Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterpolitics:
Ensign wants price on D.C. voting right: Loosened gun law
Tuesday, March 10, 2009 | 2 a.m.
John Ensign
Sun Blogs
Sun coverage
Sun Archives
- Guns, votes mix well for Ensign (3-2-2009)
- Reid would rather avoid issue of guns in U.S. parks (3-17-2008)
Washington — Republican Sen. John Ensign has engineered a major political coup that could leave the District of Columbia with weaker gun laws than those of Las Vegas and thwart a long-sought effort to give residents of the capital voting rights in Congress.
In a victory for gun rights advocates, the Nevada lawmaker led Senate efforts to strike down a gun control law in the capital by adding an amendment to a long-fought bill to give the district a voting representative in Congress.
The amendment stripping out gun restrictions in the capital drew widespread support as moderate Democratic lawmakers were hesitant to confront the powerful gun lobby. Sen. Harry Reid, the majority leader, joined Ensign and 60 other senators in voting for its passage.
Ensign won praise from guns rights advocates, but he is now facing pushback from members of the District of Columbia City Council as well as complaints that he is creating a more lax environment for guns in the nation’s capital than in his home state.
David Catania, a city councilman for more than a decade, said Ensign must have “nothing better to do with his time” than meddle in district affairs.
“With all the problems confronting Nevada, he has time to play city councilman in the District of Columbia?” said Catania, chairman of the council’s health committee.
Catania mused that he should visit Nevada as part of his ongoing research into ways to provide health care coverage, suggesting, “You must have some bang-up system there.”
The amendment threatens to scuttle the entire D.C. voting issue.
The legislation is stalled in the House because members are unwilling to take on the gun lobby. The legislation faces similar amendments on that side of the Capitol, including one put forward by Nevada Republican Rep. Dean Heller.
The underlying issue of district representation is that the 500,000 residents of the capital now have one House member, whose floor vote is advisory only. Under a carefully crafted deal, the district would get its long-wanted seat in the House while Utah, which narrowly missed being granted a new seat during apportionment following the 2000 census, would also get one.
This made politicos happy — the District of Columbia is primarily Democratic, Utah mostly Republican.
But Ensign and others in Congress opposed the deal, which was headed toward passage with President Barack Obama’s support.
The view Ensign holds is shared by other conservatives. They note that the Constitution extends House membership to states only. The district is not a state.
But supporters of the bill are confident that the U.S. Supreme Court would uphold the voting legislation if the issue were to reach that level.
Ensign’s amendment would strike down gun laws the district council passed last year, laws that loosened the rules of gun ownership after the Supreme Court ruled the district’s ban on keeping handguns in homes was unconstitutional.
Ensign’s legislation would replace the new laws with federal regulations.
“We’re just fulfilling our constitutional duty,” Ensign said. “There’s a basic fundamental right to keep and bear arms. And when Washington, D.C., restricts that, it is our constitutional role, I believe, to defend Second Amendment rights.”
Ensign’s amendment would allow gun owners greater rights than they enjoy in Clark County, where residents buying their first gun face a 72-hour cooling-off period before they can take possession. The district had instituted a 10-day cooling-off period, but Ensign’s measure would strike it down to follow the federal instant-check model.
Chris W. Cox, chief lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, said, “we’re very pleased with our Nevada representatives.”
Ensign has long been a gun rights supporter. He stepped into the limelight in a new way this year in part because the ranks of Republican lawmakers have dramatically thinned, said Eric Herzik, the chairman of the political science department at the University of Nevada, Reno.
Among Nevada’s gun owners, Ensign’s work has made him a hero.
Robert Smith, president of the Nevada State Rifle and Pistol Association, said the district was “taking away the rights of those people. Somebody’s got to stand up for them. John’s got the guts to do it.”
Discussion: 22 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Police: 3 arrested in officer’s death have gang ties
- Corrections officer with Metro killed in U.S. 95 crash
- System fails to catch contractor’s family tie with county
- Where to watch UFC 106
- Fontainebleau contractors say sales process is flawed
- UNLV and Southern Illinois will be guarded tonight
- SEC sues former gaming exec for alleged insider trading
- Station Casinos, lenders agree to rent decrease at 4 properties
- Findlay guard Joseph scores 33, talks about UNLV
- Bishop Gorman takes Sunset Region title in win over Cimarron
Blogs
The Kats Report
For props, Lewis Black needs only his manic delivery and torrid material (3 Comments)
Elsewhere
Sands China raises $2.5 billion in Hong Kong IPO (1 Comment)
Marquardt v. Sonnen scheduled for UFC 109
Bloggity, Bloggity, Bloggity
Will a fourth consecutive title by Jimmie Johnson be good or bad for NASCAR? (3 Comments)
Top Chef: Las Vegas
The Jet Stream: And then there were four
Top Chef Episode 12: On keeping it simple
Miech Again
Chilly start for Chace, but Stanback says he'll warm up (2 Comments)
- Live chat
- Tuesday, noon PST
- Chat with Krista Creelman
- Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question
Calendar »
- 22 Sun
- 23 Mon
- 24 Tue
- 25 Wed
- 26 Thu
-
UFC 106 at Mandalay Bay Events Center
Mandalay Bay Events Center | 7 p.m. to 11 p.m.
-
Julio Iglesias at the Las Vegas Hilton
Las Vegas Hilton
-
Natasha Wicks hosts at Hawaiian Tropic Zone
Hawaiian Tropic Zone | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Tito Ortiz hosts at Tao
Tao | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Hiroshima at Santa Fe Station
Santa Fe Station
-
Frank Mir hosts at LAX
LAX Nightclub | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
The Four Tops at The Orleans Showroom
Orleans Hotel-Casino
-
Amir Sadollah hosts at Prive
Prive | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
This is appalling. I think Mr. Cox's comment is very telling, "Our" Nevada representatives? Yup, bought and paid for, sounds like to me. I fail to see how making someone wait a week to buy a deadly weapon is "Taking away" someone's rights. The most disgusting thing about all of this is that it is simply a ploy to kill the legislation. The Republicans are pretending to be concerned about D.C. citizens rights in order to deny them the right to representation, and the Democrats are cowards for not standing up to the NRA.
There should not be any waiting period to buy a gun. Thats ridiculous. I can buy prescription drugs, cigarettes, alchohal,and a car, all of which kill and maim more people in this country than guns. Liberal judges are the only reason D.C. has such a high crime rate.
Where I did not mind a waiting period. I do think it is stupid. I can wait 72 hours on a hand gun? Yet only the first purchase ever. One does not have to wait to buy a shot gun, AX, Hammer, Car, Knife, sword, bow , cross bow, Alcohal, Tabaco, ect.
As for DC I lived there most of my life. The right to own a gun made me a criminal in OUR countrys Captial that is stupid. The place is a dangerous place to be without one. DC should not have a vote the people there are either condsidered VA side or MD side for their Vote. Plus it goes back to DC not being a state nor should the countrys capital become one.
One definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over expecting different results. By this definition the gun confiscation laws of DC are insane! Just how dumb are the elected officials to continue the same policy while DC continues to be murder capital of the country? In reality gun control laws have no effect on violent crime. However they have a huge effect on victims of crimes and whether they are afraid to report crimes. (Yes I'm a gun nut, like the vast majority of us I have no problem with the truth!) I've plotted Brady Campaign ratings of gun laws against the FBI violent crime statistics. You can find it at: http://www.rideronthestorm-armed.info/
So I guess 25% of the crimes with guns is ok for gun aficionados. Well, at least that's one of the arguments in favor of looser gun laws. Everyone refers to the Constitution for the right to bear arms. That document was written in a time when guns where necessary, hey!we were still invading an inhabited land. I've grown up in NYC, lived in DC and in other cities all over the world, but for the first time in my life, living in Las Vegas, I never feel safe. No matter what time of day, no matter what neighborhood. I like to go to the range to shoot. Do I want a gun in my home? NO. Does the thought that my neighbors may have one disturb me? Absolutely. The 72 hour waiting period is also a COOL OFF period, which I am sure has saved many lives. And if you're not going to premeditate ANYTHING, what's 72 hours? Grow up folks, it's not the OK Corral and you're not John Wayne. And YES, DC residents SHOULD have representation. After all, they are affected by what decisions are made in their own city, so let's give them a voice. You can't refer to the constitution for your own convenience and then shut out the rights of others! That's hypocritical, but what else is new!
"I fail to see how making someone wait a week to buy a deadly weapon is "Taking away" someone's rights." Read the federal Second Amendment, better yet Nevada's Declaration of Rights Section 11 -- "Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes."
What part of "right to keep and bear arms" do you need explained to you?
dan2548, NVboy -- what you said!
"Ensign has long been a gun rights supporter." This can be taken two ways -- one is spotlighting him for the gun control crowd, the other is this is one of the few we send to D.C. who actually takes his oath of office seriously. You know, the one about supporting and defending the Constitution.
Last year's Heller decision by the U.S. Supremes was a long time coming. Too bad the D.C. city council didn't take it to heart.
Sambagirl, perhaps you should actually read the Constitution. First, the 2nd Amendment DOES guarantee the individuals right to keep and bear arms (the Supreme Court ruled on this last year). Second, any attempts to create a congressional seat for D.C. is unconstitutional. This is just as plainly stated.
Finally, if someone is going to use a gun to commit a crime, the intended victim should be a position to defends his/herself. Tell you what, go back to NYC and your little left-winger friends. Your arguments speak to incredible ignorance.
Sambagirl, here is some info;
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Thomas Jefferson)
The 2nd amendment intention was specifically meant to protect the people from the government!
The 1st amendment gives you the right to post here! (freedom of speech)
sambagirl -- You must be forgetting your high school civics classes, assuming you went to high school and the school taught basic civics.
Your references to John Wayne and the OK Corral just shows you take your TV way too seriously.
ALL our laws must be based on our Constitutions for their authority or the laws are void, period. It doesn't get simpler than that.
You seem to have bought into that gross lie that we are only allowed to do what the state gives us permission to do. It's actually the other way around. Just because you choose not to exercise your liberties is absolutely no reason someone else shouldn't.
Yes, all rights carry responsibility. Like free speech doesn't protect one from being righteously convicted for shouting "FIRE!!" as a joke in a crowded theater. Guns being unlawfully used are the crimes, not responsible citizens keeping and bearing them. When government fears its citizens being armed is a sure sign something is seriously wrong with government.
As one who has been confronted with a home intruder while unarmed, I can assure you that lesson only had to be taught once. Anyone trespassing against me now will be facing quite a different victim. You may wish to rethink being fearful because your neighbor has a gun in the house in light of this scenario. I'd wager you'd be very glad there's someone closeby and armed to make the citizen's arrest while you dial 911.
That's funny sambagirl...you "like to go to the range and shoot" but yet you don't own a gun? Why, then, would you go and shoot? Practice? Why? You don't own a gun.
I think you were trying to make a point, albeit a poor one. You don't have to lie to try and impress people here. I am proud that I own a gun and can protect myself and my family if needed. Funny, I own a gun and I take it to the range and practice shooting. Weird!!
To bad nobody is that concern about the Constitutional right to right to walk around on public streets.
There are blocks upon blocks in DC and other urban cities including Las Vegas where one can't not walk alone, especially at night.
People just do not realized that we have lost many freedoms in the USA because we do not have strong law enforcement to take these areas back.
One should get a job that deliveries pizza to these areas. Nearly every window has bars and the window is totally black out so that nobody can look in. Most homes have security doors or doors with locks. They rarely open the door until they very very sure that you are pizza guy (good practice in any area---do open doors to strangers) and they usually do with the chain lock still on the door. It sad that crime is so bad in those areas.
Blacks have it tough. Nearly 50% of murder victims are black. Nearly 50% of rape victims are black. Blacks only make up 13.4% of the population.
Gun control laws are most restricted in cities, like DC, where blacks are in majority control of voting population.
Most of volient gun crime involving blacks are done by persons who do not legally own the guns. This is true in cities with tough gun control laws and those without them.
Guns are the main deterrence to people who want to do home invasions to rob and rape people.
Guns also are a deterrence to tryants who wish to declare a national emergency and order martial law. But these tryants do have access to database of guns owners. They will just come around and collect them.
Here's how to get the DC House Vote through Congress:
http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009...
jfnance32 - What you said!
I recall a number of years ago when Florida came out as a "right to carry" state -- being openly armed became well publicized. Personal assaults and home invasions dropped to almost nothing right after that (except for foreign tourists, who couldn't come in armed). At the same time a neighboring state had a sharp spike in those same crimes.
What a coincidence.
What's more dangerous, an AK-47 (legal) or a hooker(illegal)??
Even though I live in Montana, I have always considered Senator John Ensign to be one of the best Senators in the US Senate. This is one more proof. The people in Nevada should be proud to have him represent them. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same about their other Senator.
Those who complain about the second amendment should learn one thing about studying a historical document. You Must understand what the words used Meant in the historical context to those who Wrote those words.
When they talked about the militia their definition was Not what people today are using. At that time the term "militia" meant every able-bodied adult free male between the ages of 16-60 years old. Not necessarily "organized" was required, how many of those involved in the first battles do you think were actually involved with Any organized militia group?
Those who will then state that they did not Mean Military weapons have not thought out Exactly what the job of the militia entails. In general terms, the duty of the militia was to support the regular army in defense of the country against an outside enemy. How can they do this most effectively unless they can share parts & ammunition at the Very Least?? Just look at the problems faced by both sides during the civil war, BOTH sides had Major logistics nightmares just trying to supply dozens of different calibers of small-arms ammunition along with trying to supply parts to repair even More different types of small-arms. Now, I can understand the government not wanting heavy machineguns, grenade & rocket launchers or artillery in private hands, the militia is supposed to support the military. Let the military supply the heavy weapons support.
Now there are those who will say that that day is far behind us. I hope that they will survive long enough to realize how wrong they are. Today our biggest threat is provided by those who sincerely believe[so they tell everyone who will listen to their rantings] that if they die killing infidels they will automatically go to their heaven no matter what else they do.
I do NOT intend this to be any kind of defamatory statement against those of the Muslim faith as a whole. They & We, along with those of the Jewish Faith, are Still what They call "Brothers of The Book". All three started in the same part of the world & our respective Holy Books share More than a Small bit of the same early writings. Those who are interested do some comparative reading of the Old Testament, the Torah & the early Koran. You might be surprised at the commonalities there. The religious problems are caused by the fanatics, those are found in ALL religions. The most infamous ones in modern Christianity would have to be those lunatics in Northern Ireland. There are FAR more Moderates than the trouble-makers out there on all sides, best guess that less than 5% of the population causes More than 90% of the trouble but the Moderates, for whatever the reasons, cannot or will not band together to either get them under control or under the ground. That is all they deserve, 6'x3'x3' of ground & 6' down to make sure they Stay there.
Our own home-grown criminals provide more than enough trouble, do we Really need to find ourselves disarmed when animals from outside try to bring their games over here? Is anybody out there stupid enough to truly believe that they cannot or will not start that here?
Finally, I point to gotjobs Jeffersonian quote:
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Thomas Jefferson)
Our government is not Yet a tyranny, but not for lack of trying on some individuals parts. The only thing a tyrant fears is an armed populous. As long as the general populous is fairly well armed any prospective tyrant would probably find that the cost would outweigh the possible gain. They would Also have to wonder what would happen within the regular military if they tried going too far against the families of those same soldiers. The oath is to the constitution, if they violate the constitution too far those soldiers may consider themselves released from that oath like any contract that has been changed too far from the one they signed.
Vegasj -- You're wrong. AK-47s can't be legal to own. They're full auto, since AK means "Automatic Kalishnikov." The semi-auto versions of it are a different story, of course, but they're called something else. Let's check 'em out at the Tropicana this weekend!
Snake -- You're incorrect. The U.S. Supreme Court laid that all to rest last June in D.C. v. Heller and held: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
Personally I have no use for organized religion or its dogma of any kind. Christianity's history is one of wholesale slaughter and Islam isn't far behind.
"Christianity's history is one of wholesale slaughter and Islam isn't far behind."
Secluar based governments have killed far more than Christianity and Islam combined when just looking at mass murder of its own citizens much less others. Add in the mass murder of other countries' citizens and the war totals than it is even worse.
Agreed nance. It's human nature to slaughter. It's not the sole (or soul) purview of religion or government. And to single out Christianity is a gross disservice to every other religion.
jfnance / redeferret -- secular government is not bound by the prohibition "Thou shalt not kill" nor the gospel of love and forgiveness their professed christ charged them with. Christianity, especially, should be singled out for that reason alone. The Inquisition, the Crusades, the conquest of American, the Requiremento, the list goes on and on.
And the same goes for government. At least when religions killed it was straight up. Factor in Nazism, Stalinism, and Maoism, and the corpses are 10Xs higher and in a far more brutal fashion. Whether it was artificial famine, reorganizing a whole country's economy, or simple ethnic cleansing with forced labor added on, secular governments have done far worse. In the end it is a matter of ideology, religious or secular, that drives death. Both do it, and to single out one religion is dumb, because all of the others have done it too.