in the District without a permit.
Gun rights activists call that “constitutional carry.” That term is based on the belief that the only “permit” anyone needs to carry a gun openly or concealed is the Second Amendment. It is the law in Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Wyoming and most of Montana, and has always been legal in Vermont. Other states have considered similar legislation.
In a statement about his amendment, Massie repeated what many leading gun rights advocates have maintained for years: “Criminals by definition don’t care about laws. They will get guns any way they can.”
Massie’s observations about the heavy-handed gun laws in the District, which have long appeared designed to discourage citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights, are certain to hit the mark with gun owners.
“Strict gun control laws do nothing but prevent good people from being able to protect themselves and their families in the event of a robbery, home invasion, or other crime,” the congressman said. “Studies indicate that murder rates rise following bans on firearms.”
Recent high-profile murders, especially the one in Santa Barbara in May, suggest that restrictive background checks don’t work, either. Spree killer Elliot Rodger, the Isla Vista man who fatally stabbed three young men and then shot three people including a man and two women, passed three background checks and endured three waiting periods when he legally purchased all three handguns he used. In addition, he only used California-legal ten-round magazines.
“It is time for Congress to step in and stop the DC government’s harassment and punishment of law-abiding citizens who simply want to defend themselves,” Massie said.
Gun rights activists around the country have long sought adoption of measures that would cut off funding to states and local governments that enforce onerous gun laws as well. One suggestion has been to withhold state apportionments of the Pitman-Robertson Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration revenues from the special excise taxes on firearms and ammunition. That fund is administered by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and has funneled millions of dollars to state fish and wildlife agencies since its adoption in 1937. A federal amendment to withhold those funds from any state that requires waiting periods or mandates magazine capacity limits could create a new perspective toward extremist gun laws in state legislative halls.
