# Are Democrats a big tent party? Should they be? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 11, 2018, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-a-big-tent-party-should-they-be/806426 "2018-01-11T21:26:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2018, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-a-big-tent-party-should-they-be/806426/81 "2018-01-14T16:16:35Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > First off, that’s an amazing whitewash. You’ve minimized a handgun ban as “some level of restrictions”. Secondly, it _was_ people living in the city that demanded it not continue. Heller was a DC resident. A handgun ban would be some level of restriction. The point is that the city is not allowed to make that, or any other restriction. As far as heller goes, Heller himself was from DC, but heller was just the face of the lawsuit. He was a person picked by outside interests to represent someone with standing to sue, along with others. The lawsuit itself was paid for by Robert Levy, A libertarian of the Cato Institute funded by the Koch Bros., who specifically sought out and vetted people who would be represented in the suit. Neither Levy, nor the Koch Bros. live in DC. I keep being told by conservatives that if you don’t like the law, elect legislators to change it, don’t seek out activist judges to change it for you. In this case, in a city, electing people to change the law is much easier than for a country or even a state. A city like DC actually reflects the will of the people fairly well. It was a small minority of people in DC who wanted to have more access to guns, and an overwhelming majority that did not. People from outside of the city came in and used the courts to overthrow the will of the majority. If people of DC wanted less restrictions, they could have campaigned for representation that would loosen up gun laws. Instead, they, as **Bricker** would put it, “went crying to a judge.” > [@Ramira](#): > > Very strange… no ‘assumptions’ were made, only observation. The passionate story is the very definition of the partians, “a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person.” You can ask any conservative here to back me up on this. They look out for themselves above others. This has been recounted by **Bricker** and/or **Bone** in gun threads, (I know at least one made the statement, if needed, I can try to search through the millions of gun thread posts to cite it) specifically saying that they would carry a gun to make themselves feel safer, even if they knew that it made those around them less safe. It has been confirmed when **Bricker** and **HuricaneDikta** have said that they want their taxes lowered, even if that means that other people are harmed. Bricker’s specific statement was that he shouldn’t have to pay for things that other people need, when he was defending the republican’s defunding of CHIP (he made an analogy that funding healthcare was like being required to pay for a junky’s heroin). It is not partisanship to make the very obvious and accurate observation that conservative principles put self and family (and tribe) above others. Like I said, I was raised in that environment. I live in that environment. Most of the people in my life are from that point of view. I rejected that ideology. And that is more or less the limit of my partisanship, I cannot support the conservative party, as I do not believe in its most fundamental principle, “Self above all else”. I do not strongly support the progressives, I actually have many issues with them as well, but the core belief of the progressive, that everyone should receive fair if not equal treatment, is much closer to what I can support, even if those in charge sometimes fall short of that goal. So, what part of my position are you challenging? That conservatives put self, family, and tribe above others? That rural areas get more representation per person than urban areas? Or my conclusion from those two observations (along with observations as to actual conduct of conservative politicians) that rural areas use their disproportionate political power to help themselves at the expense of urban areas? These are accurate observations, so far as I can tell. If you think I am wrong, tell me where I am wrong, don’t just throw out erroneous accusations that I make these observations out of some form of partisanship. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2018, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-a-big-tent-party-should-they-be/806426/82 "2018-01-14T16:45:21Z")
Why would I ask any one to “back you up”? You do not understand the meaning of the word partisan it seems ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2018, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-a-big-tent-party-should-they-be/806426/83 "2018-01-14T17:01:23Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > First off, that’s an amazing whitewash. You’ve minimized a handgun ban as “some level of restrictions”. Secondly, it _was_ people living in the city that demanded it not continue. Heller was a DC resident. Heller is not “people”, at least not in the sense of plural. “Person”. Let us know if you have trouble with this stuff, we’re here to help. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2018, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-a-big-tent-party-should-they-be/806426/84 "2018-01-14T17:11:04Z")
> [@Ramira](#): > > Why would I ask any one to “back you up”? > You do not understand the meaning of the word partisan it seems Umm, yeah, I do. It means that one is committed to a party. I am not committed to a party. I reject one party, and that leaves me with only one other to support in our two party system. I am not committed to the democrats. You are accusing me that the only reason that I make these observations is because I am a partisan. You are trying to use it a a pejorative, to dismiss my observations ad hominem style. You are wrong on both counts. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2018, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-a-big-tent-party-should-they-be/806426/85 "2018-01-14T17:15:06Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Heller is not “people”, at least not in the sense of plural. “Person”. Let us know if you have trouble with this stuff, we’re here to help. Now, be fair, Heller wasn’t just about Heller. It wasn’t just one person that was trying to overturn the laws that were enacted by the elected representatives. There were actually 6 people who wanted to have guns. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2018, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-a-big-tent-party-should-they-be/806426/86 "2018-01-14T17:22:45Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Umm, yeah, I do. It means that one is committed to a party. Not simply a party, > [@](#): > > You are accusing me that the only reason that I make these observations is because I am a partisan. I said not one thing about ‘reasons’ never mind ‘only’ - I said it was odd how the partisan believes in his conclusion > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post > > No matter how it plays out, they would still have disproportionate power in that when democrats are elected, they tend to govern in a way that is best for the country, even at the expense of blue states, and when republicans are in power, they govern in a way that is best for red states, especially at the expense of blue states. That won’t change. > > The partisans when they write such things are so funny in believing them… > > as if this would be some kind of a convincing argument? your walls of text do not change the partisan argument in a style that I am sure none of the opposition will be convinced by… > [@](#): > > You are trying to use it a a pejorative, to dismiss my observations ad hominem style. I do not care if your observations are true or not, but the partisan analysis is not one that will be convincing to anyone but the partisans. simple as that. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2018, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-a-big-tent-party-should-they-be/806426/87 "2018-01-14T17:54:37Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Now, be fair, Heller wasn’t just about Heller. It wasn’t just one person that was trying to overturn the laws that were enacted by the elected representatives. > > There were actually 6 people who wanted to have guns. Given the number of people that have requested a permit in DC since Heller won his case, I think it’s fairly obvious that the desire to see that particular Constitutional right protected extended farther than just six residents. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2018, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-a-big-tent-party-should-they-be/806426/88 "2018-01-14T18:13:05Z")
> [@Ramira](#): > > Not simply a party, > [@](#): > > a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance political partisans who see only one side of the problem I am not committed to a faction or a person, I suppose you could infer that I am committed to a cause, in that I spend some time on an internet message board talking about social issues, but I’m not sure what that cuase would even be. > [@](#): > > I said not one thing about ‘reasons’ never mind ‘only’ - I said it was odd how the partisan believes in his conclusion Are you not inferring, right there, that the reason that I believe my conclusion is that I am a partisan? If so, are you not inferring that there are no other reasons? If you want to say that you were not saying that the only reason that I make these observations is because I am a partisan, you are choosing very poor phrases to do so. Unless “it was odd how the partisan believes in his conclusion” wasn’t sarcasm on your part, in which case, it’s a very odd statement to make. > [@](#): > > your walls of text do not change the partisan argument in a style that I am sure none of the opposition will be convinced by… Your accusations that I am only making observations out of partisanship do not change those observations, observations, I might add, have been left entirely unchallenged, and instead the author of those observations, myself accused of partisanship in an attempt to discredit those observations by discrediting me. Did you have any actual counter points to my observations, or are you just going to continue to wrongfully accuse me of being partisan? Though I will agree that the “opposition” will not be convinced, but that is never the point of a debate. It is a rare debate indeed that interlocutors change their sides. OTOH, I do think that the “opposition” would back me up entirely on the fact that they do put their own selves as being more important than others, and the fact that rural areas have disproportionate representation per voter is a simple inarguable fact. These are not partisan observations, these are just observations. I do not see how you can dismiss these observations simply by affixing the label “partisan” to one making these observations. > [@](#): > > I do not care if your observations are true or not, but the partisan analysis is not one that will be convincing to anyone but the partisans. I agree that at a partisan analysis may only be convincing to a partisan, but you have done nothing to show that my observations or conclusions come from a partisan place. Your accusations in that regard are unfounded and unsupportable. > [@](#): > > simple as that. Nothing in this life is simple, my friend. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2018, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-a-big-tent-party-should-they-be/806426/89 "2018-01-14T18:25:06Z")
I have no desire to ‘demonstrate’ to a partisan the partisanship as the partisan is never convinced. It is amusing the blindness though. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2018, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-a-big-tent-party-should-they-be/806426/90 "2018-01-14T18:42:38Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Actually, I’m pretty sure the size of the House is something Congress can change by simple statute. The Senate is fixed by the number of states of course. > [@US Constitution](#): > > Representatives and direct Taxes **shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers** , which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. Bolding mine, of course. Just because a Republican President, Congress, and Senate passed a law capping the number of seats doesn’t mean the method of apportionment dictated by the Constitution can be changed without an amendment. (Funny how that works out…done to protect Republican electoral advantage by an all-Republican government…where have I heard this before?) And the second half of that sentence, which does have to do with apportionment, was changed by? You guessed it…the 14th Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2018, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-a-big-tent-party-should-they-be/806426/91 "2018-01-14T18:55:10Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Given the number of people that have requested a permit in DC since Heller won his case, I think it’s fairly obvious that the desire to see that particular Constitutional right protected extended farther than just six residents. Hey, I was on your side. It was claimed there was only one person who wanted a gun, I pointed out that there were 6 plaintiffs. Question, given the number of people who requested the permit, is that enough to vote in people that would loosen gun laws? If so, why didn’t they do that? If not, then how is that not the minority forcing their view upon the majority? Keep in mind, too, that the heller decision did not apply only to DC. It effectively prohibited any city from making any laws about possession and carrying of guns within their city borders. > [@Ramira](#): > > I have no desire to ‘demonstrate’ to a partisan the partisanship as the partisan is never convinced. It is amusing the blindness though. I have no desire to continue to defend against your completely unsupported ad hominem attacks on my character. You have jumped in to offer no facts or claims or even rebuttals to my observations, only insults as to my motivations and perceptions. You have offered no evidence or reasoning whatsoever to make this claim. If you have any sort of actual rebuttals or corrections to my observations, I am happy to hear them. If the only thing you have to offer is the continued erroneous assertion that I only make these observations due to my commitment to a party or a cuase, then I think we are done here. I’ll pull a **John Mace** here, and let you have the last word on this, as, while I do feel that a discussion on the ideological differences between conservatives and democrats is relevant to a thread about who should be accepted and promoted as democratic leaders, the irrefutable fact that rural voters having more power per voter, and the well supported ideology of the conservative putting self, family and tribe above others is just my partisan view is a hijack that I have no more interest in discussing. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2018, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-a-big-tent-party-should-they-be/806426/92 "2018-01-14T21:41:38Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Hey, I was on your side. It was claimed there was only one person who wanted a gun, I pointed out that there were 6 plaintiffs. I know, and I was pointing out that more than 6 wanted to exercise the RKBA in DC. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > Question, given the number of people who requested the permit, is that enough to vote in people that would loosen gun laws? Presumably not, since it hasn’t happened. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > … If not, then how is that not the minority forcing their view upon the majority? It is, but we have the minority force the protection of Constitutional rights on the majority all the time. That’s how gay marriage became legal in Utah, for example. It certainly wasn’t something the majority wanted. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2018, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-a-big-tent-party-should-they-be/806426/93 "2018-01-14T22:02:32Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I know, and I was pointing out that more than 6 wanted to exercise the RKBA in DC. I was just pointing out he number of plaintiffs that brought the suit. > [@](#): > > Presumably not, since it hasn’t happened. Exactly, it was the wishes of the electorate. > [@](#): > > It is, but we have the minority force the protection of Constitutional rights on the majority all the time. That’s how gay marriage became legal in Utah, for example. It certainly wasn’t something the majority wanted. Do you have to get gay married? Do you have to go to a gay wedding? Do you have to hang out with gay married couples? Is there anything at all in your life that is actually affected by other people having the rights to marry? When gay marriage results in 11,208 homicides in a year, then you can make that comparison. Gay marriage is not forced on you, people carrying guns in public are. The right to have a handgun in your house or rifle without a trigger lock or gun safe is not explicitly laid out in the constitution. It required interpretation and a bit of that penumbra stuff to make that call. In any case, the guy who financed the suit (who doesn’t live in DC or own a gun) doesn’t think it went far enough, he objects to Scalia’s language at the end “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms”. It’s not good enough that decades of precedent and law were overturned there, but he wants to go further, not restricting guns from felons or mentally ill, take the gun anywhere at all, and sell to or buy anything from anyone. Would you be happier if these views of his were also force upon the majority that does not want them? And, to get away from the guns argument, as that is a whole different argument altogether, involving conflicting views on constitutional rights that will be confused with everything else, do you agree that the state of Kentucky should be able to tell the city of louisville that it cannot raise its minimum wage? that is the exact thing I am talking about, where people who do not live in a city tell the people who do live in a city how to live. Or, if you prefer, in the North Carolina case, should a state be able to tell a city that it cannot have anti-discrimination laws within its limits? once again, an example of rural values demanding that cities conform to them. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2018, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-a-big-tent-party-should-they-be/806426/94 "2018-01-14T22:21:18Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Given the number of people that have requested a permit in DC since Heller won his case, I think it’s fairly obvious that the desire to see that particular Constitutional right protected extended farther than just six residents. While I think it’s fairly obvious that DC’s virtually total ban on handgun ownership was not in keeping with the Constitution, you touch on an interesting misconception held by many on the gun luuuuuuvin’ side. Namely, that there were large numbers of DC residents who were angered by the excessively strong gun laws here. In fact, we can measure the interest in legal gun ownership in DC pretty easily. To buy a gun, a DCer must purchase it in another state and have it transferred through a gun dealer in DC. As in, the only gun dealer in DC. Why only one gun dealer in DC? Because it’s a shitty business with few customers. In fact, the DC government subsidizes the rent of the one gun dealer so that he can remain in business. He averages something in the range of 250 firearm transfers into DC each year. I bet you that members of the Straight Dope message board buy that many guns every year or two. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2018, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-a-big-tent-party-should-they-be/806426/95 "2018-01-15T01:21:19Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > While I think it’s fairly obvious that DC’s virtually total ban on handgun ownership was not in keeping with the Constitution, you touch on an interesting misconception held by many on the gun luuuuuuvin’ side. Namely, that there were large numbers of DC residents who were angered by the excessively strong gun laws here. > > In fact, we can measure the interest in legal gun ownership in DC pretty easily. To buy a gun, a DCer must purchase it in another state and have it transferred through a gun dealer in DC. As in, the only gun dealer in DC. > > Why only one gun dealer in DC? Because it’s a shitty business with few customers. In fact, the DC government subsidizes the rent of the one gun dealer so that he can remain in business. > > He averages something in the range of 250 firearm transfers into DC each year. I bet you that members of the Straight Dope message board buy that many guns every year or two. I certainly never claimed that there were “large numbers” (and given DC’s politics, I suspect it was a small minority, but significantly more than 6), but I strongly suspect your information is out of date. The ~250 transfer / year number appears to have come from this article published in 2011: > [@](#): > > [He said that since the high court’s decision in the Heller case, the city has only registered about 1,500 guns, about half of which were new purchases. So while gun sales have been skyrocketing in the rest of the country, D.C. residents have been buying at a rate of about 250 a year.](https://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2011/oct/11/miller-dcs-only-gun-source/) Here is an article from last month: [D.C. concealed handgun permit applications doubled in November](http://www.guns.com/2017/12/07/d-c-concealed-handgun-permit-applications-doubled-in-november/) > [@](#): > > Background checks for concealed handgun permits in Washington, D.C. doubled last month, according to federal data. > > Some 365 residents submitted applications to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System in November. Approximately three quarters of those checks represented licenses to carry, federal data shows. > > It’s the second significant spike in permit applications following city council’s Oct. 5 decision to drop its appeal in the ongoing legal battle of Wrenn v. District of Columbia. Two-thirds of the 217 residents who submitted to NICS checks in October also sought permits — the single biggest month for the city in FBI history, until now. > > A U.S. District Court of Appeals panel said in October it would not reconsider the July 2-1 decision in Wrenn blocking enforcement of the city’s requirement that residents demonstrate “a good reason” for needing a concealed handgun permit. The ruling deemed parts of Washington’s permitting system — one of the toughest in the nation — unconstitutional. The Washington Post reported the city denied 77 percent of permit applications based on the “good reason” rule. 365 + 217 = 582 NICS checks in two months. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2018, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-a-big-tent-party-should-they-be/806426/96 "2018-01-15T02:04:05Z")
Great, so DC taxpayers can stop subsidizing this one business? ETA: and it was a 2014 story that I had most recently looked at, not 2011. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2018, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-a-big-tent-party-should-they-be/806426/97 "2018-01-15T02:31:52Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Great, so DC taxpayers can stop subsidizing this one business? … Yes. My memory is fuzzy on the issue, but IIRC they only did it because they were afraid if he quit, Congress or the courts would open up all of Maryland and Virginia to them for purchases. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2018, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-a-big-tent-party-should-they-be/806426/98 "2018-01-15T02:35:15Z")
Are we wandering off the topic into a gun control debate or has the original topic been sufficiently addressed and we’ve moved on? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2018, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-a-big-tent-party-should-they-be/806426/99 "2018-01-15T03:10:28Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Yes. My memory is fuzzy on the issue, but IIRC they only did it because they were afraid if he quit, Congress or the courts would open up all of Maryland and Virginia to them for purchases. As a resident of DC, that’s a theory I have never heard. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2018, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-a-big-tent-party-should-they-be/806426/100 "2018-01-15T03:40:51Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > As a resident of DC, that’s a theory I have never heard. Like I said, it’s from fuzzy memory, but here are some links related to the topic: > [@](#): > > [Since the new Congress took office on Jan. 3, Republicans have sponsored legislation and made statements regarding the District. U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) have introduced a bill, the “Second Amendment Enforcement Act of 2015” that would remove the D.C. Council from enacting the city’s gun control measures; conform District law to federal law governing firearm sales; **enable residents to obtain firearms from licensed dealers in Maryland and Virginia** ; repeal the gun registration requirement system; allow a more permissive system for residents to possess guns and watered down background checks, largely make firearm training optional, and allow private entities and public buildings to determine their firearm policies.](https://www.afro.com/alarm-gop-meddling-d-c-s-gun-laws/) [Ruling Could Make Out-Of-State Handgun Purchases Easier For D.C. Residents](https://wamu.org/story/15/02/11/ruling_makes_it_out_of_state_handgun_purchases_easier_for_dc_residents/) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-a-big-tent-party-should-they-be/806426.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-a-big-tent-party-should-they-be/806426.md?page=6)