House votes to defund D.C. gun laws

Send to Kindle
Rep. Massie

Rep. Thomas Massie, a pro-gun politician if there ever was one. (Photo: Massie)

The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday approved a budget amendment that would defund the enforcement of Washington D.C.’s strict gun laws.

The amendment, proposed by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), was added to the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act of 2015 by a vote of 241 to 181.

“Criminals by definition don’t care about laws. They will get guns any way they can,” said Rep. Massie in a press release, about his amendment which would, by virtue of the funding cuts, lift bans on so-called “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines,” nix registration requirements, and overturn laws restricting carrying firearms outside the for self-defense.

“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,” he continued. “Studies indicate that murder rates rise following bans on firearms.”

Given that Massie’s amendment would turn D.C. from de facto gun-free city to a gun-friendly one, pro-gun control lawmakers were quick to condemn it.

Leading the charge was Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) and Rep. José E. Serrano (D-NY).

“Representative Massie, who first entered Congress in 2012, is trying to appeal to the far right wing and to get a national profile at the expense of the public safety of my constituents,” said Norton.

“D.C. is a big city that shares the same violence issues as all other big cities, but it is also the nation’s capital, home to the president and countless federal and foreign officials who travel on our streets every day,” she added. “Representative Massie, who claims at every turn to support local control of local affairs, is using the power of the federal government to overturn the laws of a local jurisdiction.”

According to Norton, the amendment would jeopardize public safety because the District would no longer be allowed to prevent:

  • The carrying of a gun, openly or concealed, on streets in the nation’s capital
  • Assault weapons, including .50 caliber sniper rifles, from being possessed
  • Magazines holding an unlimited number of bullets from being possessed
  • The private sale of guns without background checks
  • The purchase of guns with no waiting period
  • The purchase of an unlimited number of guns in one day

The fate of Massie’s amendment is now in the hands of Democratically-controlled Senate, which will likely scrap it from the appropriations bill.  But here’s to hoping that they leave it on, intact.

{ 9 comments… add one }
  • Evan June 28, 2016, 3:29 pm

    Where do I get one of those magazines that holds an unlimited number of bullets?

  • Ronhart December 28, 2015, 5:37 pm

    More guns, less crime. More GUN FREE ZONES, more murders!
    Do the math!!

  • Bobby W July 22, 2014, 8:37 am

    The honorable congress critters Norton and Serrano obviously are in the pay of criminals if they want to prevent honest law-abiding citizens from interfering with the activities of their true constituents. The city of Detroit has seen a 30% drop in violent crime since the concealed carry law was enacted in Michigan. This clearly refutes all the arguments floated by the progressive crowd. Blood is not running in the streets. Vigilante gangs are not hunting down people (unlike criminal gangs doing it).
    I am really tired of the progressives stating more guns will be less safe for law-abiding people. More guns only make it less safe for criminals. Are these who the progressives are really worried about?

  • Joe McHugh July 22, 2014, 7:53 am

    Let’s face the real reason that the Democrats and RINOs push for more and more gun restrictions. They aren’t trying to make our society safer for the people, they are trying to make their authoritarian behavior invulnerable to the people. The people should fear the government that fears the people’s guns.
    If there is one thing that represents a free society, it has to be an armed populace. The high powered rifle in the hands of a competent, law-abiding adult citizen is the very symbol of individual freedom.
    Of course that’s just my opinion.

    • dink winkerson July 23, 2014, 12:53 pm

      I am a law abiding, felony free, every day gun carrying american. I agree with almost all that you stated. I take exception to how it is alright with so many, to infringe on the second amendment rights of felons. What should we take away next, perhaps their 4th, 5th and so on?

  • James London July 22, 2014, 6:41 am

    All of the exclusions sound like the state of Arizona and the weapons laws here. Having lived here most all of my adult life and been a law enforcement officer for 25 years here I can only hope DC gets to have the same freedoms there that are afforded us here in this open carry , get it on the day you buy it and own what you like as long as it is legal by ATF concerns. And open or concealed carry is the option I truly love as the honest citizens here can provide protection to not only those family or friends or even just the locals near them if need be but lastly to them selves if the actual need arises. Working the street for my entire career and working traffic off of a motorcycle for over half of it I learned early on to keep my officer awareness on all the time as a safe place for myself did not exist while I was at work.
    To take away any of our freedoms is completely wrong by our elected officials and to use the guise of safety for foreign visitors is just so outrageous it is sickening to think the opposing would even say it aloud.
    I am so glad to live where our 2nd amendment rights have not been stepped on.

  • James London July 22, 2014, 6:41 am

    All of the exclusions sound like the state of Arizona and the weapons laws here. Having lived here most all of my adult life and been a law enforcement officer for 25 years here I can only hope DC gets to have the same freedoms there that are afforded us here in this open carry , get it on the day you buy it and own what you like as long as it is legal by ATF concerns. And open or concealed carry is the option I truly love as the honest citizens here can provide protection to not only those family or friends or even just the locals near them if need be but lastly to them selves if the actual need arises. Working the street for my entire career and working traffic off of a motorcycle for over half of it I learned early on to keep my officer awareness on all the time as a safe place for myself did not exist while I was at work.
    To take away any of our freedoms is completely wrong by our elected officials and to use the guise of safety for foreign visitors is just so outrageous it is sickening to think the opposing would even say it aloud.
    I am so glad to live where our 2nd amendment rights have not been stepped on.

  • James London July 22, 2014, 6:40 am

    All of the exclusions sound like the state of Arizona and the weapons laws here. Having lived here most all of my adult life and been a law enforcement officer for 25 years here I can only hope DC gets to have the same freedoms there that are afforded us here in this open carry , get it on the day you buy it and own what you like as long as it is legal by ATF concerns. And open or concealed carry is the option I truly love as the honest citizens here can provide protection to not only those family or friends or even just the locals near them if need be but lastly to them selves if the actual need arises. Working the street for my entire career and working traffic off of a motorcycle for over half of it I learned early on to keep my officer awareness on all the time as a safe place for myself did not exist while I was at work.
    To take away any of our freedoms is completely wrong by our elected officials and to use the guise of safety for foreign visitors is just so outrageous it is sickening to think the opposing would even say it aloud.
    I am so glad to live where our 2nd amendment rights have not been stepped on.

    • Joe McHugh July 22, 2014, 10:46 am

      James London, excellent observation and you have the perspective of one who protected the public for a quarter of a century.
      However, I am not in complete agreement with your second sentence. “….and own what you like , (guns), as long as it is legal by ATF concerns.” I realize that the ATF people are charged with enforcing the Federal firearms laws that are on the code books of the United States. As of 1996 there were already 83,584 gun Federal gun laws, and that figure does not include the thousands of firearms laws on the code books of the fifty states.

      I would argue that 83,580 of those Federal gun laws are infringements on the Second Amendment of the Constitution.
      I would call for the scrapping of ALL gun laws in the United States except for the following:
      1) It would be illegal to threaten a law-abiding citizen with a firearm.
      2) It would be illegal to injure a law-abiding citizen with a firearm.
      3) It would be illegal to kill a law-abiding citizen with a firearm.
      4) It would be illegal to sell or give a firearm to a violent criminal or an adjudged dangerous psychotic.
      Any other gun law unnecessarily infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
      Obviously, the first three items could be combined into a one-sentence law.

      I challenge anyone to cite a reason that a competent, law-abiding adult citizen can not walk abroad in public with a fully automatic weapon, a sawed off shotgun or a pistol with a silencer. You can state your concerns about such behavior but you can’t stop it by citing Federal laws. The National Firearms Act, (N.F.A.) of 1934 requires anyone who wishes to carry such a device/firearm in public, to register it first with the proper Federal Department. The N.F.A. law also requires that you to pay
      $200.00 for a transfer tax stamp when you purchase one of these registered weapons from the previous owner. The Federal Government does not outlaw any small-arms type of weapon that you can pick up and operate as designed.

      For some inexplicable reason, the Democrats and RINOs equate violent criminals and law-abiding citizens alike when they are bearing arms. These people would be considered to be tyrannical in nature by the Founding Fathers.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend