Washington, D.C.'s draconian gun laws could undergo a major overhaul in the days ahead, at least if the current language in a House appropriation bill survives.
House Republicans are specifically taking aim at the District's laws surrounding the right to carry, seeking to make it easier for non-residents to exercise their right to bear arms and repeal of D.C.'s most intrusive "gun-free zones."
The Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) appropriations bill for fiscal year 2026 was released on Sunday and is expected to me marked up this afternoon. As House Republicans noted in a press release, the bill (among other things) would force D.C. to recognize "valid concealed carry licenses from other states in the District of Columbia and the Washington Metropolitan Area."
The language actually goes a bit further than that. Section 826 of the bill states:
An individual who has a valid weapons carry permit from any United States state or territory may possess and carry a concealed handgun, magazine, and ammunition in the area governed by the District of Columbia and Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.
At the moment, the only way for non-residents to legally carry in Washington, D.C. is to acquire a D.C. carry permit. That's a near impossibility if you don't live near the D.C. area and don't have access to firearm instructors who teach the D.C. training class. The lack of reciprocity also increases the cost to carry, putting another burden on those trying to exercise a fundamental right in our nation's capital.
Anti-gunners are taking this about as well as you'd expect.
D.C.'s long-serving non-voting delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, for instance, called the provision part of "an outrageous number of anti-home rule riders."
“I am outraged at the number and scope of anti-D.C. home rule riders in the bill released today,” Norton said. “In my long career representing D.C. residents in Congress, I have rarely seen a bill as unreasonable and patronizing to the more than 700,000 people who live in the nation’s capital as this one. I will use every tool at my disposal to stop these riders from becoming law, and I commit to reminding my fellow lawmakers across the aisle that D.C. residents deserve the same consideration as their own constituents at every opportunity.”
As I mentioned, Norton doesn't get a vote in the House, so she doesn't have a lot of tools at her disposal, especially with Democrats in the minority.
The liberal outfit The New Republic, meanwhile, is accusing House Republicans of "mov[ing] to change D.C.'s gun laws while no one is looking"; which is absurd given the fact that House Republicans themselves highlighted the changes to D.C.'s gun law in their own press release about the appropriations bill.
TNR's Malcolm Ferguson called that change the "most alarming rider in the bill", and fretted that it would make D.C. a more dangerous place.
Republicans have long cast D.C. as some unstable, crime-ridden hell hole, even as crime has gone down in nearly every category except motor vehicle theft. Robbery is down 28 percent, homicides are down 8 percent, and violent crime in general has dropped 25 percent.
Even if crime in D.C. were as bad as Trump wants us to believe, how exactly would loosening concealed carry restrictions help that? A guy from a different state with an itchy trigger finger would be able to pull out his piece on the metro. That’s supposed to make the city and its residents feel safer?
I'm glad that crime is on the decrease, but Ferguson's argument doesn't make much sense. Does he believe that D.C. was a crime-ridden hell hole last year, when violent crime was 25 percent higher, and if so, would he have been okay with providing universal recognition for concealed carry permits back then?
I highly doubt it. Besides, our right to keep and bear arms isn't contingent on the crime rate. Whether it's sky-high or non-existent, violent crime doesn't dictate whether we can lawfully bear arms. It's the Constitution that provides for that.
Ferguson may not be aware of this, but some criminals are already carrying on D.C. Metro trains and buses, despite the system's "no guns allowed" policy. He should be less concerned about what a lawful permit-holder from another state might do, and more worried about what young punks who aren't legally allowed to possess a gun are up to when they're riding the rails.
In addition to repealing the carry ban on public transportation, the bill arguably nukes all of the District's gun-free zones... at least not those specifically authorized by Congress.
The rider simply says that individuals with valid carry licenses may possess and carry a concealed handgun, magazine, and ammunition in the area governed by the District of Columbia and Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority". There's no explicit carveout for the many "sensitive places" designated as such by the D.C. government, which include:
- Any premises where alcohol is served, sold and consumed on the premises
- The building and grounds, including any adjacent parking lot of a childcare facility, preschool, elementary or secondary school, or a public or private college or university
- On private residential property unless authorized by the property owner
- A Demonstration in a public place (within a perimeter of 1,000 feet designated by a law enforcement agency, and notice has been given by signs or an officer’s order)
Besides the issue of the District's "gun-free zones", there are other unresolved issues with the rider. Would non-residents still have to register the firearms they plan on carrying in D.C., as is currently required? Does the rider negate D.C.'s ban on "large capacity" magazines? D.C. law also requires a valid registration certificate for a firearm in order to legally possess ammunition, and you can only possess ammunition that's compatible with the firearm that's been registered. Would that still apply, or would gun owners no longer have to worry about being prosecuted for an errant round of ammunition discovered during a traffic stop?
Even in its most limited form the appropriations language would be a major improvement to D.C.'s gun laws, but I'd like to see language specifically prohibiting the gun registration requirement for those exercising their right to carry. The registration mandate could still trip up a lot of non-residents, and ensuring its demise, at least as it applies to visitors, would remove another tool D.C. politicians and police can use against those of us exercising our Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia.
