2008 Woodie Awards
Implorin' Orrin
Arthur Delaney
Issue date: 10/22/03 Section: Commentary
- Page 1 of 2 next >
For the past few months, I have called the office of senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) nearly every single day. Most of the calls have gone like this: "Hi, I would like to leave a message for Senator Hatch. Could you tell him that I oppose the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act? My name is--" "Yes, thank you Arthur, I'll pass that along," groans a familiar voice. The interns all know me by name now, and I know them too. Some of them hate me. The bill I call to protest was introduced by Hatch in mid-July. The purpose of the bill is to repeal the 1979 ban on firearms in the District, thereby restoring our constitutional rights. The bill came this summer as increasing gang violence restored DC's status as the city with the highest murder rate in the country. Clearly there is no shortage of firearms here.
Most people are somewhat confused when they hear about this bill. Why, they wonder, would a senator from Utah be interested in passing legislation that affects only Washington, DC? How can a representative of people from one place legislate on a local level for people of another? The reason this is possible is that DC, a city with a population greater than that of the entire state of Wyoming, does not have full home-rule or any representation in Congress, though we do pay high taxes. Here is my least-cynical explanation of the situation: If DC were given representation, there would be more Democrats in Congress, and Republicans simply don't think that should happen. But let's put this unbelievably huge, glaring injustice aside and examine the gun issue on its own:
In the floor statement introducing the bill, Senator Hatch feigned compassion for residents of the city, saying that we too often read in the newspaper stories of innocent victims shot down by criminals. Hatch asks us to "try to imagine the horror that the victim felt when he faced a gun-toting criminal and could not legally reach for a firearm to protect himself." This sounds reasonable enough on the surface. Since the only people who currently possess guns are criminals, law-abiding citizens are at a disadvantage. If they could legally have guns, they could defend themselves more effectively.
Most people are somewhat confused when they hear about this bill. Why, they wonder, would a senator from Utah be interested in passing legislation that affects only Washington, DC? How can a representative of people from one place legislate on a local level for people of another? The reason this is possible is that DC, a city with a population greater than that of the entire state of Wyoming, does not have full home-rule or any representation in Congress, though we do pay high taxes. Here is my least-cynical explanation of the situation: If DC were given representation, there would be more Democrats in Congress, and Republicans simply don't think that should happen. But let's put this unbelievably huge, glaring injustice aside and examine the gun issue on its own:
In the floor statement introducing the bill, Senator Hatch feigned compassion for residents of the city, saying that we too often read in the newspaper stories of innocent victims shot down by criminals. Hatch asks us to "try to imagine the horror that the victim felt when he faced a gun-toting criminal and could not legally reach for a firearm to protect himself." This sounds reasonable enough on the surface. Since the only people who currently possess guns are criminals, law-abiding citizens are at a disadvantage. If they could legally have guns, they could defend themselves more effectively.