D.C. Young Republicans Speak Out Against D.C.'s Dangerous Gun Laws

D.C. Delegate "Congresswoman" Eleanor Holmes Norton held her 2-hour Talk Back to Congress Town Meeting at 6:30 p.m. last night at Shaw Junior High School. From the beginning, it was a carefully-staged propaganda event, but the D.C. Young Republicans were there to poke holes in the illusion that D.C. residents uniformly support D.C. draconian gun control laws.

The entire first hour featured keynote speeches by Norton, Mayor Anthony Williams, and Police Chief Charles Ramsey. Throughout the night, Norton reinforced her image as a hard-hitting politician, while little that Williams said was memorable (he would probably rather talk about baseball). Chief Ramsey, on the other hand, came across as a level-headed, thoughtful individual without a partisan edge.

Norton began her speech by claiming that she sought to challenge three assumptions, namely that

(1) “Congress has the right to change the local laws of any jurisdiction,”

Response: Of course Congress has the right with respect to the District. See Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution: Section. 8. “The Congress shall have Power . . . To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States.”

(2) That “somehow people will be safer if more guns are in the District,”

Response: John R. Lott’s book More Guns, Less Crime explains exactly why that is so

and

(3) Since people living in D.C. don’t have equal representation in Congress, there is nothing they can do about guns.

After the politicians consumed the first hour, the people were allowed to speak, so long as they lived in the District, submitted their question in advance, and survived Norton’s vetting process. Twenty people had the opportunity over the hour, approximately one person every 3 minutes, including politician responses. Although the audience was evenly divided, the speaker numbers ran as follows: 15 pro-gun control, 3 against, and 2 neutral.

Two pro-gun control speakers were interesting. A Hispanic woman spoke of people coming from violent Latin American countries who were appalled to hear that the gun laws were being challenged. She turned into a screamer and garnered a lot of applause. A pastor from Ward 6 said, “You can’t be pro-God, pro-family, and pro-gun.” Tell that to the patriots who founded this country. A running theme among all speakers was that Congressmen from Indiana and Texas should not be meddling with local gun control laws passed by D.C.

The two “neutral” speakers were very intriguing. Norton introduced one of these speakers by noting that he had “an interesting notion I have never heard before,” which is striking because I heard of this “interesting notion” years ago. The gentleman pointed out that blacks have historically been singled out for disarmament by gun control advocates. Indeed, he is correct: the Republicans pushed for the 14th Amendment’s equal protection provisions in part because Southerners were passing gun control laws that applied only to black folks. It’s easier to lynch an unarmed man.

The other neutral speaker was a student, the only young person to speak, who claimed that he was not permitted to visit other schools to speak about gun safety. Protecting children is the ostensible impetus behind the D.C. gun law that the House undermined, but this young man claimed he was not permitted to educate his peers on gun safety.

DCYR member Eric Wright walked to the microphone to relate his story of being attacked three times by homeless people and being shot at while he was driving in Rock Creek Park. "I deserve the right to defend myself. I deserve the right to carry a weapon by my side. I'd like to know why people believe I don't have that right."

In response, Norton deftly took the focus off of the three close encounters Eric experienced-- which conceivably called for a self-defense response --by focusing on the one incident that occurred while he was driving. She mocked him by asking: if he had a gun, would he have stopped the car and run after the assailants in order to shoot them? But responsible, law-abiding gun owners are not hot-headed vigilantes. The reality is that virtually no individual licensed to carry a concealed firearm has ever been charged with a crime in connection with that firearm. Apparently, Norton has watched too many Hollywood action movies.

Finally, with about 15 minutes left in the meeting, my opportunity came. First, I pointed out that no speaker that evening had specifically discussed the merits of the legislation they were protesting. Namely, the House voted to defund the provision of D.C. law that requires owners of rifles and shotguns (handguns are prohibited) to store their weapons in the home either disassembled and unloaded, or locked with a trigger lock. No one used the words “trigger lock” once the entire evening! The House had not voted to defund the enforcement of all of D.C.’s gun laws.

Second, I noted that many speakers and Norton had expressed outrage that the Congress had acted to intervene. I pointed out that Republican Congressman Tom Davis had a strong bill to grant a vote for D.C. in the House that Norton did not support. Norton bristled at my comment, which was technically true. She commented later that it was her prerogative to support her own bill to the exclusion of Davis’s, which is a fair position. However, Norton’s bill will certainly not pass the Republican Congress.

Then I asked my question: Consider a woman who has already sought a restraining order against her estranged husband or ex-boyfriend. The Supreme Court recently ruled that the government has no legal duty to enforce a restraining order. The man has threatened to kill her in the past and now he is breaking down her door. The police will not arrive in time. What should she do? Charles Ramsey responded first with statistics purporting to show that guns are bad in domestic violence situations. He didn’t suggest the police would save the day (by the way, have Ramsey’s officers recovered his stolen car yet?). Norton launched into a boisterous response, but I was distracted by a Post reporter. I don’t think she gave any useful advice to the hypothetical woman.

My answer is that her options are as follows: (a) the woman violates D.C. gun laws and has a gun ready to fend off the man until he leaves peacefully, (b) she takes her chances fumbling with a trigger lock under stressful conditions, (c) she runs (not an option if that would require her to abandon children), and/or (d) she prays.

The evening ended with Norton introducing a special speaker, a woman who had lost her child to gun violence. Her lecture began well enough, but it ended with several minutes of unintelligible screaming that lacked the warmth of heavy metal music. It was a display of pure emotion, a lot of genuine pain, but not a solid basis for devising public policy. Individuals began walking up to the front to join her, and finished by singing a rendition of “We Shall Overcome.”

After all the screaming, it was definitely time to head to U Street for a drink.

Undeserved Blessings of Liberty

In 1759, Benjamin Franklin wrote: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Little has changed since, save for the speed with which many people will trade away basic freedoms in exchange for a fig leaf of protection. Three events last Friday suggest that fear generated by terrorist attacks is on the advance and liberty is in retreat.

On Friday, a British policeman shot five bullets into the head of an unarmed 27-year-old Brazilian man while horrified commuters at Stockwell subway station watched. The dead man’s crime? Running away from plainclothes police officers and wearing an unseasonably warm coat. The following day, the police admitted the man was innocent and sent their “deep regrets,” but announced that the terms of engagement would not be changed. Londoners are now faced with a conundrum. Who should they fear most: the terrorists or the government and its police force?

Later in the day, police in New York City began random dragnet searches at subway stations. The searches offer trivial protection at the expense of fundamental Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. The police sought to assure everyone that the rights of minorities against profiling were being protected, never mind the rights of all New Yorkers. As Paul J. Browne, chief spokesman for the city police, explained it: “The protocol would be to pick the fifth backpack in each group of 10. If a Middle Eastern man is number four, he would not get checked.” Given this information, every terrorist has a 90 percent chance of penetrating police protection. Of course, should a terrorist be confronted by an officer, he has the option of detonating his explosives on the spot.

In Washington, D.C., panic festered just below the surface. Metro riders noticed a backpack without its owner and rightly brought the matter to the attention of the train operator. But the train passed through two more stations before Metro took action to inspect the backpack, which was later reunited with its owner, a child who had accidentally behind left the bag and the baseball caps it contained.

Meanwhile, according to one witness, commuters were “frantic” and “evacuating the last car, pounding on the train windows as they ran for the exits out of the station.” It is clear that one should not shout “backpack” in a crowded metro station due to the danger of causing a panic, even though all of the terrorist attacks against the United States and Britain have one common ingredient: the terrorists are suicidal and the deadly bags and planes were not unattended. The frantic commuters may be relieved to hear that Metro police are considering following in New York’s steps.

“I'd rather be watched and alive than dead with my privacy intact,” one New Yorker told a reporter in response to the random, ineffectual searches of personal property. Contrast that statement with “Give me liberty or give me death.” How far we have fallen, how undeserving we are of the price paid by those who signed the Declaration of Independence and faced death on charges of treason. We must ask ourselves: are we still the land of the free and the home of the brave?

The Roberts Nomination Fight Begins

Progress for America volunteers stood silent but resolute outside the Supreme Court building starting around 7 a.m. Wednesday morning to express support for Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. Rather than incessant chanting, PFA will spend $1 million on grass-roots efforts and TV, radio, and Internet advertising. The ads will urge the Senate to give Roberts a “fair up-or-down vote.”

Approximately 10 PFA volunteers held signs, which in media parlance means that PFA was never there and therefore does not deserve mention in the Associate Press story, which reported:

Several hundred women marched Wednesday morning in front of the Supreme Court, which faces the east front of the U.S. Capitol, carrying signs that said, "Save Roe!" and "Our bodies, our lives, our right to decide!"

There were closer to 135 pink-shirted Planned Parenthood protestors, including the 9 robed women (an all-female Supreme Court-- now that would be interesting) and one fake priest. One would think that the term “hundreds” should require at least 200, if not 300.

Still, the vibrant chants were impossible to ignore: “George W. listen here / Your war on women stops here.” These people apparently believe that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (bio) is a mere pawn in a two-front war, one in Iraq (against a lot of people who are hostile to women’s rights) and one here at home against women. Next time, try something more fun and accurate: “George W. grab a beer / Listen to our politics of fear.”

Bush Appoints a Nearly Perfect Nominee

George W. Bush’s selection of John G. Roberts to be an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court is not only politically brilliant, it’s a principled, thoughtful choice.

The President has on occasion compromised conservative principles in order to cater to interest groups that may care very little for his overall agenda (the words “tariffs” and “vigilantes” come to mind), but Bush played this one straight. He could have selected a conservative woman or Hispanic who would have been qualified, but probably would have lacked the gravitas and bipartisan support that Roberts brings to the table. Following his appointment to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, 146 members of the D.C. Bar signed a letter on behalf of his confirmation, including officials from the Clinton administration.

Once one reflects upon Roberts’ career-- and the 39 times he has appeared as an advocate before the Supreme Court -- the nominee names floated by Democrats over the past few weeks appear by comparison to be mediocre (and when Senators were suggested, laughable).

The Roberts nomination unfolded perfectly. First of all, the announcement of Roberts was a complete surprise, which in Washington is a real coup. Democrats stood by helplessly with anti-Judge Edith Clement information, unable to effectively attack Roberts despite his solid conservative credentials. Pit bull Senator Chuck Schumer conceded that “There's no question that Judge Roberts has outstanding legal credentials and an appropriate legal temperament and demeanor.” Bush successfully introduced Judge Roberts to the American people without him being “Borked” before he could get out of the gate.

Even after partisan Democrats have had an opportunity to dig up the “worst” on the nominee, it will be very difficult to launch an effective attack against the mild-mannered Roberts without appearing to be the narrow-minded bullies that they often are. Furthermore, a long career of being paid to effectively argue on behalf of clients who do not necessarily represent his personal views, coupled with the lack of a long judicial paper trail, will help prevent Roberts from being pinned down as an ideologue. On the other hand, Roberts’ membership in the Federalist Society is a credential that will give conservatives good reason to believe that Roberts will not “grow left” through the years in the same fashion as some other Republican nominees, from Roe v. Wade author Justice Harry Blackmun to the outgoing Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

In that vein, look for Sen. Dick Durbin to interrogate Roberts in the Judiciary Committee about his membership in the Society. Durbin once commented during a judicial nominee hearing that “As we try to monitor the legal DNA of President Bush's nominees, we find repeatedly the Federalist Society chromosome. Why is it that membership in the Federalist Society has become the secret handshake of the Bush nominees for the federal court?” If Sen. Durbin attempts another of his infamous ill-advised comparisons, perhaps between the Federalist Society and a fifth column, expect Roberts to be swiftly confirmed.

Update 7/21/05 9:51 a.m.: The Washington Post reports in a story today that although CNN, the Los Angeles Times, Legal Times and the Post itself previously reported that Roberts is a dues-paying member of the Federalist Society for Law & Public Policy Studies, it's just not so. "He has no recollection of ever being a member," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. And apparently no one could recall having ever seen him at Society social events, although he had spoken before the Society before (as has ACLU President Nadine Strossen, on numerous occasions). Go figure. Maybe he's too frugal to pay $50/year dues and $100 for the annual dinner. So, anyway, look for Senator Durbin to be very disappointed, now that the Federalist Society line of questioning is irrelevant with respect to Roberts.

Councilman Catania Announces Passage of Ill-Advised Drug Price Control Bill

David A. Catania
Councilmember, At-Large
July 6, 2005 Press Release

By a vote of 13 to 0, the D.C. Council today approved groundbreaking legislation aimed at reigning in prescription drug prices. The bill, authored by Health Committee Chairman David Catania, makes it illegal to sell patented medicines for an "excessive price". Final consideration of the measure is expected in early September.

Bolstered by support from the labor and faith communities, Catania detailed drug companies' questionable business practices including selling pharmaceuticals at incredibly varied prices.

"Prices of the top 30 brand-name drugs increased by 22 percent over the past 3 years - more than 4 times the rate of inflation," Catania exasperatedly explained.

As the cost of prescriptions goes up, drug companies' profits soar. All the while, consumers are forced to consider whether they can afford life-preserving medicines.

Catania's attempt to combat soaring pharmaceutical costs has undergone change since initial approval in May. His bill declares that selling patented medicines for an "excessive price" is illegal. The District government or any person affected by excessive prices may initiate legal action against a drug company if the wholesale price of a patented prescription drug in the District is over 30 percent higher than the same drug's price in Germany, Canada, Australia, or the United Kingdom. In court, the manufacturer must prove that the drug is not excessively priced given various costs of invention and development as well as profits to date. If the price of the drug is deemed excessive, civil penalties may be levied on the prescription drug-maker.

In recent weeks, Catania has met face-to-face with his colleagues about this bill and secured endorsements from the Metropolitan Washington Labor Council, the local service workers union, and a number of churches in the District of Columbia. Despite his willingness to do so, no representative of the drug industry sought the opportunity to discuss the issue and meaningful ways to address it.

Catania continued, "Today, the District of Columbia is one step closer to [fascism] securing reasonably priced prescription drugs for all of its residents and saving the government itself tens of millions of dollars. I'm proud of my colleagues and thankful to the many people who have joined in this fight."