Fighting for self-defense rights
Senator Marco Rubio’s resurrected Second Amendment Enforcement Act will ensure that law-abiding citizens in Washington, D.C. can exercise their Second Amendment right to carry a firearm, should it pass.
Emotionally charged anti-gunners are doing their best to keep the current stringent D.C. gun laws in place. Unfortunately, they don’t understand that federal laws, already in place, are more than sufficient to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.
From the bill
Congress finds the following:
(1) The Supreme Court of the United States has confirmed that the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects a fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms independent of service in an organized militia.
(2) Federal courts have repeatedly found provisions of the gun control laws of the District of Columbia to be unconstitutional, most recently in the case of Palmer v. District of Columbia, 59 F. Supp. 3d 173 (D.D.C. 2014), which invalidated on Second Amendment grounds the District’s total ban on carrying firearms outside the home for self-defense. Despite these reproofs, District officials have repeatedly and publicly asserted their determination to continue passing laws aimed at curbing the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by law-abiding residents and visitors.
(3) The law-abiding residents of the District of Columbia are deprived by local laws of handguns, rifles, and shotguns that are commonly kept by law-abiding persons throughout the United States for sporting use and for lawful defense of their persons, homes, businesses, and families.
(4) The District of Columbia remains one of the most dangerous large cities in the United States. The District’s gun control regulations interfere with the right of law-abiding residents and visitors to protect themselves from violent crime.
(5) Federal law already provides comprehensive regulation of the manufacture, sale, and possession of firearms, including the licensing of commercial conduct. These regulations apply in the District of Columbia, as elsewhere. The District’s attempt to expand upon these regulations with its own regulations has created a confusing, onerous, and inhibiting environment for individuals in the District who wish to engage in lawful commercial activities relating to firearms.
(6) Legislation is required to correct the District of Columbia’s laws in order to restore the fundamental rights of its residents under the Second Amendment and thereby enhance public safety.
It is tragic that bills like this are needed, but given the craven nature of the Cult of Gun Control it is no surprise.