Some folks may remember last summer's dust-up over this. There was a bill before Congress to get the District of Columbia a seat in the House. John Ensign tacked the Second Amendment Enforcement Act onto it, and it became something of a poison pill. Democrats were unable to excise his amendment, and if the District was to get a house seat, they'd have to comply with the Heller ruling.
Rather than risk loosening the District's gun laws, Congress chose to simply drop the whole matter completely.
Well, history repeats itself, though rarely this quickly. This year's version quickly found the Ensign amendment attached to it again, and again Congress chose not to decide.
Paul Helmke's response was to gloat, calling the whole thing a "Faustian bargain" and voicing his pleasure that the District would be sticking to its guns, even if it cost them something advocates of DC statehood consider to be a huge priority.
It all raises a difficult question, however. What if Congress had chosen to pass the bill, with the Ensign amendment? Would it have been worth the compromise?
Washington DC isn't a state, and as such, they don't qualify for representation. The Supreme Court ruled as such twice, in District of Columbia v. Murphy (1941) and District of Columbia v. Carter (1973). Article I and Section 2 of the 14th Amendment only mention the states as being entitled to send representatives to the House.
Clearly, there's a need to enforce Heller in some way. But would we be playing a little too fast and loose with the Constitution if we supported the Voting Rights Act to further the cause of the 2nd Amendment?
Rather than risk loosening the District's gun laws, Congress chose to simply drop the whole matter completely.
Well, history repeats itself, though rarely this quickly. This year's version quickly found the Ensign amendment attached to it again, and again Congress chose not to decide.
Paul Helmke's response was to gloat, calling the whole thing a "Faustian bargain" and voicing his pleasure that the District would be sticking to its guns, even if it cost them something advocates of DC statehood consider to be a huge priority.
It all raises a difficult question, however. What if Congress had chosen to pass the bill, with the Ensign amendment? Would it have been worth the compromise?
Washington DC isn't a state, and as such, they don't qualify for representation. The Supreme Court ruled as such twice, in District of Columbia v. Murphy (1941) and District of Columbia v. Carter (1973). Article I and Section 2 of the 14th Amendment only mention the states as being entitled to send representatives to the House.
Clearly, there's a need to enforce Heller in some way. But would we be playing a little too fast and loose with the Constitution if we supported the Voting Rights Act to further the cause of the 2nd Amendment?
