There’s a hard choice on the table. The Senate will be taking up the revised legislation that would grant the District a voting Representative in the House, but would do so only if we also accepted that all of the District’s gun laws would have to come off the books for good.
The decision puts DC in between a rock and a hard place, as representation that the city has long sought is within grasp, but comes at what could be a terrible price. So, it seems we’re stuck. Compromise one principle to get access to one we’ve been long after? Or stick to your guns (uh, or lack thereof) and keep the dream of true voting perception at arms length still. It seems a bit of a Foustian bargain for the city. What are our leaders saying?
Mayor Fenty’s on the record for representation. He says it’s a “tough call,” but that the City still deserves a vote it’s never had in the House before, and that the gun laws can be fought on the floor of the House, or through other means in the future. So, gun-law-repeal warts and all, the Mayor says, “Yes, please,” to the new seat for Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton.
What’s our Delegate think? Eleanor Holmes Norton says, I don’t think so. She believes that there’s no coming from the amendment to the Voting Rights Bill, and that getting stringent gun control in the city would be all but impossible in the future.
So, where do you stand? Are you tolerant of the proliferation of firearms, in exchange for representation? Or would you rather fewer legal firearms in exchange for passing on this round of voting rights?