Holmes Norton Says DC Gun Rights Greatest Threat to Homeland Security

During a hearing on the House floor concerning the DC Voting Rights Act, non-voting Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton referred to the loosening of Washington DC's gun laws as the greatest risk to Homeland Security. What has gotten Holmes in such a fury is the Ensign Amendment tacked onto the bill that strips the District of the privilege to create and enforce its own gun laws. This amendment restores gun rights to the citizens of DC and forces compliance with the Supreme Court's ruling in DC v Heller, which the city council has done just about everything to skirt.

Now that we have the background, let's get on with the outrage that has been absent in the media. The Representative's lack of respect for her constituents Constitutional rights and her lack of respect for the enormity of our national security concerns are reprehensible. Does she truly believe that allowing law abiding citizens to own arms, as is exercised legally and safely in the vast majority of this nation, is more of a threat than Iranian nuclear enrichment, North Korean missile tests , or border drug violence? This is the politics of fear on blatant display.

Norton goes on to make her case against the amendment, not with facts and figures, but with scary adjectives and fear-based tactics:

...would allow military style weapons, including .50 caliber armor-piercing guns to be legally possessed, without limit on the number, in the nation’s capital...

While Holmes wants to link possession of these weapons to terrorists, she does not make the case as to why this could not already happen within the borders of Washington DC. Terrorists have little regard for law, and committed ones would have no problems purchasing weapons elsewhere and bringing them into the city. She also fails to mention that the current restrictive laws and the past prohibition have failed to curb violence in the city or restrict availability of guns to the criminal elements that desire them. According to The Washington Post, "a recent survey depicts an urban D.C. environment where 80 percent of youths are 'highly exposed' to gun violence."

Norton also tries to scare people with the specter of guns being carried in public and allowed in employer lots, but her hysteria rings hollow in a nation where responsible concealed carry is the norm:

...employees could bring guns to a Wizards game at the Verizon Center, to a National’s baseball game at Nationals Park, to a national conference at the Convention Center, to Pepco headquarters, to law offices, and to other small and large workplaces throughout the city, to churches and other places of worship, to bars, restaurants and nightclubs, to hotels, to power plants and to all District government offices.

While this is all meant to sound threatening, laws permitting concealed carry in some or all of the types of places she listed tend to be the rule in the US, not the exception. The "wild west" argument she implies was based purely on speculation when it was first made over 20 years ago when states started to adopt carry laws. With the amazing record of safety and civility that permit holders have demonstrated, to raise the argument now borders on pure dishonesty.