Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "1669487",
    "label": "1976/09/07 HR12261 District of Columbia Criminal Laws (1)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1669487"
}

{
    "id": "1669487",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1669487",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "1976/09/07 HR12261 District of Columbia Criminal Laws (1)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1669487",
    "collections": [
        "White House Records Office: Legislation Case Files",
        "Legislation Case Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Washington (D.C.)",
        "Legal matters",
        "Legislation"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/87/6694/1669487/content/library/document/0055/1669487.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/87/6694/1669487/content/library/document/0055/1669487.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/87/6694/1669487/content/library/document/0055/1669487.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1669487",
    "naId": 1669487,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1976-09-30",
        "month": 9,
        "year": 1976
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1976-08-01",
        "month": 8,
        "year": 1976
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/87/6694/1669487/content/library/document/0055/1669487.pdf",
    "mediaId": "4876caa3fc78b09b",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 54, folder \"9/7/76 HR12261 District of Columbia\nCriminal Laws (1)\" of the White House Records Office: Legislation Case Files at the\nGerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nExact duplicates within this folder were not digitized.\nnote:\n9/7\nStatement being\nresolved- 1 will let you\nhave I just as soon on\nprosible\nfer mr Galelford\nDigitized from Box 54 of the White House Records Office Legislation Case Files\nat the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nAPPROVED SEP7-1976\n$9/7/16\nACTION\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nLast Day: September 7\nWASHINGTON\n9/7/76\nSeptember 3, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nTHE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nJIM CANNOM Jun\narchives\nSUBJECT:\nEnrolled Bill H.R. 12261 -\nDistrict of Columbia Criminal Laws\n9/7/76\nThis is to present for your action H.R. 12261, a bill\nwhich would amend section 602 (a) (9) of the District\nof Columbia Self-Government and Governmental\nReorganization Act (the \"Self-Government Act\").\nBERMIO R. FORD LIBRARY\nBACKGROUND\nThe Self-Government Act provides that the City\nCouncil of the District of Columbia will have\nauthority to revise the District's criminal laws\nbeginning January 3, 1977. H.R. 12261 would\nextend Congress' sole jurisdiction over these\ncriminal laws for two additional years so that\nthe Council would not have authority to revise\nthe laws until January 3, 1979.\nThe purpose of H.R. 12261 is to give the District\nof Columbia Law Revision Commission until\nJanuary 3, 1979 to make recommendations to the\nCongress for the comprehensive revision of the\nDistrict's criminal laws. The Commission, which\nwas established subsequent to the enactment of\nthe Self-Government Act, has begun to review\nthese laws but will not complete its work by\nJanuary 3, 1977.\nH.R. 12261 also contains an amendment by\nCongressman Dent of Pennsylvania which was appar-\nently intended to nullify the District of Columbia's\nFirearms Control Act. The Firearm's Control Act was\nenacted on July 23, 1976 by the District of Columbia\nto ban possession of unregistered handguns.\n-2-\nHowever, in the opinion of the Justice Department\nthe Dent Amendment does not nullify the Firearms\nControl Act. Nevertheless, many groups which\noppose gun control maintain that H.R. 12261\ninvalidates the District's ban and therefore are\nstrongly urging its approval.\nARGUMENTS FOR APPROVAL\n1. H.R. 12261 is consistent with Congress' original intent\nthat a thorough revision of the D.C. Criminal Code be\ncompleted before the Council is empowered to enact\nchanges in the criminal law.\n2. A major revision of the District's Criminal Code should\nnot be undertaken without the benefit of the Law\nRevision Commission's recommendations.\nARGUMENTS FOR DISAPPROVAL\n1. H.R. 12261 improperly restricts the right of self-\ngovernment of the citizens of the District of Columbia\nunder the Self-Government Act.\n2. In the opinion of the Justice Department, the Dent\nAmendment would not invalidate the District's Firearms\nControl Act. H.R. 12261 is solely prospective in\napplication and consequently irrelevant to the\nDistrict's Control Act.\n3. The District agrees that no major revision of its\ncriminal laws should be undertaken without the benefit\nof the Law Revision Commission's recommendations. How-\never, the Council should not be delayed further from\nenacting urgently needed changes in the D.C. Criminal\nCode.\n4. If Congress disapproves of the Firearms Control Act,\nit has the power to employ a one-House veto of the\nAct. The exclusive method of disapproving an enact-\nment of the District is by \"concurrent resolution\"\nwithin a period of 30 legislative days after final\nDistrict action.\n5. H.R. 12261 does not involve a substantial Federal\ninterest in the District.\n-3-\nAGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS\nOffice of Management and Budget\nDisapproval\nDepartment of Justice\nNo Objection\nCOMMENTS\nLynn:\n\"In our view, the bill is not consistent with the\nright of self-government for the citizens of the\nDistrict of Columbia under the Home Rule Act.\nExtending the limitation on the D.C. Council's\nauthority to change the Criminal Code is unneces-\nsary. Additions to the D.C. criminal laws are\nneeded now to enable the District to meet the\nchallenges of a changing society. Granting the\npower to the D.C. Council to legislate on local\nmatters under the Code would not interfere with\nthe work of the Law Revision Commission and the\nCouncil does not require the results of the\nCommission's study to weigh the need for such\nlegislation.\"\nSTAFF RECOMMENDATIONS\nCounsel's Office:\n\"Approval of the measure would be\nKen Lazarus\nfundamentally inconsistent with\nwith Phil Buchen's\nthe President's announced posi-\nconcurrence\ntion on his role with respect to\nthe legislative powers of the\nDistrict government.\"\nMax Friedersdorf,\n\"Recommend approval. Both House\nAssistant to the\npassed by voice vote and veto\nPresident for\nwould likely be overridden. John\nLegislative Affairs\nRhodes strongly recommends sign-\ning because Presidential veto\nwould incite anti-gun control\nlobbyists to oppose President.\nGun lobby perceive bill as very\nfavorable to them because of\nDent Amendment.\" \"\nRECOMMENDATION\nI recommend approval of H.R. 12261.\nThe Department of Justice, the White House Counsel's Office\nand the Congressional Research Service of the Library of\n-4-\nCongress state that the Dent Amendment would not negate the\nDistrict of Columbia's Firearms Control Act.\nMy recommendation is based on the fact that Congress intended\nthat the D.C. Criminal Code be completely revised before\nthe City Council be given the authority to enact changes\nin the criminal law. Without this legislation, the D.C.\nCity Council would be able to act in a piecemeal way without\nthe benefit of the Law Revision Commission's recommendations.\nJim Lynn's memorandum, which includes a letter from Mayor\nWalter Washington and Sterling Tucker, together with a letter\nfrom Michael M. Uhlmann, Assistant Attorney General, is at\nTab A.\nDECISIONS\n1. Sign H.R. 12261 at Tab B.\nIssue signing statement at Tab C.\nApprove ART\nDisapprove\n2. Disapproval H.R. 12261 and sign veto message at Tab D.\nNeed\nFacsimile\nof The\nThe\nPRESIDENT\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nOFFICE\nUNITED\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nSTATE\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20503\nSEP 2 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nSubject: Enrolled Bill H.R. 12261 - District of Columbia\nCriminal Laws\nSponsor - Rep. Diggs (D) Michigan\nLast Day for Action\nSeptember 7, 1976 - Tuesday\nPurpose\nTo extend the period during which the Council of the District\nof Columbia is prohibited from revising the criminal laws of\nthe District by direct amendment of the D.C. Criminal Code or\nthrough changes in police regulations.\nAgency Recommendations\nOffice of Management and Budget\nDisapproval (Veto\nmessage attached)\nDistrict of Columbia Government\nDisapproval (Veto\nmessage attached)\nDepartment of Justice\nNo objection\nDiscussion\nThe District of Columbia Home Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973,\ndelegates to the Council of the District of Columbia the authority\nto make changes in the criminal laws of the District, but not\nuntil January 3, 1977. The Congress, in a related action, enacted\nthe District of Columbia Law Revision Commission Act, approved\nAugust 21, 1974, which established the District of Columbia Law\nRevision Commission to examine the District's laws and to recommend,\n2\nin annual reports to the Congress, changes in them. The\nCommission--a D.C. Government body-- did not become opera-\ntional until a year later and now expects its work on the\nrevision of the criminal laws to be completed within the\nnext two years.\nThe enrolled bill would extend for two additional years, until\nJanuary 3, 1979, Congress' sole jurisdiction over the criminal\nlaws of the District for the purpose of giving the Commission\nadequate time to complete its work and make its recommendations\nto the Congress. The bill also contains a provision intended\nto preclude the Council's amendment of police regulations in a\nmanner which, effectively, alters the Criminal Code. The\nprovision was added by amendment on the House floor by\nRepresentative Dent of Pennsylvania, and was apparently directed\nat the District of Columbia's Firearms Control Regulations Act,\napproved by the Mayor on July 23, 1976, which is presently being\nconsidered by Congress. Mr. Dent explained that he wanted to\nprohibit any criminal code changes by \"\nany subterfuge or\nany roundabout, off-the-street method by any departmental police\nregulation.\"\nThe Dent amendment was passed 262 to 92 and the amended bill\nwas then approved by voice vote. Twenty-four hours later,\nthe bill was passed by the Senate without debate on a voice\nvote.\nIn its report on the bill, the House D.C. Committee maintains\nthat extension of the prohibition on the Council's changing\nthe Criminal Code is necessary because completion of the\ncomprehensive revision and recodification of the District's\nCriminal Code by the Congress was intended to be a prerequisite\nto the transfer of jurisdiction to the Council over the D.C.\nCriminal Code. The Committee report points out that the\nconference report on the Home Rule Act stated:\nIt is the intention of the conferees that\ntheir respective Committees will seek to\nrevise the District of Columbia Criminal\nCode prior to the effective date of the\ntransfer of authority referred to. (Emphasis\nadded.)\n3\nThe House D.C. Committee report further notes that the conferees\non the Home Rule Act provided for a single House veto of\nCriminal Code changes that might be made by the Council once\nthe jurisdiction was transferred from the Congress to the\nCouncil. The report states:\nThis reinforces the commitment of the Congress\nto maintain exclusive jurisdiction over amend-\nments to the Criminal Code until the Law Revision\nCommission has completed its study and made its\nrecommendations, and the Congress has acted on the\ntotally revised Criminal Code.\nThe District of Columbia Government, in its attached views\nletter, agrees that a major revision of the D.C. Criminal\nCode is necessary and should not be undertaken without the\nbenefit of the Law Revision Commission's recommendations. It\npoints out, however, that empowering the D.C. Council to enact\nchanges in the D.C. Criminal Code should not be delayed fur-\nther, because there are a number of, additions or revisions\nto the criminal laws which are urgently needed.\nA number of such provisions have been proposed by the District\nto the Congress -- for example, proposals to prohibit the\nunauthorized use of credit cards, to include mobile homes\nwithin the scope of the crime of burglary, and to make it\nunlawful to obtain telecommunication services through misrepre-\nsentations. Moreover, the D.C. Government maintains that\nenactment of such changes would not interfere at all with the\nwork of the Commission.\nThe effect of the Dent amendment in the enrolled bill is unclear.\nAs noted earlier, it was apparently intended to prohibit the\nFirearms Control Regulations Act which would ban possession of\nhandguns to anyone who does not, on the date of its enactment,\npossess a valid registration for a handgun. That measure will\nbecome effective unless Congress disapproves it within 30\nlegislative days, a period which will elapse sometime at the\nend of September. However, the Department of Justice advises,\nin its attached views letter, that the enrolled bill, in\nand of itself, would not invalidate the gun control measure.\n4\nMoreover, the effect of the bill is also uncertain in other\nrespects. First, the amendment references articles regulated\nunder Title 22 of the D.C. Criminal Code. However, it is not\nclear whether licensing of firearms would be affected by\nthe amendment because under the District of Columbia Code,\nthe licensing of firearms is carried out pursuant to authority\nfound in Title I of the D.C. Code, a provision which predates\nhome rule. Second, the amendment references \"criminal offenses.\"\nIn the District of Columbia it is not clear what constitutes a\n\"criminal offense\" since District of Columbia law, as interpreted\nby the courts, is not settled in regard to whether or not\ncriminal sanctions imposed pursuant to police powers translate\ncivil violations into criminal matters.\nWe agree with the District of Columbia recommendation that the\nbill be disapproved. It can be argued that a further extension\nof the limitation on the D.C. Council is consistent with the\noriginal intent of Congress that a thorough revision of the\nD.C. Criminal Code be completed before the D.C. Council is\nempowered to enact changes in the criminal law. However, we\nbelieve the basic issue presented by the bill is whether the\ntwo-year extension is necessary to protect the Federal interest\nin the District of Columbia and if it and the Dent amendment\nare consistent with the purpose of the Home Rule Act, namely\nthe grant to the inhabitants of the District of Columbia of\npowers of local self-government.\nIn our view, the bill is not consistent with the right of self-\ngovernment for the citizens of the District of Columbia under\nthe Home Rule Act. Extending the limitation on the D.C. Council's\nauthority to change the Criminal Code is unnecessary. Additions\nto the D.C. criminal laws are needed now to enable the District\nto meet the challenges of a changing society. Granting the\npower to the D.C. Council to legislate on local matters under\nthe Code would not interfere with the work of the Law Revision\nCommission and the Council does not require the results of the\nCommission's study to weigh the need for such legislation.\nFurther, this bill is not necessary to enable the Congress to\nprotect the Federal interest in the District of Columbia. The\nGERALD\nHome Rule Act gives the Congress clear authority to disapprove\nD.C. Government legislative acts. Finally, the Dent amend-\nment, as noted above, is both an unnecessary erosion of the\nhome rule concept and uncertain in its effect on other actions\nof the D.C. Government.\nA proposed veto message is attached for your consideration.\nJam James Director T. Lynn R.Rg\nEnclosures\nDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\nTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\nWALTER E. WASHINGTON\nMAYOR\nWASHINGTON, D. C. 20004\nAUG 27 1976\nMr. James M. Frey\nAssistant Director for Legislative\nReference\nOffice of Management and Budget\nExecutive Office Building\nWashington, D. C.\n20503\nDear Mr. Frey:\nThis is in reference to the facsimile of the enrolled\nenactment of Congress entitled:\nH.R. 12261 - To extend the period during\nwhich the Council of the District of\nColumbia is prohibited from revising the\ncriminal laws of the District\nwhich you transmitted on August 25, 1976. The enrolled\nbill would amend section 602 (a) (9) of the District of\nColumbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganiza-\ntion Act (the \"Self-Government Act\") [D.C. Code, § 1-\n147 (a) (9) ] by extending for two years the prohibition\nagainst the Council of the District of Columbia taking\nany action \"with respect to any provision of title 23\nof the District of Columbia Code (relating to criminal\nprocedure), or with respect to any provision of any law\ncodified in title 22 or 24 of the District of Columbia\nCode (relating to crimes and treatment of prisoners) \"\nSection 602 (a) (9) currently provides that the Council\nmay exercise such authority on January 3, 1977; this\nbill would postpone the date on which the Council could\nexercise this authority to January 3, 1979. Addition-\nally, the bill, as amended during debate on the floor\nof the House of Representatives upon the adoption of\nthe \"Dent Amendment\", prohibits the Council from taking\nany action \"with respect to any criminal offense per-\ntaining to articles subject to regulation under chapter\n32 of title 22 of the District of Columbia Code\" (re-\nlating to weapons), until January 3, 1979. The bill's\nprovisions are totally inconsistent with the principal,\nstated purpose of the Self-Government Act, namely the\n\"grant to the inhabitants of the District of Columbia of\npowers of local self-government\", P.L. 93-198, $ 102\n(a), 87 Stat. 777; it therefore is unacceptable.\nAn essential aspect of the right of self-government is\npresently denied to the citizens of the District, as\nthey still are denied the authority to enact criminal\nlaws and those relating to judicial procedure and\nthe treatment of prisoners. Notwithstanding that the\nproper subjects of such laws are of paramount concern\nto the inhabitants of this City, this bill seeks a\nfurther postponement of the citizen's authority to ad-\ndress these concerns, for another two years. It would\ndeny to the citizens of the District the exercise of a\nright -- through its elected officials -- explicitly\ngranted to them seventy years ago, when Congress pro-\nvided:\nThe Council is hereby authorized and\nempowered to make\n...\nall such usual and\npolice regulations\n...\nas the Council may\ndeem necessary for the regulation of\nfirearms, projectiles, explosives, or\nweapons of any kind. D.C. Code, § 1-227.\nThe original purpose of the bill, as stated by Chairman\nDiggs, its author, was to give the District of Columbia\nLaw Revision Commission sufficient time within which to\nmake recommendations to the Congress for the comprehen-\nsive revision of the District of Columbia Criminal Code.\nThe Commission, which was established subsequent to the\nenactment of the Self-Government Act by P.L. 93-379,\n88 Stat. 480, has begun the task of reviewing the crim-\ninal laws of the District and has made significant\n- 2 -\nprogress. The District agrees that no major revision\nof its criminal laws should be undertaken without the\nbenefit of the Commission's recommendations, and so\ninformed the House District Committee by letter of\nJune 29, 1976. However, there are additions to the\ncriminal laws which are needed to enable the District\nto meet the challenges of a changing society. A number\nof such provisions have been proposed by the District\nto the Congress -- for example, proposals to prohibit\nthe unauthorized use of credit cards, to include mobile\nhomes within the scope of the crime of burglary, and to\nmake it unlawful to obtain telecommunication services\nthrough misrepresentation. Nonetheless, these proposals\nare still pending before the House District of Columbia\nCommittee.\nThe enactment by the Council of provisions such as the\nforegoing would not interfere with the work of the Com-\nmission. And it cannot be said that the Council requires\nthe result of the Commission's study to weigh the need\nfor such legislation. Nor can it be said that in the\nabsence of the provisions of the subject bill there would\nbe no Congressional \"oversight\" of acts of the Council\npertaining to the criminal laws: § 602 (c) (2) of the\nSelf-Government Act provides that such act of the Council\nshall take effect only if not disapproved within thirty\ndays by either the House or the Senate.\nThe discussion of the amendment on the floor demonstrates\nthat it was premised on a fundamental misunderstanding\nof the Self-Government Act. Its stated purpose is to\n\"prohibit\n... Criminal Code changes by any subterfuge\nor any roundabout, off-the-street method by any depart-\nmental police regulation\". Cong. Rec. H. 8798 (Aug. 23,\n1976, daily ed.). These considerations aside, the\nimpetus for the amendment -- the passage of the Council\nof the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 -- was\nan exercise by the Council of explicit police power\nconferred on it by D.C. Code, § 1-277. Its legislation\ndoes no more than to amend similar police power\nDEPALD\n- 3 -\nregulations adopted by the prior appointed Council, in\n1969, under the same authority. Thus, the amendment\nseeks to strip the City's elected Council of an author-\nity which Congress conferred long prior to its grant of\nhome rule, and permitted an appointed Council to exer-\ncise.\nIn conclusion, this bill would extend, for an additional\ntwo years, the period during which the people of the\nDistrict may not enact, regardless of manifest need,\nany criminal laws, nor any police regulations with res-\npect to any weapon mentioned in D.C. Code, § 22-3201,\net seq. Its provisions are inconsistent with the spirit\nof the Self-Government Act and the principle of self-\ndetermination. It does not serve any Federal interest;\nrather it is addressed to a matter which is essentially\nlocal in nature. Therefore, the District Government\nstrongly urges that H.R. 12261 be disapproved. A pro-\nposed message of disapproval is attached.\nSincerely yours,\nWALTER E. WASHINGTON\nMayor\nStarling Duch\nSTERLING TUCKER\nChairman\nCouncil of the District of Columbia\nAttachment\n- 4 -\n9/7/76\nFOR THE RECORD:\nThis is the final version of the statement as given\nto the Records Office at 1 pm today.\nA copy of this statement together with the stencil\nwhich accompanied it was givento Thym Smith of the\nPress Office for release.\nIt is to be released at 3:30 pm today.\nTom Jones\nSTATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT\nToday, I have signed H.R. 12261, a bill \"To extend\nthe period during which the Council of the District of\nColumbia is prohibited from revising the criminal laws of\nthe District.\"\nThe prohibition on the Council's changing the Criminal\nCode is necessary because completion of the study for the\ncomprehensive revision and recodification of the Criminal\nCode by the D.C. Law Revision Commission is a prerequisite\nto the transfer of jurisdiction to the Council over the D.C.\nCriminal Code.\nThe bill gives the Commission additional time within\nwhich to make recommendations to the Congress for the\ncomprehensive revision of the District of Columbia Criminal\nCode. The Commission has begun the task of reviewing the\ncriminal laws of the District but will not be able to\ncomplete its work by January 3, 1977, when without this\nlegislation, the D.C. Council would have been able to amend\nthe District of Columbia Criminal Code.\nNo major revision of the District's criminal laws\nshould be undertaken without the benefit of the Commission's\nrecommendations.\nSTATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT\nToday, I have signed H.R. 12261, a bill \"To extend\nthe period during which the Council of the District of\nColumbia is prohibited from revising the criminal laws of\nthe District.\"\nThe prohibition on the Council's changing the\nCriminal Code is necessary because completion of the study the\ncomprehensive revision and recodification of the Criminal\nCode by the Congress how is a prerequisite to the transfer of\nRevian\nCommin\njurisdiction to the Council over the D.C. Criminal Code.\nThe bill gives the District of Columbia Law Revision\nCommission additional time within which to make recommenda-\ntions to the Congress for the comprehensive revision of\nthe District of Columbia Criminal Code. The Commission\nhas begun the task of reviewing the criminal laws of the\nDistrict but will not be able to complete its work by\nJanuary 3, 1977, when without this legislation, the D.C.\nCouncil would have been able to amend the District of\nColumbia Criminal Code.\nNo major revision of the District's criminal laws\nshould be undertaken without the benefit of the Commission's\nrecommendations.\nSTATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT\nToday, I have signed H.R. 12261, a bill \"To extend\nthe period during which the Council of the District of\nColumbia is prohibited from revising the criminal laws of\nthe District.\"\nThe prohibition on the Council's changing the Criminal\nCode is necessary because completion of the study for the\ncomprehensive revision and recodification of the Criminal\nCode by the D.C. Law Revision Commission is a prerequisite\nto the transfer of jurisdiction to the Council over the D.C.\nCriminal Code.\nThe bill gives the Commission additional time within\nwhich to make recommendations to the Congress for the\ncomprehensive revision of the District of Columbia Criminal\nCode. The Commission has begun the task of reviewing the\ncriminal laws of the District but will not be able to\ncomplete its work by January 3, 1977, when without this\nlegislation, the D.C. Council would have been able to amend\nthe District of Columbia Criminal Code.\nNo major revision of the District's criminal laws\nshould be undertaken without the benefit of the Commission's\nrecommendations.\n2\nAlthough some confusion has arisen regarding the\nintended force and effect of H.R. 12261, I am advised\nby the Department of Justice that the measure is only\napplicable in the future and is thus irrelevant to the\n\"Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975\" (act. 1-142),\nrecently adopted by the District of Columbia.\nConsistent with the right to self-government of\nDistrict citizens, I have in the past supported fully\nthe legislative powers of the District, subject only to\nthe constraints imposed by the Home Rule Act itself or\nsome overriding Federal interest. This operating prin-\nciple properly should apply regardless of the views of\nthe Executive on the merits or shortcomings of individual\nlegislative items. In the circumstances involving\nH.R. 12261, I find no justification for interference with\nthis principle of self-determination.\nFor these reasons, I am returning H.R. 12261 without\nmy approval.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE,\nTO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:\nI am returning, without my approval, H.R. 12261, a\nbill \"to extend the period during which the Council of the\nDistrict of Columbia is prohibited from revising the\ncriminal laws of the District\". This bill would extend\nfor two years, or until January 3, 1979, the prohibition\nagainst any action by the Council of the District of Columbia\non provisions of the present District laws relating to\ncrimes, criminal procedure, and the treatment of prisoners.\nThe bill would give the District of Columbia Law\nRevision Commission additional time within which to make\nrecommendations to the Congress for the comprehensive\nrevision of the District of Columbia Criminal Code. The\nCommission, which was established subsequent to the enact-\nment of the District of Columbia Self-Government and\nGovernmental Reorganization Act, has begun the task of\nreviewing the criminal laws of the District but will not\nbe able to complete its work by January 3, 1977, when,\nunder current law, the D.C. Council will be able to amend\nthe District of Columbia Criminal Code.\nI agree that no major revision of the District's\ncriminal laws should be undertaken without the benefit of\nthe Commission's recommendations. I do not agree, however,\nthat it is either wise or necessary to delay even further\nthe time when the citizens of the District of Columbia,\nthrough their elected representatives, may exercise the\nright of self-government in this vital area which will\naffect their daily lives.\nThe bill would also prohibit the Council from taking\nany action \"with respect to any criminal offense pertaining\nto articles subject to regulation under chapter 32 of\ntitle 22 of the District of Columbia Code\" (relating to\nweapons) until January 3, 1979.\nSTATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT\nToday, I have signed H.R. 12261, a bill \"To extend\nthe period during which the Council of the District of\nColumbia is prohibited from revising the criminal laws of\nthe District.\"\nThe prohibition on the Council's changing the\nCriminal Code is necessary because completion of the\ncomprehensive revision and recodification of the Criminal\nCode by the Congress how is a prerequisite to the transfer of\nD.C.\nRevian\nCommon\njurisdiction to the Council over the D.C. Criminal Code.\nThe bill gives the District of Columbia Law Revision\nCommission additional time within which to make recommenda-\ntions to the Congress for the comprehensive revision of\nthe District of Columbia Criminal Code. The Commission\nhas begun the task of reviewing the criminal laws of the\nDistrict but will not be able to complete its work by\nJanuary 3, 1977, when without this legislation, the D.C.\nCouncil would have been able to amend the District of\nColumbia Criminal Code.\nNo major revision of the District's criminal laws\nshould be undertaken without the benefit of the Commission's\nrecommendations.\nTab C\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nTO THE HOUSE OF REP RESENTATIVES\nToday, I have signed H.R. 12261, a bill \"To extend the\nperiod during which the Council of the District of Columbia\nis prohibited from revising the criminal laws of the\nDistrict.\"\nThe prohibition on the Council's changing the Criminal Code\nis necessary because completion of the comprehensive revi-\nsion and recodification of the Criminal Code by the Congress\nis a prerequisite to the transfer of jurisdiction to the\nCouncil over the D.C. Criminal Code.\nThe bill gives the District of Columbia Law Revision\nCommission additional time within which to make recommenda-\ntions to the Congress for the comprehensive revision of\nthe District of Columbia Criminal Code. The Commission\nhas begun the task of reviewing the criminal laws of\nthe District but will not be able to complete its work by\nJanuary 3, 1977, when without this legislation, the D.C.\nCouncil would have been able to amend the District of\nColumbia Criminal Code.\nNo major revision of the District's criminal laws should\nbe undertaken without the benefit of the Commission's\nrecommendations.\nACTION\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nLast Day: September 7\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 3, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR: THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nJIM CANNOM Jun\nSUBJECT:\nEnrolled Bill H.R. 12261 -\nDistrict of Columbia Criminal Laws\nThis is to present for your action H.R. 12261, a bill\nwhich would amend section 602 (a) (9) of the District\nof Columbia Self-Government and Governmental\nReorganization Act (the \"Self-Government Act\").\nBACKGROUND\nThe Self-Government Act provides that the City\nCouncil of the District of Columbia will have\nauthority to revise the District's criminal laws\nbeginning January 3, 1977. H.R. 12261 would\nextend Congress' sole jurisdiction over these\ncriminal laws for two additional years so that\nthe Council would not have authority to revise\nthe laws until January 3, 1979.\nThe purpose of H.R. 12261 is to give the District\nof Columbia Law Revision Commission until\nJanuary 3, 1979 to make recommendations to the\nCongress for the comprehensive revision of the\nDistrict's criminal laws. The Commission, which\nwas established subsequent to the enactment of\nthe Self-Government Act, has begun to review\nthese laws but will not complete its work by\nJanuary 3, 1977.\nH.R. 12261 also contains an amendment by\nCongressman Dent of Pennsylvania which was appar-\nently intended to nullify the District of Columbia's\nFirearms Control Act. The Firearm's Control Act was\nenacted on July 23, 1976 by the District of Columbia\nto ban possession of unregistered handguns.\n-2-\nHowever, in the opinion of the Justice Department\nthe Dent Amendment does not nullify the Firearms\nControl Act. Nevertheless, many groups which\noppose gun control maintain that H.R. 12261\ninvalidates the District's ban and therefore are\nstrongly urging its approval.\nARGUMENTS FOR APPROVAL\n1. H.R. 12261 is consistent with Congress' original intent\nthat a thorough revision of the D.C. Criminal Code be\ncompleted before the Council is empowered to enact\nchanges in the criminal law.\n2. A major revision of the District's Criminal Code should\nnot be undertaken without the benefit of the Law\nRevision Commission's recommendations.\nARGUMENTS FOR DISAPPROVAL\n1. H.R. 12261 improperly restricts the right of self-\ngovernment of the citizens of the District of Columbia\nunder the Self-Government Act.\n2. In the opinion of the Justice Department, the Dent\n\"Amendment would not invalidate the District's Firearms\nControl Act. H.R. 12261 is solely prospective in\napplication and consequently irrelevant to the\nDistrict's Control Act.\n3. The District agrees that no major revision of its\ncriminal laws should be undertaken without the benefit\nof the Law Revision Commission's recommendations. How-\never, the Council should not be delayed further from\nenacting urgently needed changes in the D.C. Criminal\nCode.\n4.\nIf Congress disapproves of the Firearms Control Act,\nit has the power to employ a one-House veto of the\nAct. The exclusive method of disapproving an enact-\nment of the District is by \"concurrent resolution\"\nwithin a period of 30 legislative days after final\nDistrict action.\n5. H.R. 12261 does not involve a substantial Federal\ninterest in the District.\n-3-\nAGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS\nOffice of Management and Budget\nDisapproval\nDepartment of Justice\nNo Objection\nCOMMENTS\nLynn:\n\"In our view, the bill is not consistent with the\nright of self-government for the citizens of the\nDistrict of Columbia under the Home Rule Act.\nExtending the limitation on the D.C. Council's\nauthority to change the Criminal Code is unneces-\nsary. Additions to the D.C. criminal laws are\nneeded now to enable the District to meet the\nchallenges of a changing society. Granting the\npower to the D.C. Council to legislate on local\nmatters under the Code would not interfere with\nthe work of the Law Revision Commission and the\nCouncil does not require the results of the\nCommission's study to weigh the need for such\nlegislation.'\nSTAFF RECOMMENDATIONS\nCounsel's Office:\n\"Approval of the measure would be\nKen Lazarus\nfundamentally inconsistent with\nwith Phil Buchen's\nthe President's announced posi-\nconcurrence\ntion on his role with respect to\nthe legislative powers of the\nDistrict government.\"\nMax Friedersdorf,\n\"Recommend approval. Both House\nAssistant to the\npassed by voice vote and veto\nPresident for\nwould likely be overridden. John\nLegislative Affairs\nRhodes strongly recommends sign-\ning because Presidential veto\nwould incite anti-gun control\nlobbyists to oppose President.\nGun lobby perceive bill as very\nfavorable to them because of\nDent Amendment.\"\nRECOMMENDATION\nI recommend approval of H.R. 12261.\nThe Department of Justice, the White House Counsel's Office\nand the Congressional Research Service of the Library of\n-4-\nCongress state that the Dent Amendment would not negate the\nDistrict of Columbia's Firearms Control Act.\nMy recommendation is based on the fact that Congress intended\nthat the D.C. Criminal Code be completely revised before\nthe City Council be given the authority to enact changes in\nthe criminal law. Without this legislation, the D.C. City\nCouncil would be able to act in a piecemeal way without\nthe benefit of the Law Revision Commission's recommendations.\nJim Lynn's memorandum, which includes a letter from Mayor\nWalter Washington and Sterling Tucker, together with a letter\nfrom Michale M. Uhlmann, Assistant Attorney General, is at\nTab A. A SF 15018551 is attached at Tab B,\ndisapproval at Tab C. The enrolled bill is attached at Tab D.\nVeto Message\nDECISION\n1.\nApprove H.R. 12261.\n2.\nDisapprove and issue memorandum of\ndisapproval.\n-\nA\nTHE UNITED\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nTHE\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20503\nSEP 2 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nSubject: Enrolled Bill H.R. 12261 - District of Columbia\nCriminal Laws\nSponsor - Rep. Diggs (D) Michigan\nLast Day for Action\nSeptember 7, 1976 - Tuesday\nPurpose\nTo extend the period during which the Council of the District\nof Columbia is prohibited from revising the criminal laws of\nthe District by direct amendment of the D.C. Criminal Code or\nthrough changes in police regulations.\nAgency Recommendations\nOffice of Management and Budget\nDisapproval (Veto\nmessage attached)\nDistrict of Columbia Government\nDisapproval (Veto\nmessage attached)\nDepartment of Justice\nNo objection\nDiscussion\nThe District of Columbia Home Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973,\ndelegates to the Council of the District of Columbia the authority\nto make changes in the criminal laws of the District, but not\nuntil January 3, 1977. The Congress, in a related action, enacted\nthe District of Columbia Law Revision Commission Act, approved\nAugust 21, 1974, which established the District of Columbia Law\nRevision Commission to examine the District's laws and to recommend,\n2\nin annual reports to the Congress, changes in them. The\nCommission--a D.C. Government body-- did not become opera-\ntional until a year later and now expects its work on the\nrevision of the criminal laws to be completed within the\nnext two years.\nThe enrolled bill would extend for two additional years, until\nJanuary 3, 1979, Congress' sole jurisdiction over the criminal\nlaws of the District for the purpose of giving the Commission\nadequate time to complete its work and make its recommendations\nto the Congress. The bill also contains a provision intended\nto preclude the Council's amendment of police regulations in a\nmanner which, effectively, alters the Criminal Code. The\nprovision was added by amendment on the House floor by\nRepresentative Dent of Pennsylvania, and was apparently directed\nat the District of Columbia's Firearms Control Regulations Act,\napproved by the Mayor on July 23, 1976, which is presently being\nconsidered by Congress. Mr. Dent explained that he wanted to\nprohibit any criminal code changes by\nany subterfuge or\nany roundabout, off-the-street method by any departmental police\nregulation.\"\nThe Dent amendment was passed 262 to 92 and the amended bill\nwas then approved by voice vote. Twenty-four hours later,\nthe bill was passed by the Senate without debate on a voice\nvote.\nIn its report on the bill, the House D.C. Committee maintains\nthat extension of the prohibition on the Council's changing\nthe Criminal Code is necessary because completion of the\ncomprehensive revision and recodification of the District's\nCriminal Code by the Congress was intended to be a prerequisite\nto the transfer of jurisdiction to the Council over the D.C.\nCriminal Code. The Committee report points out that the\nconference report on the Home Rule Act stated:\nIt is the intention of the conferees that\ntheir respective Committees will seek to\nrevise the District of Columbia Criminal\nCode prior to the effective date of the\ntransfer of authority referred to. (Emphasis\nadded.)\n3\nThe House D.C. Committee report further notes that the conferees\non the Home Rule Act provided for a single House veto of\nCriminal Code changes that might be made by the Council once\nthe jurisdiction was transferred from the Congress to the\nCouncil. The report states:\nThis reinforces the commitment of the Congress\nto maintain exclusive jurisdiction over amend-\nments to the Criminal Code until the Law Revision\nCommission has completed its study and made its\nrecommendations, and the Congress has acted on the\ntotally revised Criminal Code.\nThe District of Columbia Government, in its attached views\nletter, agrees that a major revision of the D.C. Criminal\nCode is necessary and should not be undertaken without the\nbenefit of the Law Revision Commission's recommendations. It\npoints out, however, that empowering the D.C. Council to enact\nchanges in the D.C. Criminal Code should not be delayed fur-\nther, because there are a number of, additions or revisions\nto the criminal laws which are urgently needed.\nA number of such provisions have been proposed by the District\nto the-Congress -- for example, proposals to prohibit the\nunauthorized use of credit cards, to include mobile homes\nwithin the scope of the crime of burglary, and to make it\nunlawful to obtain telecommunication services through misrepre-\nsentations. Moreover, the D.C. Government maintains that\nenactment of such changes would not interfere at all with the\nwork of the Commission.\nThe effect of the Dent amendment in the enrolled bill is unclear.\nAs noted earlier, it was apparently intended to prohibit the\nFirearms Control Regulations Act which would ban possession of\nhandguns to anyone who does not, on the date of its enactment,\npossess a valid registration for a handgun. That measure will\nbecome effective unless Congress disapproves it within 30\nlegislative days, a period which will elapse sometime at the\nend of September. However, the Department of Justice advises,\nin its attached views letter, that the enrolled bill, in\nand of itself, would not invalidate the gun control measure.\n4\nMoreover, the effect of the bill is also uncertain in other\nrespects. First, the amendment references articles regulated\nunder Title 22 of the D.C. Criminal Code. However, it is not\nclear whether licensing of firearms would be affected by\nthe amendment because under the District of Columbia Code,\nthe licensing of firearms is carried out pursuant to authority\nfound in Title I of the D.C. Code, a provision which predates\nhome rule. Second, the amendment references \"criminal offenses.\"\nIn the District of Columbia it is not clear what constitutes a\n\"criminal offense\" since District of Columbia law, as interpreted\nby the courts, is not settled in regard to whether or not\ncriminal sanctions imposed pursuant to police powers translate\ncivil violations into criminal matters.\nWe agree with the District of Columbia recommendation that the\nbill be disapproved. It can be argued that a further extension\nof the limitation on the D.C. Council is consistent with the\noriginal intent of Congress that a thorough revision of the\nD.C. Criminal Code be completed before the D.C. Council is\nempowered to enact changes in the criminal law. However, we\nbelieve the basic issue presented by the bill is whether the\ntwo-year extension is necessary to protect the Federal interest\nin the District of Columbia and if it and the Dent amendment\nare consistent with the purpose of the Home Rule Act, namely\nthe grant to the inhabitants of the District of Columbia of\npowers of local self-government.\nIn our view, the bill is not consistent with the right of self-\ngovernment for the citizens of the District of Columbia under\nthe Home Rule Act. Extending the limitation on the D.C. Council's\nauthority to change the Criminal Code is unnecessary. Additions\nto the D.C. criminal laws are needed now to enable the District\nto meet the challenges of a changing society. Granting the\npower to the D.C. Council to legislate on local matters under\nthe Code would not interfere with the work of the Law Revision\nCommission and the Council does not require the results of the\nCommission's study to weigh the need for such legislation.\nFurther, this bill is not necessary to enable the Congress to\nprotect the Federal interest in the District of Columbia. The\nHome Rule Act gives the Congress clear authority to disapprove\nD.C. Government legislative acts. Finally, the Dent amend-\nment, as noted above, is both an unnecessary erosion of the\nhome rule concept and uncertain in its effect on other actions\nof the D.C. Government.\nA proposed veto message is attached for your consideration.\nJam Director James T. Lynn L.Rg\nEnclosures\nDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\nTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\nWALTER E. WASHINGTON\nMAYOR\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20004\nAUG 27 1976\nMr. James M. Frey\nAssistant Director for Legislative\nReference\nOffice of Management and Budget\nExecutive Office Building\nWashington, D. C. 20503\nDear Mr. Frey:\nThis is in reference to the facsimile of the enrolled\nenactment of Congress entitled:\nH.R. 12261 - To extend the period during\nwhich the Council of the District of\nColumbia is prohibited from revising the\ncriminal laws of the District\nwhich you transmitted on August 25, 1976. The enrolled\nbill would amend section 602 (a) (9) of the District of\nColumbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganiza-\ntion Act (the \"Self-Government Act\") [D.C. Code, § 1-\n147 (a) (9) ] by extending for two years. the prohibition\nagainst the Council of the District of Columbia taking\nany action \"with respect to any provision of title 23\nof the District of Columbia Code (relating to criminal\nprocedure), or with respect to any provision of any law\ncodified in title 22 or 24 of the District of Columbia\nCode (relating to crimes and treatment of prisoners) \"\nSection 602 (a) (9) currently provides that the Council\nmay exercise such authority on January 3, 1977; this\nbill would postpone the date on which the Council could\nexercise this authority to January 3, 1979. Addition-\nally, the bill, as amended during debate on the floor\nof the House of Representatives upon the adoption of\nthe \"Dent Amendment\", prohibits the Council from taking\nany action \"with respect to any criminal offense per-\ntaining to articles subject to regulation under chapter\n32 of title 22 of the District of Columbia Code\" (re-\nlating to weapons), until January 3, 1979. The bill's\nprovisions are totally inconsistent with the principal,\nstated purpose of the Self-Government Act, namely the\n\"grant to the inhabitants of the District of Columbia of\npowers of local self-government\", P.L. 93-198, § 102\n(a), 87 Stat. 777; it therefore is unacceptable.\nAn essential aspect of the right of self-government is\npresently denied to the citizens of the District, as\nthey still are denied the authority to enact criminal\nlaws and those relating to judicial procedure and\nthe treatment of prisoners. Notwithstanding that the\nproper subjects of such laws are of paramount concern\nto the inhabitants of this City, this bill seeks a\nfurther postponement of the citizen's authority to ad-\ndress these concerns, for another two years. It would\ndeny to the citizens of the District the exercise of a\nright -- through its elected officials - explicitly\ngranted to them seventy years ago, when Congress pro-\nvided:\nThe Council is hereby authorized and\nempowered to make\n...\nall such usual and\npolice regulations\n...\nas the Council may\ndeem necessary for the regulation of\nfirearms, projectiles, explosives, or\nweapons of any kind. D.C. Code, § 1-227.\nThe original purpose of the bill, as stated by Chairman\nDiggs, its author, was to give the District of Columbia\nLaw Revision Commission sufficient time within which to\nmake recommendations to the Congress for the comprehen-\nsive revision of the District of Columbia Criminal Code.\nThe Commission, which was established subsequent to the\nenactment of the Self-Government Act by P.L. 93-379,\n88 Stat. 480, has begun the task of reviewing the crim-\ninal laws of the District and has made significant\n- 2 -\nprogress. The District agrees that no major revision\nof its criminal laws should be undertaken without the\nbenefit of the Commission's recommendations, and so\ninformed the House District Committee by letter of\nJune 29, 1976. However, there are additions to the\ncriminal laws which are needed to enable the District\nto meet the challenges of a changing society. A number\nof such provisions have been proposed by the District\nto the Congress -- for example, proposals to prohibit\nthe unauthorized use of credit cards, to include mobile\nhomes within the scope of the crime of burglary, and to\nmake it unlawful to obtain telecommunication services\nthrough misrepresentation. Nonetheless, these proposals\nare still pending before the House District of Columbia\nCommittee.\nThe enactment by the Council of provisions such as the\nforegoing would not interfere with the work of the Com-\nmission. And it cannot be said that the Council requires\nthe result of the Commission's study to weigh the need\nfor such legislation. Nor can it be said that in the\nabsence of the provisions of the subject bill there would\nbe no Congressional \"oversight\" of acts of the Council\npertaining to the criminal laws: § 602 (c) (2) of the\nSelf-Government Act provides that such act of the Council\nshall take effect only if not disapproved within thirty\ndays by either the House or the Senate.\nThe discussion of the amendment on the floor demonstrates\nthat it was premised on a fundamental misunderstanding\nof the Self-Government Act. Its stated purpose is to\n\"prohibit ... Criminal Code changes by any subterfuge\nor any roundabout, off-the-street method by any depart-\nmental police regulation\". Cong. Rec. H. 8798 (Aug. 23,\n1976, daily ed.). These considerations aside, the\nimpetus for the amendment -- the passage of the Council\nof the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 -- was\nan exercise by the Council of explicit police power\nconferred on it by D.C. Code, § 1-277. Its legislation\ndoes no more than to amend similar police power\n- 3 -\nregulations adopted by the prior appointed Council, in\n1969, under the same authority. Thus, the amendment\nseeks to strip the City's elected Council of an author-\nity which Congress conferred long prior to its grant of\nhome rule, and permitted an appointed Council to exer-\ncise.\nIn conclusion, this bill would extend, for an additional\ntwo years, the period during which the people of the\nDistrict may not enact, regardless of manifest need,\nany criminal laws, nor any police regulations with res-\npect to any weapon mentioned in D.C. Code, § 22-3201,\net seq. Its provisions are inconsistent with the spirit\nof the Self-Government Act and the principle of self-\ndetermination. It does not serve any Federal interest;\nrather it is addressed to a matter which is essentially\nlocal in nature. Therefore, the District Government\nstrongly urges that H.R. 12261 be disapproved. A pro-\nposed message of disapproval is attached.\nSincerely yours,\nMayor\nStarling Duch\nSTERLING TUCKER\nChairman\nCouncil of the District of Columbia\nAttachment\n- 4 -\nB\nTab C\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nTO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES\nToday, I have signed H.R. 12261, a bill \"To extend the\nperiod during which the Council of the District of Columbia\nis prohibited from revising the criminal laws of the\nDistrict.\"\nThe prohibition on the Council's changing the Criminal Code\nis necessary because completion of the comprehensive revi-\nsion and recodification of the Criminal Code by the Congress\nis a prerequisite to the transfer of jurisdiction to the\nCouncil over the D.C. Criminal Code.\nThe bill gives the District of Columbia Law Revision\nCommission additional time within which to make recommenda-\ntions to the Congress for the comprehensive revision of\nthe District of Columbia Criminal Code. The Commission\nhas begun the task of reviewing the criminal laws of\nthe District but will not be able to complete its work by\nJanuary 3, 1977, when without this legislation, the D.C.\nCouncil would have been able to amend the District of\nColumbia Criminal Code.\nNo major revision of the District's criminal laws should\nbe undertaken without the benefit of the Commission's\nrecommendations.\nC\nIF VETARD\nTABB\nTO THE HOUSE OF' REPRESENTATIVES\nI am returning, without my approval, H.R. 12261, a bill\n\"to extend the period during which the Council of the District\nof Columbia is prohibited from revising the criminal laws of\nthe District\". This bill would extend for two years, or until\nJanuary 3, 1979, the prohibition against any action by the Council\nof the District of Columbia on any provisions of the present\nDistrict laws relating to crimes, criminal procedure, and the\ntreatment of prisoners.\nThe bill would give the District of Columbia Law\nRevision Commission additional time within which to make\nrecommendations to the Congress for the comprehensive revision\nof the District of Columbia Criminal Code. The Commission,\nwhich was established subsequent to the enactment of the District\nof Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization\nAct, has begun the task of reviewing the criminal laws of the\nDistrict but will not be able to complete its work by January\n3, 1977, when, under current law, the D.C. Council will be\nable to amend the District of Columbia Criminal Code.\nI agree that no major revision of the District's criminal\nlaws should be undertaken without the benefit of the Commission's\nrecommendations. I do not agree, however, that it is either\neven\nwise or necessary to delay further the time when the citizens\nof the District of Columbia, through their elected representative\nmay exercise the right of self-government in area that\nthis which\n(affects their daily lives.\nwill affect\nfrom taking any action \"with respect to any criminal\noffense pertaining to articles subject to regulation\nunder charter 32 of title 22 of the District of\nColumbia Code\" (relating to weapons) until January 3,\n1979.\nAlthough some confusion has arisen regarding the\nintended force and effect of H.R. 12261, I am advised\nonly\nby the Department of Justice that the measure is\napplicable in the future and is irrelevant to\nthe\nTo the enastment of then \"Firearms Control\nRegulations Act of 1975\" (act. 1-142), recently adopted\nby the District of Columbia.\nConsistent with the right to self-government\nof District citizens, I have in the past supported fully\nthe legislative powers of the District, subject only to\n2\nthe constraints imposed by the Home Rule Act itself\nor some overriding Federal interest. This operating\nprinciple properly should apply regardless of the views\nof the Executive on the merits or shortcomings of\nindividual legislative items. In the circumstances\ninvolving H.R. 12261, 2 there find is simply no indrestato justification\ninterference with this principle of self-\ndetermination.\nFor these reasons, I am returning H.R. 12261\nwithout my approval.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nSeptember\n, 1976\nD\nH. R. 12261\nMinety-fourth Congress of the United States of America\nAT THE SECOND SESSION\nBegun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, the nineteenth day of January,\none thousand nine hundred and seventy-six\nAn Act\nTo extend the period during which the Council of the District of Columbia is\nprohibited from revising the criminal laws of the District.\nBe it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the\nUnited States of America in Congress assembled, That paragraph (9)\nof section 602 (a) of the District of Columbia Self-Government and\nGovernmental Reorganization Act (D.C. Code, sec. 1-147 (a) (9)) is\namended by striking out \"twenty-four\" and inserting in lieu thereof\n\"forty-eight\", and by inserting, immediately preceding the word\n\"during\", a comma and the words \"or with respect to any criminal\noffense pertaining to articles subject to regulation under chapter 32\nof title 22 of the District of Columbia Code\".\nSpeaker of the House of Representatives.\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20503\nSEP 2 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nSubject: Enrolled Bill H.R. 12261 - District of Columbia\nCriminal Laws\nSponsor - Rep. Diggs (D) Michigan\nLast Day for Action\nSeptember 7, 1976 - Tuesday\nPurpose\nTo extend the period during which the Council of the District\nof Columbia is prohibited from revising the criminal laws of\nthe District by direct amendment of the D.C. Criminal Code or\nthrough changes in police regulations.\nAgency Recommendations\nOffice of Management and Budget\nDisapproval (Veto\nmessage attached)\nDistrict of Columbia Government\nDisapproval (Veto\nmessage attached)\nDepartment of Justice\nNo objection\nDiscussion\nThe District of Columbia Home Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973,\ndelegates to the Council of the District of Columbia the authority\nto make changes in the criminal laws of the District, but not\nuntil January 3, 1977. The Congress, in a related action, enacted\nthe District of Columbia Law Revision Commission Act, approved\nAugust 21, 1974, which established the District of Columbia Law\nRevision Commission to examine the District's laws and to recommend,\nAttached document was not scanned because it is duplicated elsewhere in the document\nTO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES\nI am returning, without my approval, H.R. 12261, a bill\n\"To extend the period during which the Council of the District\nof Columbia is prohibited from revising the criminal laws of\nthe District.\"\nThe purpose of the bill is to give the District of\nColumbia Law Revision Commission additional time, until\nJanuary 3, 1979, within which to make recommendations to the\nCongress for the comprehensive revision of the District of\nColumbia Criminal Code. The Commission, which was established\nsubsequent to the enactment of the District of Columbia Self-\nGovernment and Governmental Reorganization Act, has begun the\ntask of reviewing the criminal laws of the District but will\nnot be able to complete its work by January 3, 1977, when,\nunder current law, the D.C. Council will be able to amend\nthe District of Columbia Criminal Code.\nI agree that no major revision of the District's criminal\nlaws should be undertaken without the benefit of the Commission's\nrecommendations. I do not agree, however, that it is either\nwise or necessary to delay further the time when the citizens\nof the-District of Columbia, through their elected representa-\ntives, may exercise the right of self-goverment in an area\nthat affects their daily lives.\nThe Congress should not prohibit changes in the District\nof Columbia's criminal laws which may be needed now to meet\nthe problems of the community. A number of such changes have\nbeen proposed by the District and are pending before Congress.\nGranting the power to the District of Columbia Council to legislate\non local matters such as these would not interfere with the\nwork of the Commission. Furthermore, the Council does not require\nAttached document was not scanned because it is duplicated elsewhere in the document\nthe results of the Commission's study to weigh the need for\nsuch legislation. Nor is this bill necessary to enable the\nCongress to protect the Federal interest in the District of\nColumbia. The home rule law gives the Congress clear authority\nto disapprove District of Columbia legislative acts.\nFinally, an amendment to H.R. 12261, added on the floor\nof the House with hasty and inadequate consideration, would\nprohibit the Council from taking any action \"with respect to\nany criminal offense pertaining to articles subject to\nregulation under chapter 32 of title 22 of the District of\nColumbia Code\" (relating to weapons), until January 3, 1979.\nThis provision is objectionable on two grounds: first, like\nthe bill as a whole, it is an unnecessary erosion of the home\nrule concept; second, it is ambiguous and its potential effect\non other actions of the District of Columbia Goverment is unclear.\nFor these reasons, I am returning H.R. 12261 without my\napproval.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nSeptember\n, 1976\ntile with H.R. 12261\nMATURE of COLUMBIA\n( Our Copy - capy also pent to Central Files)\nCOUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n3:14.11 3-11\nWASHINGTON, D. C. 20004\nDAVID A.CLARKE\nRECEP. AND SECURITY UNIT\n1976 AUG 30 PM 6 55\nCouncilmember-Ward I\n30 August 1976\nSim\nBy\nThe Honorable Gerald R. Ford\nPresident of the United States\nWashington, D. C.\nDear President Ford:\nI was most pleased to learn from the House Republican\nConference Legislative Digest (August 20, 1976, Vol. V,\nNo. 281, p.4.) that the administration is opposed to H.R.\n12261, and this letter is to earnestly solicit your veto of\nthat bill now pending before you for approval or veto.\nThe issue involved in this bill is that of the degree\nof democracy to be afforded to the citizens of the National\nCapital in the governance of local affairs and not the narrow\nissue of gun control in the District of Columbia.\nH.R. 12261 was designed to extend for two years a pro-\nhibition currently in the Home Rule Act prohibiting the\nCouncil from legislating with respect to three titles of\nthe D. C. Code (22-24) in which most of the District's\ncriminal law is codified in order to allow the D. C. Law\nRevision Commission to complete its work on recommending\nchanges. I respectfully submit that H.R. 12261 violates\nfundamental principles of this country which are embodied\nin your statements with respect to the District and in the\nplatforms of both major political parties and furthermore\nis not needed to attain the goals for which it was intro-\nduced.\nIn declining to sustain the Mayor's veto of our Affirmative\nAction in District Government Employment act and in sus-\ntaining the Mayor's veto of the District of Columbia Shop-\nBook Rule act, you announced your intention to act with respect\nto matters arising from the District in such a manner as to sus-\ntain the local government except where the federal interest\nwas substantially affected or where the Home Rule Act was\nviolated, and, in accord with your policy, you let stand our\nDate\n9.1.76\nAction Copy KenLegarus\ninfo Copy\nThe Honorable Gerald R.. Ford\n30 August 1976\nPage 2\noverride of the Mayor's veto of the Affirmative Action act\ndespite your personal aversion to some parts of it. This\naction was basically consistent with the plank of your\nparty's platform which calls for \"full /District/ home rule\nover matters that are purely local\": and that plank of my\nparty's platform which calls for \"elimination of Federal\nrestrictions in matters which are purely local.\" More\nimportantly, it is consistent with the fundamental principle\nof democracy upon which our country was founded. I urge you\nto extend your policy regarding the District to bills\noriginating in Congress as well as to bills coming to you\nfrom City Hall.\nIn no area is local dominion more clearly proper than\nthat of the criminal law. The federal government has\nreligiously avoided involving itself with the definition and\nenforcement of local laws to the extent that it has consistently\nrefused to commission a national police force even for the en-\nforcement of its own relatively few criminal laws. Instead,\nit has chosen to address crime through assistance to local\njurisdictions. Thus there is no substantial federal interest\nin the matter of local criminal legislation. Indeed this\nis conceded by the bill itself which recognizes that such\nauthority will come at some time.\nMoreover, the bill is not necessary to the revision of\nthe criminal code. Our Law Revision Commission is working\nhard on its recommendations and the local government has\nexpeditiously assisted it with all that it has requested.\nThe delay has been in the time Congress took to enact the Law\nRevision Commission Act (eight months after the passage of\nthe Home Rule Act) and the time Congress took in approving\nthe Commission's original budget. The Commission Act gave\nthe Commission four years from the date of first appropriation\nto complete its work. Moreover, the Council is anxious to\nreceive the Commission's product, and, given its relative\nimportance in the Council's universe of concern as opposed\nto its importance in the Congress' far wider universe, it\nis more likely to receive expeditious and careful attention\nin the Council than if it goes directly to Congress. The\nCongress will of course retain its powers of disapproval and\noriginal legislation if you veto the instant bill so that\nthere will continue to exist more-than-adequate procedures\nto protect any federal interest.\nThe Honorable Gerald R. Ford\nAugust 30, 1976\nPage 3\nOver half of the city's Advisory Neighborhood Commissions\nhave voted to oppose H.R. 12261 and none have voted to sup-\nport it. Moreover the Steering Committee of the Division of\nthe Unified Bar of the District of Columbia relating to courts,\nlawyers, and administration of justice has recommended opposi-\ntion to the bill.\nI would also like to discuss what the bill is not. It is\nnot a gun-control bill nor an anti-gun-control bill. When it\ncame before the House, Congressman Dent moved an amendment to\nprohibit local legislation with respect to articles governed\nby one chapter of one of the prohibited titles some of which\ninclude rifles and pistols. (Others include machine guns,\nsawed-off shotguns, razors, switchblade knives, bowie knives,\nand false knuckles.) In his presentation, Congressman Dent\nindicated a concern with the Police Department doing what the\nCouncil cannot do and with the recent local passage of the\nFirearms Control Regulation act of 1975 (122 Cong. Rec. H 8797-\nH 8800) (August 23, 1976). He apparently felt that the Police\nDepartment promulgated the Police Regulations of the District\nof Columbia which is not the case, as the Council promulgates\nthese regulations pursuant to authority dating back to at\nleast 1887 (See D. C. Code, secs. 1-224-1-227. Please note\nthat 1-227, adopted in 1906 and not repealed or expressly\namended by H.R. 12261, specifically authorizes the \"regulation\nof firearms, projectiles, explosives, or weapons of any kind.\")\nMore importantly, Congressman Dent agreed with the Chairman\nof the House Committee on the District of Columbia that his\namendment would not affect the Firearms Control Regulation act\nof 1975 which so disturbed him when he said \"anything previous\nto the amendment to the act today would be in effect, if they\n/the Council7 put it into effect.\" (122 Cong. Rec. H 8800\n(August 23, 1976)) The bill therefore does nothing with\nrespect to the Firearms Control Regulation act of 1975. Un-\nfortunately, the Senate's rapid consideration left no indi-\ncation of its intent.\nThe bill should also be disapproved because of the confusion\nit has created. Apart from the statements of Congressman Dent\nand the Chairman of the House District Committee that the bill\nwould not affect the Firearms Control Regulation act of 1975,\nothers have argued that it will and some in the public may be\nled to disobedience by the confusion. If Congress wants to\ndisapprove our act, they have in the Home Rule Act a procedure\nfor doing so involving disapproval resolutions for which several\nThe Honorable Gerald R. Ford\nAugust 30, 1976\nPage 4\nproposals have been introduced. This procedure involved\nonly the Congress and not the President and should be\nemployed rather than a charter-amending bill necessitating\nyour action when the Congress does not approve of some local\nmeasure we have passed. To allow H.R. 12261 to become law\nwould be to establish a precedent--not only of enactment of\nconfusing and undemocratic legislation for the District--but\nof requiring Presidential attention to relatively minor matters\nof local concern because Congress chooses not to use the pro-\ncedures it has ordained for itself.\nSincerely,\nDavid A. Clarke\nChairperson, Committee on the\nJudiciary and Criminal Law\ncc: James M. Frey, Esq."
}