The Washington Post is reporting that the House is going to vote on this bill today.

The DC Mayor, chief of Police, School Board Super and the lone DC delegate to Congress (Norton) are all against it.  Mayor Williams is quoted as saying this bill is "an insult to the memory of people who died in our city due to gun violence."

My response is encapsulated in the 4th "finding of Congress", below.

Why does Congres want this?
Over 66% of Congress comes from states that allow concealed handgun permits and are experiencing decreasing violent crime as a result. (Lott)
Closer to 98% of Congress come from districts and states that are safer than DC (FBI statistics)
But members of Congress and their staffers must suffer under DC's draconian gun laws while here in Washington, and rightfully don't trust the DCMPD to protect them.  The Capitol Police are very good, but they have limited jurisdiction and certainly can't make the legislative imports feel safe off Capitol Hill.
The DC City Council turns a deaf ear to the reports of crime on commuters and non-DC residents that work in the city, including congressional staffers. "get in line"
However, these same staffers have the constant ear of Congress, the Constitutionally-charged overseers of the Distirct of Columbia.
The "attack on home rule" claimed by the Mayor and Norton ignores the fact that "home rule" is at the whim of Congress.  Do those with longer memories than just back to the previous election think that DC is better under its own governance than under closer Congressional oversight?
For example, the DC public school system budget for a city of less than 564,000 in population (FY2003, July 1- US Census) is $916,796,772.00 (FY04 budget) for about 66,000 students in 147 public schools. (just under $14,000 per student per year)  Compare that to your home district per-student numbers and then compare your district to the quality of the 147 DC schools.
Home Rule is working?
By the way, Marion Berry is back on the ballot.

I hope this bill passes.

You can find it yourself through the Library of Congress web site, Thomas, and typing HR 3193 in the search field.

District of Columbia Personal Protection Act (Introduced in House) HR 3193 IH 108th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 3193 To restore second amendment rights in the District of Columbia. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES September 25, 2003 Mr. SOUDER (for himself, Mr. ROSS, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. STENHOLM, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. GOODE, Mr. HOLDEN, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. BERRY, Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Mr. CANNON, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. JOHN, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. PLATTS, Mr. REYES, Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky, Mr. PUTNAM, Mr. MATHESON, Mr. PAUL, Mr. HALL, Mr. MICHAUD, Mr. ORTIZ, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. MICA, Mr. DEAL of Georgia, Mr. ISTOOK, Mr. NEY, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. SCHROCK, Mr. PORTER, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. CARTER, Mr. SANDLIN, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. REHBERG, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. VITTER, Mr. EVERETT, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota, Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. TURNER of Texas, Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee, Mr. OTTER, Mr. GREEN of Texas, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mr. GINGREY, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. JANKLOW, Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, and Mr. TOOMEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A BILL To restore second amendment rights in the District of Columbia. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `District of Columbia Personal Protection Act'. SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS. Congress finds the following: (1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms. (3) The law-abiding citizens 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 rest of the United States for sporting use and for lawful defense of persons, homes, and families. (4) The District of Columbia has the highest per capita murder rate in the Nation, which may be attributed in part to local laws prohibiting possession of firearms by law-abiding persons who would otherwise be able to defend themselves and their loved ones in their own homes and businesses. (5) The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended by the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986, and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, provide comprehensive Federal regulations applicable in the District of Columbia as elsewhere. In addition, existing District of Columbia criminal laws punish possession and illegal use of firearms by violent criminals and felons. Consequently, there is no need for local laws which only disarm law-abiding citizens. (6) Legislation is required to correct the District of Columbia's law in order to restore the rights of its citizens under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and thereby enhance public safety. SEC. 3. REFORM D.C. COUNCIL'S AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT FIREARMS. Section 4 of the Act entitled `An Act to prohibit the killing of wild birds and wild animals in the District of Columbia', approved June 30, 1906 (34 Stat. 809; sec. 1-303.43, D.C. Official Code) is amended by adding at the end the following: `This section shall not be construed to permit the Council, the Mayor, or any governmental or regulatory authority of the District of Columbia to prohibit, constructively prohibit, or unduly burden the ability of persons otherwise permitted to possess firearms under Federal law from acquiring, possessing in their homes or businesses, or using for sporting, self-protection or other lawful purposes, any firearm neither prohibited by Federal law nor regulated by the National Firearms Act. The District of Columbia shall not have authority to enact laws or regulations that discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms.'. SEC. 4. REPEAL D.C. SEMIAUTOMATIC BAN. Section 101(10) of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2501.01(10), D.C. Official Code) is amended to read as follows: `(10) Machine gun means any firearm which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to shoot automatically, more than 1 shot by a single function of the trigger.'. SEC. 5. REPEAL REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT. (a) IN GENERAL- Section 201(a) of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2502.01(a), D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking `any firearm, unless' and all that follows through paragraph (3) and inserting the following: `any firearm described in subsection (c).'. (b) DESCRIPTION OF FIREARMS REMAINING ILLEGAL- Section 201 of such Act (sec. 7-2502.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: `(c) A firearm described in this subsection is any of the following: `(1) A sawed-off shotgun. `(2) A machine gun. `(3) A short-barreled rifle.'. SEC. 6. REPEAL HANDGUN AMMUNITION BAN. Section 601 of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2506.01, D.C. Official Code) is repealed. SEC. 7. RESTORE RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE IN THE HOME. Section 702 of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2507.02, D.C. Official Code) is repealed. SEC. 8. ADDITIONAL REPEALS. Sections 202 through 211 of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (secs. 7-2502.02 through 7-2502.11, D.C. Official Code) are repealed. SEC. 9. REMOVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR POSSESSION OF UNREGISTERED FIREARMS. (a) IN GENERAL- Section 706 of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2507.06, D.C. Official Code) is amended-- (1) by striking `that:' and all that follows through `(1) A' and inserting `that a'; and (2) by striking paragraph (2). (b) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to violations occurring after the 60-day period which begins on the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 10. REMOVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR CARRYING A PISTOL IN ONE'S DWELLING OR OTHER PREMISES. (a) IN GENERAL- Section 4(a) of the Act of July 8, 1932 (47 Stat. 651; sec. 22-4504(a), D.C. Official Code) is amended-- (1) in the matter before paragraph (1), by inserting `, except in his dwelling house or place of business or on other land possessed by that person, whether loaded or unloaded,' before `a pistol'; and (2) by striking `except that:' and all that follows through `(2) If the violation' and inserting `except that if the violation'. (b) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to violations occurring after the 60-day period which begins on the date of the enactment of this Act.

Feel free to email your representative and support restoration of rights of those who have to live and/or work in your Nation's Capitol.

Please.

Cheers, Otto

Good it would be nice to see another victory for gun owners.
FREE

I'm sure it will pass the House.  The Senate, OTOH, will never even bring it to the floor for a vote.

Did it pass?

Yes.  

Unfortunately, unless someone very powerful in the Senate brings up the Senate version for a vote, Bubbles is probably too correct.

By what margin did it pass?  Anyone know?

All this info and a bunch more is available on Thomas, this time under "status" after searching the bill number ("H.R. 3193") on the home page.

...
9/29/2004 2:55pm:
On passage Passed by recorded vote: 250 - 171, 1 Present (Roll no. 477). (text: CR H7758-7759)
...
9/30/2004:
Received in the Senate.


Now is the time to start bugging your Senator re: getting busy on this bill.
Contact a known-pro-gun staffer for your particular Senator and have him or her bug their boss.

Cheers, Otto