IV 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 40 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that active duty military 

personnel who are stationed or residing in the District of Columbia 

should be permitted to exercise fully their rights under the Second 

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 22, 2013 

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

active duty military personnel who are stationed or residing in the District of Columbia should be permitted 

to exercise fully their rights under the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 

Whereas the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: ‘A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the 

people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.’; 

Whereas approximately 40,000 servicemen and women across 

all branches of the Armed Forces either live in or are stationed on active duty within the Washington, DC metropolitan area, and unless these individuals are granted a 

waiver as serving in a law enforcement role, they are subVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:45 Jan 22, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR40.IH HR40

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
2 

•HRES 40 IH 

ject to the District of Columbia’s onerous and highly restrictive laws on the possession of firearms; 

Whereas military personnel, despite being extensively trained 

in the proper and safe use of firearms, are therefore deprived by the laws of the District of Columbia of handguns, rifles, and shotguns that are commonly kept by 

law-abiding persons throughout the United States for 

sporting use and for lawful defense of their persons, 

homes, businesses, and families; 

Whereas the District of Columbia has one of the highest per 

capita murder rates in the Nation, which may be attributed in part to previous local laws prohibiting possession 

of firearms by law-abiding persons who would have otherwise been able to defend themselves and their loved ones 

in their own homes and businesses; 

Whereas the Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended by the 

Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, provide comprehensive Federal regulations applicable in the District of Columbia as 

elsewhere, and existing District of Columbia criminal 

laws punish possession and illegal use of firearms by violent criminals and felons; consequently, there is no need 

for local laws that only affect and disarm law-abiding 

citizens; 

Whereas, on June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court of the 

United States in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful 

purposes, and thus ruled that the District of Columbia’s 

handgun ban and requirements that rifles and shotguns 

in the home be kept unloaded and disassembled or outfitted with a trigger lock to be unconstitutional; 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
3 

•HRES 40 IH 

Whereas, on July 16, 2008, the District of Columbia enacted 

the Firearms Control Emergency Amendment Act of 

2008 (D.C. Act 17–422; 55 DCR 8237), which places onerous restrictions on the ability of law-abiding citizens 

from possessing firearms, thus violating the spirit by 

which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in 

District of Columbia v. Heller; and 

Whereas, on February 26, 2009, the United States Senate 

adopted an amendment on a bipartisan vote of 62–36 by 

Senator John Ensign to S. 160, the District of Columbia 

House Voting Rights Act of 2009, which would fully restore Second Amendment rights to the citizens of the 

District of Columbia: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that active duty military personnel who are 

3 stationed or residing in the District of Columbia should 

4 be permitted to exercise fully their rights under the Sec5 ond Amendment to the Constitution of the United States 

6 and therefore should be exempt from the District of Co7 lumbia’s restrictions on the possession of firearms. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with