By Mary Beth Sheridan and Nikita Stewart
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Supporters of a D.C. vote bill scrambled yesterday to find a way to get it approved by the House of Representatives without a controversial amendment that would repeal many of the city's gun laws.
The bill had been expected to get a final vote as early as today. But that vote was put on hold after House leaders learned that the influential National Rifle Association was urging its members to use a procedural maneuver to press for gun amendments, according to D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D).
"The [House] leadership is in a dilemma," she said.
They weren't the only ones in a quandary. D.C. Council members questioned yesterday whether they should continue to support the voting rights bill if it meant the city would have to loosen its firearms regulations.
"To make us swallow this without objection . . . we're just lying down, just like always," said council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3). "What have we won?"
The gun amendment was the latest complication for a bill that would give the District a long-sought voting seat in Congress. The legislation was designed to gain bipartisan support by expanding the House by two seats: one for the heavily Democratic District and one that would go temporarily to Republican-leaning Utah.
The measure passed the Senate last week, but with an amendment opposed by the D.C. government that would weaken the city's gun laws.
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), a strong supporter of D.C. voting rights, said yesterday that he still hopes to schedule a vote on the bill this week. But he acknowledged that the legislation could be torpedoed by a gun amendment.
"The irony is . . . if [the amendment] passes, we may not be able to pass the bill" because of opposition from lawmakers who support gun control, he said. However, if a gun amendment is not included, other legislators might balk at letting the legislation be considered at all, he said.
The immediate issue in the House is the parliamentary rule for the bill. Such a rule -- which sets out the terms for debate and possible amendments -- usually must be agreed upon before taking up the bill itself.
Supporters of the vote bill had assumed Democrats would use their majority power to pass a rule that would bar gun amendments.
But in an unusual move, the NRA told lawmakers that it might score their votes on the rule for the D.C. bill, Norton said. That means representatives could be recorded as casting an anti-gun vote if they approved a rule blocking amendments on the D.C. vote bill.
"It's a terrible dilemma to put the [pro-] gun Democrats in," Norton said. Many of them support D.C. voting rights. But last year, a bill repealing most of the District's gun control regulations easily passed the House, with the support of scores of Democrats from pro-gun states.
Amid the turmoil, a meeting of the House Rules Committee that was supposed to draw up terms last night for the D.C. vote bill debate was postponed.
Chris W. Cox, chief lobbyist for the NRA, declined to confirm that the organization had put out the word that it would score the vote on the House rule.
"This is an important issue, and all options are on the table," he said.
"The NRA will continue to work with Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate to make sure that D.C. follows the Supreme Court decision" last summer that overturned the city's handgun ban, he said.
Since that decision, the District has introduced new regulations for gun owners. But opponents say they are too cumbersome and time-consuming.
Rep. John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), the House Republican leader, said in a statement that House Democratic leaders were "maneuvering to deny Second Amendment rights to residents of our nation's capital" by delaying the vote. They showed, he said, that "the will of the American people will be respected only when it serves their interests."
In a sign of its alarm over the direction the vote bill has taken, the D.C. Council declared its opposition to the gun amendment approved by the Senate. The amendment would repeal many of the city's gun control regulations and bar the District from approving new ones that discourage gun ownership. It also would allow D.C. residents to purchase guns in Virginia and Maryland.
"We want to make it clear that this amendment is unacceptable," said Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), chairman of the council's Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary. All 13 council members signed on to the resolution.
Council members joined the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence for a news conference on the steps of the John A. Wilson Building after the meeting.
Josh Horwitz, the coalition's executive director, said Congress should "respect D.C. democracy on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue."
Meanwhile, the council approved the formation of a Special Committee on Statehood and Self-Determination to press for more autonomy for the District. It will be headed by newly elected member Michael A. Brown (I-At Large).
At an earlier breakfast meeting, council members debated whether to drop their support for the voting rights bill if the gun amendment remains attached.
"I have been wrestling with that," Mendelson said.
Council member Jack Evans (D-Ward 2) said the issue warranted discussion because it is on the minds of residents.
Evans said that at a community meeting he attended Monday night, the crowd appeared to lean toward foregoing the voting rights bill if it meant looser gun laws. "It scared me a little bit," Evans told council members. He believes the city should pursue the bill even if the gun amendment remains.
Council member David A. Catania (I-At Large) agreed. He noted that the gun amendment could be attached to other legislation in the future. "Do any of us like the symbolism of this? No," he said. "It's staggering, but I don't want us to fall for this trap, which has us opposing our own interests."
View all comments that have been posted about this article.