Guns and Votes

Reason‘s David Weigel summarizes a controversial exchange in the House of Representatives yesterday wherein the Democrats took a bill that would have given D.C. a voting representative in the House off the table in exchange for the Republicans agreeing to do the same with an amendment to remove D.C. gun restrictions:

To recap – a measure to give D.C. a vote, which opponents claim would violate the Constitution, is killed after Republicans demand that D.C. not violate the Constitution.

About right.

FILED UNDER: General, , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.


  1. It is a very sad thing, but both parties seem to be much more effective as minority parties than majority parties.

  2. Rick DeMent says:

    What is odd is that fact that there has not been a SCOTUS case that test the constitutionality of local hand gun bans. If there has I don’t recall it and it would mean that the constitutionality was upheld making Weigle’s summary untrue.

  3. Boyd says:

    You’re confusing me, Rick. The Parker ruling by the Court of Appeals held that the ban was unconstitutional. How does that get changed into “the constitutionality was upheld?”