Date: 2005-06-30
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. let me just make a couple of points. My friend from Indiana with whom I have worked on so many issues. I tend to agree with him on the substance of the issue. an individual being able to keep a weapon in their own home to defend themselves. but the issue here is larger than that. It really goes to the question of respecting the rights of the District of Columbia to make their own laws and the mayor and the council have spoken on this innumerable times. They seem to have thesupport of the vast majority of the city. Our committee held a lengthy hearing on this. hearing from all sides just 2 days ago: It was an illuminating hearing that I think highlighted both I sides very. very well. But to me the issue comes down to one of home rule. Are we going to allow cities and States to make these jurisdictions or are we going to try to federalize everything out of Washington? I would just caution my colleagues that once we start doing everything out of Washington. it may be on your side. but tomorrow it could go the other way. We have to respect the Federal system that was set up. This does not affect the workings of government. so in my judgment. Congress really should not be intervening in this matter although we have the legal right to do so. I also want to note that there is pending the case of Parker v. District of Columbia that offers the opportunity for second amendment advocates to answer with finality the question of does this violate the second amendment. Passing this amendment today could possibly moot that decision which is currently on appeal to the D.C. Court of Appeals. This is one opportunity because the court has looked for ways out of deciding this decision. This is a way we may be able to speak with clarity and finality. If this amendment passes. we wont have that. It is a very twoedged sword. and I urge opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman. I rise today in strong Qpposition to the D.C. Personal Protection Amendment. Let me say that I respect my colleague from Indianas perspective on this issue. There is room in the Congress for debate on the merits of some of our nations gun laws. My opposition is based on the legislations blatant and potentially dangerous assault on home rule in the District of Columbia. The Committee on Government Reform held a hearing this week on this very issue. We heard compelling stories from Mayor Tony Williams. Chief Charles Ramsey. and an array of witnesses. including residents of the District of Columbia and representatives from national think tanks and community organizations on both sides of the debate. I was disappointed that my friend from Indiana. the author of this amendment. was not able to attend the hearing to hear these views himself. I am a strong supporter of Home Rule. For our system of federalism and democracy to work. states and localities need to be able to make their own decisions on these sorts of matterseven if some of us think theyre bad ones. There is an appropriate place for a debate on D.C.s gun lawsand that place is the chambers of the District of Columbia Council. not the floor of the House of Representatives. Proponents of this bill want to frame this debate in terms of the Constitutionality of the Districts law. Various lawsuits have been filed in recent years questioning the constitutionality of the D.C. gun law under the Second Amendment. Theres a case pending on appeal right now. Parker v. District of Columbia. that offers the opportunity for the Second Amendment challenge to be answered with finality. Proponents of this amendment have the opportunity for the courts to declare that the D.C. ban. violates the Second Amendment. So whats the rush? What are they afraid of? We (and for that matter. the City Council) can consider the gun ban in light of the result of that case. In fact. if this Amendment becomes law. it could moot the ability of the Court of Appeals to address this critical 2d Amendment With finality. We are only here today because of Congress plenary power over the District. This is a constitutional authority that is. unfortunately. occasionally abused. as is the case with this legislation. D.C. leaders have enacted gun laws that reflect their constituents view that any increase in the number of guns in the District increases the odds that crimes will be committed with those guns. Thats their view. and it should be respected. Im not saying I agree with the Districts gun ban. Frankly. I dont. But I strongly oppose this amendment because I have a profound respect for Home Rule. for the right of local jurisdictions to craft their own local laws--even laws some of us dont agree with. This District law has no bearing on Congress and no bearing on the ability of the federal government to conduct its business. That should be the litmus test for federal involvement in the District. C3 1245