Some good news on that unconstitutional attempt to give Washington, D.C. a seat in the House of Representatives by the Senate last week.  It was assumed that passage in the House of a similar bill would be a cakewalk.  But it wasn’t.  Senator John Ensign of Nevada, a Republican, added an amendment to the Senate version that would have made it easier for the people in D.C. to access guns.  The gun-controllers in the House apparently couldn’t get enough votes from other Democrats, the so-called Blue Dogs, to allow debate on the bill.  From Fox News:

Passing the District of Columbia legislation was supposed to be easy in the House compared to the Senate. But the National Rifle Association signaled it could make a procedural vote on the issue a test case for lawmakers’ Second Amendment voting records.

Nearly every piece of legislation that comes to the House floor must receive what’s called a “rule.” The rule establishes the guidelines for how lawmakers will handle the measure on the floor. Everything from time allotments to amendments are contained in the rule.

However, the Democratic leadership faced a potential revolt from moderate and conservative Democrats on the vote to approve the rule if the leadership failed to include Ensign’s firearms provision.

The House cannot debate a bill if the procedural vote on the rule fails.

So this conundrum forced the Democrats to punt on representation for the District of Columbia for now.

So, the only way for the House to get to consider a blatantly unconstitutional bill was to get rid of an amendment that implements a constitutional right.  How perverse is that?  My hat’s off to the bill’s opponents.

I’m glad this has been stopped, even though it may only be temporary.  I’m sure they’ll try again.  Hopefully its opponents will stay on the ball.

H/T  Hot Air