National Capital Security and Safety Act

Floor Speech

NATIONAL CAPITAL SECURITY AND SAFETY ACT -- (House of Representatives - September 16, 2008)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague.

Mr. Chairman, let's start with something we can all agree on, that the Government of the District of Columbia should pass a local law that conforms to the recent Supreme Court decision. They have done that now. As of today, the Government of the District of Columbia has passed legislation that complies with the Supreme Court ruling.

So what is the issue before us today? It is not whether they should comply with the constitutional ruling, it is who gets to decide what new constitutional law they can put in place and whether or not this body should play D.C. City Council, or whether we should pretend we are 435 mayors of the District of Columbia and substitute our judgment for the judgment of the elected leaders of our Nation's capital.

You know, people in this body often talk about the importance of local decision-making, and we have to listen to the people close to the ground. That is great to say, but the actions, at least in the substitute bill, suggest that we are not serious in that respect about what we say because what this substitute bill does is takes away from the people of the District of Columbia the democratic rights that all of our constituents have in cities and States around this country.

Mr. Burton mentioned he lived in Virginia when he is near the Nation's capital and how he feels safe there. Virginia has a law that says you can only purchase one gun a month. So does my State of Maryland, one gun a month.

What this substitute bill says is the people of the District of Columbia, they can't pass the same law that the people of Virginia and people of Maryland have. That is absolutely wrong.

I represent a district that is a neighbor to the Nation's capital. This bill eliminates for the purpose of the District of Columbia the ban on interstate trafficking of guns that applies to every other jurisdiction of this country that not only puts at risk the people of the District of Columbia but puts a burden and a risk on the people of all the surrounding jurisdictions. Why would we allow that provision which applies throughout the country just to the District of Columbia?

Why are we substituting our judgment for the decisions of the people of the District of Columbia when they are conforming to the Constitution of the United States, including the most recent ruling?

Mr. Chairman, we should support this bill and oppose the substitute.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source