District of Columbia Personal Protection Act

Date: Sept. 29, 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Issues: Guns


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PERSONAL PROTECTION ACT -- (House of Representatives - September 29, 2004)

(BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT)

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, as a father of three teenage children, I understand the importance of keeping our streets free of violence. And as a gun owner and sportsman, I also understand the importance of the rights afforded to Americans by the second amendment. The District of Columbia Personal Protection Act protects our citizens while also protecting the constitutional rights of the citizens of the District of Columbia to own rifles, shotguns, and handguns.

H.R. 3193 would not affect any law directed at true criminal conduct. As a matter of fact it would leave in place strict penalties for gun possession by criminals and for violent crime committed with guns. I firmly believe banning a firearm is not the answer to preventing crime. Interestingly enough, the District of Columbia has some of the most restrictive gun laws in our Nation. Yet, at the same time, recent FBI figures show that the District has regained its former title as the murder capital of the United States.

As a matter of fact, according to U.S. Justice Department figures, Washington, DC, has been the "murder capital of the country" for 14 of the last 15 years. And currently, the DC homicide rate is nearly five times greater than the national average. This escalating murder rate began only after the DC Council deprived law-abiding citizens of the right to defend themselves and their families by effectively banning handguns and other firearms in 1976. I believe it is only by strictly enforcing laws to prosecute those who misuse a gun in the commission of a crime that we can ensure our families remain safe from those who would prey on the innocent, and that the rights of law-abiding Americans are protected.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3193 and allow law abiding people to use guns to protect their homes and families, essentially stating that DC citizens would enjoy the same self-defense rights as residents of the 50 States.

arrow_upward