Congress may override DC gun laws to allow itself full self-defense
The attempted mass political assassination of GOP congressmen last week has, to paraphrase Doctor Johnson, concentrated the solons' minds wonderfully when it comes to the right of self-defense. Washington, D.C. has some of the most draconian gun laws in the nation, and last week, Congress suddenly realized the truth of the old saying: "When seconds count, the police are minutes away." While Steve Scalise's security detail prevented a systematic mass slaughter, 99% of Congress has no such police constant companionship.
Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), who plans to run for the seat vacated by A.G. Jeff Sessions, told Maria Bartiromo yesterday that he will be introducing legislation to allow members of Congress (but not the rest of us) to carry sidearms in D.C. (and presumably anywhere else they feel the need for Second Amendment protections):
... I'm going to be introducing legislation this week to do this – is to allow congressmen to carry a side arm should they so desire. Right now when we're in Washington, D.C., once were off the complex, we're still high profile targets, but we have absolutely no way to defend ourselves because of Washington, D.C.'s restrictive gun laws. We're high profile targets for the bad guys, the lone wolves, the terrorists, and I'll be introducing legislation to that effect this week.
This move seems sensible, since members of Congress are indeed sitting ducks (and now they know it). But what about the rest of us?
Will gun-grabbers among the Democrats vote to keep themselves vulnerable and defeat the Brooks legislation? They know that now that madness has been unleashed, it is not only Republicans who are at risk.
But Congress claiming that the Second Amendment protects itself more than it protects the rest of the citizenry is not a viable long-term position.
Something will change. But in this volatile moment, it is hard to predict in which direction.