Bills
| 3.23.22

Easing Restrictions on Gun Ownership in the District of Columbia (S. 874)

Do you support or oppose this bill?

What is S. 874?

(Updated March 15, 2018)

This bill would deny the District of Columbia the authority to enact laws or regulations that discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms for legitimate purposes. It would repeal the following elements of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (FCRA):

  • The definition of a machine gun as being any weapon that is designed to shoot more than 12 shots without manual reloading;

  • The ban on semiautomatic weapons;

  • The District’s registration requirement for possession of firearms.


Several existing laws would be maintained, including prohibitions on the illegal dealing or manufacturing of firearms, and the current ban on the possession of a sawed-off shotgun, machine gun, or short-barreled rifle. People who are prohibited by federal law from possessing a firearm (like felons) would still be precluded from gun possession, and it would be a crime to provide such a person with a gun or ammunition.


Criminal penalties for possession of unregistered firearms would be eliminated, and existing District policies and requirements regarding gun storage would be repealed. The sale of a firearm to a resident of the District by a licensed dealer in Maryland or Virginia would be considered valid.


Private entities and secure public buildings would be authorized to determine whether firearms will be allowed on their premises, and if so, what limitations on firearms they would impose. Property owners would be empowered to determine for themselves if, and by whom, firearms could be carried on their property.

The District’s Chief of Police would be required to issue a five-year concealed carry license to any qualified person who successfully completes the application process.

Argument in favor

This bill removes some of the more onerous restrictions on gun ownership in the District of Columbia, and takes a balanced approach by empowering property owners to create their own limitations on where guns may be taken.

Argument opposed

Even though Congress has significant oversight over the District of Columbia, that does not mean it should be meddling in their affairs. If the citizens of our nation’s capitol want tough gun laws they should be able to have them.

Impact

Gun owners in Washington, D.C., property owners, law enforcement, the D.C. Council.

Cost of S. 874

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

Additional Info

In-Depth: According to this bill’s sponsor, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), the District of Columbia “has infringed on its residents’ Second Amendment rights and rendered them vulnerable to criminals who could care less what the gun laws are.” He added that it would “finally allow D.C.’s law-abiding residents and visitors access to firearms for sporting or lawful defense of themselves and their homes, businesses and families.”

Although she does not have the ability to vote against this legislation in Congress, the District of Columbia’s non-voting Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) has argued against it, calling Sen. Rubio’s tactics “bullying.”. Rep. Holmes Norton has said that this bill would turn D.C. into “one of the most permissive gun jurisdictions against the will fo our citizens and despite the federal presence and daily motorcades with high level federal officials and foreign dignitaries in our streets and public places.”


Of Note: The District of Columbia is considered to have some of the strictest gun laws in the U.S., and recently attempted to make them even more robust by requiring people who want to carry guns in public to demonstrate a “good reason/proper reason” to obtain a permit. This law was overturned as unconstitutional by a U.S. District Judge, and subsequently the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. provided a temporary stay in advance of an upcoming hearing -- so the good reason clause can continue be used in the interim.


Media:

Summary by Eric Revell
(Photo Credit: Fiickr User Nicolas Raymond )