Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1669487
label
1976/09/07 HR12261 District of Columbia Criminal Laws (1)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1669487
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
1976/09/07 HR12261 District of Columbia Criminal Laws (1)
citationUrl
collections
White House Records Office: Legislation Case Files
Legislation Case Files
subjects
Washington (D.C.)
Legal matters
Legislation
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
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
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
4876caa3fc78b09b
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 54, folder "9/7/76 HR12261 District of Columbia
Criminal Laws (1)" of the White House Records Office: Legislation Case Files at the
Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Exact duplicates within this folder were not digitized.
note:
9/7
Statement being
resolved- 1 will let you
have I just as soon on
prosible
fer mr Galelford
Digitized from Box 54 of the White House Records Office Legislation Case Files
at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
APPROVED SEP7-1976
$9/7/16
ACTION
THE WHITE HOUSE
Last Day: September 7
WASHINGTON
9/7/76
September 3, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNOM Jun
archives
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill H.R. 12261 -
District of Columbia Criminal Laws
9/7/76
This is to present for your action H.R. 12261, a bill
which would amend section 602 (a) (9) of the District
of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental
Reorganization Act (the "Self-Government Act").
BERMIO R. FORD LIBRARY
BACKGROUND
The Self-Government Act provides that the City
Council of the District of Columbia will have
authority to revise the District's criminal laws
beginning January 3, 1977. H.R. 12261 would
extend Congress' sole jurisdiction over these
criminal laws for two additional years so that
the Council would not have authority to revise
the laws until January 3, 1979.
The purpose of H.R. 12261 is to give the District
of Columbia Law Revision Commission until
January 3, 1979 to make recommendations to the
Congress for the comprehensive revision of the
District's criminal laws. The Commission, which
was established subsequent to the enactment of
the Self-Government Act, has begun to review
these laws but will not complete its work by
January 3, 1977.
H.R. 12261 also contains an amendment by
Congressman Dent of Pennsylvania which was appar-
ently intended to nullify the District of Columbia's
Firearms Control Act. The Firearm's Control Act was
enacted on July 23, 1976 by the District of Columbia
to ban possession of unregistered handguns.
-2-
However, in the opinion of the Justice Department
the Dent Amendment does not nullify the Firearms
Control Act. Nevertheless, many groups which
oppose gun control maintain that H.R. 12261
invalidates the District's ban and therefore are
strongly urging its approval.
ARGUMENTS FOR APPROVAL
1. H.R. 12261 is consistent with Congress' original intent
that a thorough revision of the D.C. Criminal Code be
completed before the Council is empowered to enact
changes in the criminal law.
2. A major revision of the District's Criminal Code should
not be undertaken without the benefit of the Law
Revision Commission's recommendations.
ARGUMENTS FOR DISAPPROVAL
1. H.R. 12261 improperly restricts the right of self-
government of the citizens of the District of Columbia
under the Self-Government Act.
2. In the opinion of the Justice Department, the Dent
Amendment would not invalidate the District's Firearms
Control Act. H.R. 12261 is solely prospective in
application and consequently irrelevant to the
District's Control Act.
3. The District agrees that no major revision of its
criminal laws should be undertaken without the benefit
of the Law Revision Commission's recommendations. How-
ever, the Council should not be delayed further from
enacting urgently needed changes in the D.C. Criminal
Code.
4. If Congress disapproves of the Firearms Control Act,
it has the power to employ a one-House veto of the
Act. The exclusive method of disapproving an enact-
ment of the District is by "concurrent resolution"
within a period of 30 legislative days after final
District action.
5. H.R. 12261 does not involve a substantial Federal
interest in the District.
-3-
AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS
Office of Management and Budget
Disapproval
Department of Justice
No Objection
COMMENTS
Lynn:
"In our view, the bill is not consistent with the
right of self-government for the citizens of the
District of Columbia under the Home Rule Act.
Extending the limitation on the D.C. Council's
authority to change the Criminal Code is unneces-
sary. Additions to the D.C. criminal laws are
needed now to enable the District to meet the
challenges of a changing society. Granting the
power to the D.C. Council to legislate on local
matters under the Code would not interfere with
the work of the Law Revision Commission and the
Council does not require the results of the
Commission's study to weigh the need for such
legislation."
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Counsel's Office:
"Approval of the measure would be
Ken Lazarus
fundamentally inconsistent with
with Phil Buchen's
the President's announced posi-
concurrence
tion on his role with respect to
the legislative powers of the
District government."
Max Friedersdorf,
"Recommend approval. Both House
Assistant to the
passed by voice vote and veto
President for
would likely be overridden. John
Legislative Affairs
Rhodes strongly recommends sign-
ing because Presidential veto
would incite anti-gun control
lobbyists to oppose President.
Gun lobby perceive bill as very
favorable to them because of
Dent Amendment." "
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend approval of H.R. 12261.
The Department of Justice, the White House Counsel's Office
and the Congressional Research Service of the Library of
-4-
Congress state that the Dent Amendment would not negate the
District of Columbia's Firearms Control Act.
My recommendation is based on the fact that Congress intended
that the D.C. Criminal Code be completely revised before
the City Council be given the authority to enact changes
in the criminal law. Without this legislation, the D.C.
City Council would be able to act in a piecemeal way without
the benefit of the Law Revision Commission's recommendations.
Jim Lynn's memorandum, which includes a letter from Mayor
Walter Washington and Sterling Tucker, together with a letter
from Michael M. Uhlmann, Assistant Attorney General, is at
Tab A.
DECISIONS
1. Sign H.R. 12261 at Tab B.
Issue signing statement at Tab C.
Approve ART
Disapprove
2. Disapproval H.R. 12261 and sign veto message at Tab D.
Need
Facsimile
of The
The
PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE
UNITED
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
STATE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
SEP 2 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Subject: Enrolled Bill H.R. 12261 - District of Columbia
Criminal Laws
Sponsor - Rep. Diggs (D) Michigan
Last Day for Action
September 7, 1976 - Tuesday
Purpose
To extend the period during which the Council of the District
of Columbia is prohibited from revising the criminal laws of
the District by direct amendment of the D.C. Criminal Code or
through changes in police regulations.
Agency Recommendations
Office of Management and Budget
Disapproval (Veto
message attached)
District of Columbia Government
Disapproval (Veto
message attached)
Department of Justice
No objection
Discussion
The District of Columbia Home Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973,
delegates to the Council of the District of Columbia the authority
to make changes in the criminal laws of the District, but not
until January 3, 1977. The Congress, in a related action, enacted
the District of Columbia Law Revision Commission Act, approved
August 21, 1974, which established the District of Columbia Law
Revision Commission to examine the District's laws and to recommend,
2
in annual reports to the Congress, changes in them. The
Commission--a D.C. Government body-- did not become opera-
tional until a year later and now expects its work on the
revision of the criminal laws to be completed within the
next two years.
The enrolled bill would extend for two additional years, until
January 3, 1979, Congress' sole jurisdiction over the criminal
laws of the District for the purpose of giving the Commission
adequate time to complete its work and make its recommendations
to the Congress. The bill also contains a provision intended
to preclude the Council's amendment of police regulations in a
manner which, effectively, alters the Criminal Code. The
provision was added by amendment on the House floor by
Representative Dent of Pennsylvania, and was apparently directed
at the District of Columbia's Firearms Control Regulations Act,
approved by the Mayor on July 23, 1976, which is presently being
considered by Congress. Mr. Dent explained that he wanted to
prohibit any criminal code changes by "
any subterfuge or
any roundabout, off-the-street method by any departmental police
regulation."
The Dent amendment was passed 262 to 92 and the amended bill
was then approved by voice vote. Twenty-four hours later,
the bill was passed by the Senate without debate on a voice
vote.
In its report on the bill, the House D.C. Committee maintains
that extension of the prohibition on the Council's changing
the Criminal Code is necessary because completion of the
comprehensive revision and recodification of the District's
Criminal Code by the Congress was intended to be a prerequisite
to the transfer of jurisdiction to the Council over the D.C.
Criminal Code. The Committee report points out that the
conference report on the Home Rule Act stated:
It is the intention of the conferees that
their respective Committees will seek to
revise the District of Columbia Criminal
Code prior to the effective date of the
transfer of authority referred to. (Emphasis
added.)
3
The House D.C. Committee report further notes that the conferees
on the Home Rule Act provided for a single House veto of
Criminal Code changes that might be made by the Council once
the jurisdiction was transferred from the Congress to the
Council. The report states:
This reinforces the commitment of the Congress
to maintain exclusive jurisdiction over amend-
ments to the Criminal Code until the Law Revision
Commission has completed its study and made its
recommendations, and the Congress has acted on the
totally revised Criminal Code.
The District of Columbia Government, in its attached views
letter, agrees that a major revision of the D.C. Criminal
Code is necessary and should not be undertaken without the
benefit of the Law Revision Commission's recommendations. It
points out, however, that empowering the D.C. Council to enact
changes in the D.C. Criminal Code should not be delayed fur-
ther, because there are a number of, additions or revisions
to the criminal laws which are urgently needed.
A number of such provisions have been proposed by the District
to the Congress -- for example, proposals to prohibit the
unauthorized use of credit cards, to include mobile homes
within the scope of the crime of burglary, and to make it
unlawful to obtain telecommunication services through misrepre-
sentations. Moreover, the D.C. Government maintains that
enactment of such changes would not interfere at all with the
work of the Commission.
The effect of the Dent amendment in the enrolled bill is unclear.
As noted earlier, it was apparently intended to prohibit the
Firearms Control Regulations Act which would ban possession of
handguns to anyone who does not, on the date of its enactment,
possess a valid registration for a handgun. That measure will
become effective unless Congress disapproves it within 30
legislative days, a period which will elapse sometime at the
end of September. However, the Department of Justice advises,
in its attached views letter, that the enrolled bill, in
and of itself, would not invalidate the gun control measure.
4
Moreover, the effect of the bill is also uncertain in other
respects. First, the amendment references articles regulated
under Title 22 of the D.C. Criminal Code. However, it is not
clear whether licensing of firearms would be affected by
the amendment because under the District of Columbia Code,
the licensing of firearms is carried out pursuant to authority
found in Title I of the D.C. Code, a provision which predates
home rule. Second, the amendment references "criminal offenses."
In the District of Columbia it is not clear what constitutes a
"criminal offense" since District of Columbia law, as interpreted
by the courts, is not settled in regard to whether or not
criminal sanctions imposed pursuant to police powers translate
civil violations into criminal matters.
We agree with the District of Columbia recommendation that the
bill be disapproved. It can be argued that a further extension
of the limitation on the D.C. Council is consistent with the
original intent of Congress that a thorough revision of the
D.C. Criminal Code be completed before the D.C. Council is
empowered to enact changes in the criminal law. However, we
believe the basic issue presented by the bill is whether the
two-year extension is necessary to protect the Federal interest
in the District of Columbia and if it and the Dent amendment
are consistent with the purpose of the Home Rule Act, namely
the grant to the inhabitants of the District of Columbia of
powers of local self-government.
In our view, the bill is not consistent with the right of self-
government for the citizens of the District of Columbia under
the Home Rule Act. Extending the limitation on the D.C. Council's
authority to change the Criminal Code is unnecessary. Additions
to the D.C. criminal laws are needed now to enable the District
to meet the challenges of a changing society. Granting the
power to the D.C. Council to legislate on local matters under
the Code would not interfere with the work of the Law Revision
Commission and the Council does not require the results of the
Commission's study to weigh the need for such legislation.
Further, this bill is not necessary to enable the Congress to
protect the Federal interest in the District of Columbia. The
GERALD
Home Rule Act gives the Congress clear authority to disapprove
D.C. Government legislative acts. Finally, the Dent amend-
ment, as noted above, is both an unnecessary erosion of the
home rule concept and uncertain in its effect on other actions
of the D.C. Government.
A proposed veto message is attached for your consideration.
Jam James Director T. Lynn R.Rg
Enclosures
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WALTER E. WASHINGTON
MAYOR
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20004
AUG 27 1976
Mr. James M. Frey
Assistant Director for Legislative
Reference
Office of Management and Budget
Executive Office Building
Washington, D. C.
20503
Dear Mr. Frey:
This is in reference to the facsimile of the enrolled
enactment of Congress entitled:
H.R. 12261 - To extend the period during
which the Council of the District of
Columbia is prohibited from revising the
criminal laws of the District
which you transmitted on August 25, 1976. The enrolled
bill would amend section 602 (a) (9) of the District of
Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganiza-
tion Act (the "Self-Government Act") [D.C. Code, § 1-
147 (a) (9) ] by extending for two years the prohibition
against the Council of the District of Columbia taking
any action "with respect to any provision of title 23
of the District of Columbia Code (relating to criminal
procedure), or with respect to any provision of any law
codified in title 22 or 24 of the District of Columbia
Code (relating to crimes and treatment of prisoners) "
Section 602 (a) (9) currently provides that the Council
may exercise such authority on January 3, 1977; this
bill would postpone the date on which the Council could
exercise this authority to January 3, 1979. Addition-
ally, the bill, as amended during debate on the floor
of the House of Representatives upon the adoption of
the "Dent Amendment", prohibits the Council from taking
any action "with respect to any criminal offense per-
taining to articles subject to regulation under chapter
32 of title 22 of the District of Columbia Code" (re-
lating to weapons), until January 3, 1979. The bill's
provisions are totally inconsistent with the principal,
stated purpose of the Self-Government Act, namely the
"grant to the inhabitants of the District of Columbia of
powers of local self-government", P.L. 93-198, $ 102
(a), 87 Stat. 777; it therefore is unacceptable.
An essential aspect of the right of self-government is
presently denied to the citizens of the District, as
they still are denied the authority to enact criminal
laws and those relating to judicial procedure and
the treatment of prisoners. Notwithstanding that the
proper subjects of such laws are of paramount concern
to the inhabitants of this City, this bill seeks a
further postponement of the citizen's authority to ad-
dress these concerns, for another two years. It would
deny to the citizens of the District the exercise of a
right -- through its elected officials -- explicitly
granted to them seventy years ago, when Congress pro-
vided:
The Council is hereby authorized and
empowered to make
...
all such usual and
police regulations
...
as the Council may
deem necessary for the regulation of
firearms, projectiles, explosives, or
weapons of any kind. D.C. Code, § 1-227.
The original purpose of the bill, as stated by Chairman
Diggs, its author, was to give the District of Columbia
Law Revision Commission sufficient time within which to
make recommendations to the Congress for the comprehen-
sive revision of the District of Columbia Criminal Code.
The Commission, which was established subsequent to the
enactment of the Self-Government Act by P.L. 93-379,
88 Stat. 480, has begun the task of reviewing the crim-
inal laws of the District and has made significant
- 2 -
progress. The District agrees that no major revision
of its criminal laws should be undertaken without the
benefit of the Commission's recommendations, and so
informed the House District Committee by letter of
June 29, 1976. However, there are additions to the
criminal laws which are needed to enable the District
to meet the challenges of a changing society. A number
of such provisions have been proposed by the District
to the Congress -- for example, proposals to prohibit
the unauthorized use of credit cards, to include mobile
homes within the scope of the crime of burglary, and to
make it unlawful to obtain telecommunication services
through misrepresentation. Nonetheless, these proposals
are still pending before the House District of Columbia
Committee.
The enactment by the Council of provisions such as the
foregoing would not interfere with the work of the Com-
mission. And it cannot be said that the Council requires
the result of the Commission's study to weigh the need
for such legislation. Nor can it be said that in the
absence of the provisions of the subject bill there would
be no Congressional "oversight" of acts of the Council
pertaining to the criminal laws: § 602 (c) (2) of the
Self-Government Act provides that such act of the Council
shall take effect only if not disapproved within thirty
days by either the House or the Senate.
The discussion of the amendment on the floor demonstrates
that it was premised on a fundamental misunderstanding
of the Self-Government Act. Its stated purpose is to
"prohibit
... Criminal Code changes by any subterfuge
or any roundabout, off-the-street method by any depart-
mental police regulation". Cong. Rec. H. 8798 (Aug. 23,
1976, daily ed.). These considerations aside, the
impetus for the amendment -- the passage of the Council
of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 -- was
an exercise by the Council of explicit police power
conferred on it by D.C. Code, § 1-277. Its legislation
does no more than to amend similar police power
DEPALD
- 3 -
regulations adopted by the prior appointed Council, in
1969, under the same authority. Thus, the amendment
seeks to strip the City's elected Council of an author-
ity which Congress conferred long prior to its grant of
home rule, and permitted an appointed Council to exer-
cise.
In conclusion, this bill would extend, for an additional
two years, the period during which the people of the
District may not enact, regardless of manifest need,
any criminal laws, nor any police regulations with res-
pect to any weapon mentioned in D.C. Code, § 22-3201,
et seq. Its provisions are inconsistent with the spirit
of the Self-Government Act and the principle of self-
determination. It does not serve any Federal interest;
rather it is addressed to a matter which is essentially
local in nature. Therefore, the District Government
strongly urges that H.R. 12261 be disapproved. A pro-
posed message of disapproval is attached.
Sincerely yours,
WALTER E. WASHINGTON
Mayor
Starling Duch
STERLING TUCKER
Chairman
Council of the District of Columbia
Attachment
- 4 -
9/7/76
FOR THE RECORD:
This is the final version of the statement as given
to the Records Office at 1 pm today.
A copy of this statement together with the stencil
which accompanied it was givento Thym Smith of the
Press Office for release.
It is to be released at 3:30 pm today.
Tom Jones
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Today, I have signed H.R. 12261, a bill "To extend
the period during which the Council of the District of
Columbia is prohibited from revising the criminal laws of
the District."
The prohibition on the Council's changing the Criminal
Code is necessary because completion of the study for the
comprehensive revision and recodification of the Criminal
Code by the D.C. Law Revision Commission is a prerequisite
to the transfer of jurisdiction to the Council over the D.C.
Criminal Code.
The bill gives the Commission additional time within
which to make recommendations to the Congress for the
comprehensive revision of the District of Columbia Criminal
Code. The Commission has begun the task of reviewing the
criminal laws of the District but will not be able to
complete its work by January 3, 1977, when without this
legislation, the D.C. Council would have been able to amend
the District of Columbia Criminal Code.
No major revision of the District's criminal laws
should be undertaken without the benefit of the Commission's
recommendations.
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Today, I have signed H.R. 12261, a bill "To extend
the period during which the Council of the District of
Columbia is prohibited from revising the criminal laws of
the District."
The prohibition on the Council's changing the
Criminal Code is necessary because completion of the study the
comprehensive revision and recodification of the Criminal
Code by the Congress how is a prerequisite to the transfer of
Revian
Commin
jurisdiction to the Council over the D.C. Criminal Code.
The bill gives the District of Columbia Law Revision
Commission additional time within which to make recommenda-
tions to the Congress for the comprehensive revision of
the District of Columbia Criminal Code. The Commission
has begun the task of reviewing the criminal laws of the
District but will not be able to complete its work by
January 3, 1977, when without this legislation, the D.C.
Council would have been able to amend the District of
Columbia Criminal Code.
No major revision of the District's criminal laws
should be undertaken without the benefit of the Commission's
recommendations.
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Today, I have signed H.R. 12261, a bill "To extend
the period during which the Council of the District of
Columbia is prohibited from revising the criminal laws of
the District."
The prohibition on the Council's changing the Criminal
Code is necessary because completion of the study for the
comprehensive revision and recodification of the Criminal
Code by the D.C. Law Revision Commission is a prerequisite
to the transfer of jurisdiction to the Council over the D.C.
Criminal Code.
The bill gives the Commission additional time within
which to make recommendations to the Congress for the
comprehensive revision of the District of Columbia Criminal
Code. The Commission has begun the task of reviewing the
criminal laws of the District but will not be able to
complete its work by January 3, 1977, when without this
legislation, the D.C. Council would have been able to amend
the District of Columbia Criminal Code.
No major revision of the District's criminal laws
should be undertaken without the benefit of the Commission's
recommendations.
2
Although some confusion has arisen regarding the
intended force and effect of H.R. 12261, I am advised
by the Department of Justice that the measure is only
applicable in the future and is thus irrelevant to the
"Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975" (act. 1-142),
recently adopted by the District of Columbia.
Consistent with the right to self-government of
District citizens, I have in the past supported fully
the legislative powers of the District, subject only to
the constraints imposed by the Home Rule Act itself or
some overriding Federal interest. This operating prin-
ciple properly should apply regardless of the views of
the Executive on the merits or shortcomings of individual
legislative items. In the circumstances involving
H.R. 12261, I find no justification for interference with
this principle of self-determination.
For these reasons, I am returning H.R. 12261 without
my approval.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
I am returning, without my approval, H.R. 12261, a
bill "to extend the period during which the Council of the
District of Columbia is prohibited from revising the
criminal laws of the District". This bill would extend
for two years, or until January 3, 1979, the prohibition
against any action by the Council of the District of Columbia
on provisions of the present District laws relating to
crimes, criminal procedure, and the treatment of prisoners.
The bill would give the District of Columbia Law
Revision Commission additional time within which to make
recommendations to the Congress for the comprehensive
revision of the District of Columbia Criminal Code. The
Commission, which was established subsequent to the enact-
ment of the District of Columbia Self-Government and
Governmental Reorganization Act, has begun the task of
reviewing the criminal laws of the District but will not
be able to complete its work by January 3, 1977, when,
under current law, the D.C. Council will be able to amend
the District of Columbia Criminal Code.
I agree that no major revision of the District's
criminal laws should be undertaken without the benefit of
the Commission's recommendations. I do not agree, however,
that it is either wise or necessary to delay even further
the time when the citizens of the District of Columbia,
through their elected representatives, may exercise the
right of self-government in this vital area which will
affect their daily lives.
The bill would also prohibit the Council from taking
any action "with respect to any criminal offense pertaining
to articles subject to regulation under chapter 32 of
title 22 of the District of Columbia Code" (relating to
weapons) until January 3, 1979.
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Today, I have signed H.R. 12261, a bill "To extend
the period during which the Council of the District of
Columbia is prohibited from revising the criminal laws of
the District."
The prohibition on the Council's changing the
Criminal Code is necessary because completion of the
comprehensive revision and recodification of the Criminal
Code by the Congress how is a prerequisite to the transfer of
D.C.
Revian
Common
jurisdiction to the Council over the D.C. Criminal Code.
The bill gives the District of Columbia Law Revision
Commission additional time within which to make recommenda-
tions to the Congress for the comprehensive revision of
the District of Columbia Criminal Code. The Commission
has begun the task of reviewing the criminal laws of the
District but will not be able to complete its work by
January 3, 1977, when without this legislation, the D.C.
Council would have been able to amend the District of
Columbia Criminal Code.
No major revision of the District's criminal laws
should be undertaken without the benefit of the Commission's
recommendations.
Tab C
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
TO THE HOUSE OF REP RESENTATIVES
Today, I have signed H.R. 12261, a bill "To extend the
period during which the Council of the District of Columbia
is prohibited from revising the criminal laws of the
District."
The prohibition on the Council's changing the Criminal Code
is necessary because completion of the comprehensive revi-
sion and recodification of the Criminal Code by the Congress
is a prerequisite to the transfer of jurisdiction to the
Council over the D.C. Criminal Code.
The bill gives the District of Columbia Law Revision
Commission additional time within which to make recommenda-
tions to the Congress for the comprehensive revision of
the District of Columbia Criminal Code. The Commission
has begun the task of reviewing the criminal laws of
the District but will not be able to complete its work by
January 3, 1977, when without this legislation, the D.C.
Council would have been able to amend the District of
Columbia Criminal Code.
No major revision of the District's criminal laws should
be undertaken without the benefit of the Commission's
recommendations.
ACTION
THE WHITE HOUSE
Last Day: September 7
WASHINGTON
September 3, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR: THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNOM Jun
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill H.R. 12261 -
District of Columbia Criminal Laws
This is to present for your action H.R. 12261, a bill
which would amend section 602 (a) (9) of the District
of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental
Reorganization Act (the "Self-Government Act").
BACKGROUND
The Self-Government Act provides that the City
Council of the District of Columbia will have
authority to revise the District's criminal laws
beginning January 3, 1977. H.R. 12261 would
extend Congress' sole jurisdiction over these
criminal laws for two additional years so that
the Council would not have authority to revise
the laws until January 3, 1979.
The purpose of H.R. 12261 is to give the District
of Columbia Law Revision Commission until
January 3, 1979 to make recommendations to the
Congress for the comprehensive revision of the
District's criminal laws. The Commission, which
was established subsequent to the enactment of
the Self-Government Act, has begun to review
these laws but will not complete its work by
January 3, 1977.
H.R. 12261 also contains an amendment by
Congressman Dent of Pennsylvania which was appar-
ently intended to nullify the District of Columbia's
Firearms Control Act. The Firearm's Control Act was
enacted on July 23, 1976 by the District of Columbia
to ban possession of unregistered handguns.
-2-
However, in the opinion of the Justice Department
the Dent Amendment does not nullify the Firearms
Control Act. Nevertheless, many groups which
oppose gun control maintain that H.R. 12261
invalidates the District's ban and therefore are
strongly urging its approval.
ARGUMENTS FOR APPROVAL
1. H.R. 12261 is consistent with Congress' original intent
that a thorough revision of the D.C. Criminal Code be
completed before the Council is empowered to enact
changes in the criminal law.
2. A major revision of the District's Criminal Code should
not be undertaken without the benefit of the Law
Revision Commission's recommendations.
ARGUMENTS FOR DISAPPROVAL
1. H.R. 12261 improperly restricts the right of self-
government of the citizens of the District of Columbia
under the Self-Government Act.
2. In the opinion of the Justice Department, the Dent
"Amendment would not invalidate the District's Firearms
Control Act. H.R. 12261 is solely prospective in
application and consequently irrelevant to the
District's Control Act.
3. The District agrees that no major revision of its
criminal laws should be undertaken without the benefit
of the Law Revision Commission's recommendations. How-
ever, the Council should not be delayed further from
enacting urgently needed changes in the D.C. Criminal
Code.
4.
If Congress disapproves of the Firearms Control Act,
it has the power to employ a one-House veto of the
Act. The exclusive method of disapproving an enact-
ment of the District is by "concurrent resolution"
within a period of 30 legislative days after final
District action.
5. H.R. 12261 does not involve a substantial Federal
interest in the District.
-3-
AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS
Office of Management and Budget
Disapproval
Department of Justice
No Objection
COMMENTS
Lynn:
"In our view, the bill is not consistent with the
right of self-government for the citizens of the
District of Columbia under the Home Rule Act.
Extending the limitation on the D.C. Council's
authority to change the Criminal Code is unneces-
sary. Additions to the D.C. criminal laws are
needed now to enable the District to meet the
challenges of a changing society. Granting the
power to the D.C. Council to legislate on local
matters under the Code would not interfere with
the work of the Law Revision Commission and the
Council does not require the results of the
Commission's study to weigh the need for such
legislation.'
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Counsel's Office:
"Approval of the measure would be
Ken Lazarus
fundamentally inconsistent with
with Phil Buchen's
the President's announced posi-
concurrence
tion on his role with respect to
the legislative powers of the
District government."
Max Friedersdorf,
"Recommend approval. Both House
Assistant to the
passed by voice vote and veto
President for
would likely be overridden. John
Legislative Affairs
Rhodes strongly recommends sign-
ing because Presidential veto
would incite anti-gun control
lobbyists to oppose President.
Gun lobby perceive bill as very
favorable to them because of
Dent Amendment."
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend approval of H.R. 12261.
The Department of Justice, the White House Counsel's Office
and the Congressional Research Service of the Library of
-4-
Congress state that the Dent Amendment would not negate the
District of Columbia's Firearms Control Act.
My recommendation is based on the fact that Congress intended
that the D.C. Criminal Code be completely revised before
the City Council be given the authority to enact changes in
the criminal law. Without this legislation, the D.C. City
Council would be able to act in a piecemeal way without
the benefit of the Law Revision Commission's recommendations.
Jim Lynn's memorandum, which includes a letter from Mayor
Walter Washington and Sterling Tucker, together with a letter
from Michale M. Uhlmann, Assistant Attorney General, is at
Tab A. A SF 15018551 is attached at Tab B,
disapproval at Tab C. The enrolled bill is attached at Tab D.
Veto Message
DECISION
1.
Approve H.R. 12261.
2.
Disapprove and issue memorandum of
disapproval.
-
A
THE UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
THE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
SEP 2 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Subject: Enrolled Bill H.R. 12261 - District of Columbia
Criminal Laws
Sponsor - Rep. Diggs (D) Michigan
Last Day for Action
September 7, 1976 - Tuesday
Purpose
To extend the period during which the Council of the District
of Columbia is prohibited from revising the criminal laws of
the District by direct amendment of the D.C. Criminal Code or
through changes in police regulations.
Agency Recommendations
Office of Management and Budget
Disapproval (Veto
message attached)
District of Columbia Government
Disapproval (Veto
message attached)
Department of Justice
No objection
Discussion
The District of Columbia Home Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973,
delegates to the Council of the District of Columbia the authority
to make changes in the criminal laws of the District, but not
until January 3, 1977. The Congress, in a related action, enacted
the District of Columbia Law Revision Commission Act, approved
August 21, 1974, which established the District of Columbia Law
Revision Commission to examine the District's laws and to recommend,
2
in annual reports to the Congress, changes in them. The
Commission--a D.C. Government body-- did not become opera-
tional until a year later and now expects its work on the
revision of the criminal laws to be completed within the
next two years.
The enrolled bill would extend for two additional years, until
January 3, 1979, Congress' sole jurisdiction over the criminal
laws of the District for the purpose of giving the Commission
adequate time to complete its work and make its recommendations
to the Congress. The bill also contains a provision intended
to preclude the Council's amendment of police regulations in a
manner which, effectively, alters the Criminal Code. The
provision was added by amendment on the House floor by
Representative Dent of Pennsylvania, and was apparently directed
at the District of Columbia's Firearms Control Regulations Act,
approved by the Mayor on July 23, 1976, which is presently being
considered by Congress. Mr. Dent explained that he wanted to
prohibit any criminal code changes by
any subterfuge or
any roundabout, off-the-street method by any departmental police
regulation."
The Dent amendment was passed 262 to 92 and the amended bill
was then approved by voice vote. Twenty-four hours later,
the bill was passed by the Senate without debate on a voice
vote.
In its report on the bill, the House D.C. Committee maintains
that extension of the prohibition on the Council's changing
the Criminal Code is necessary because completion of the
comprehensive revision and recodification of the District's
Criminal Code by the Congress was intended to be a prerequisite
to the transfer of jurisdiction to the Council over the D.C.
Criminal Code. The Committee report points out that the
conference report on the Home Rule Act stated:
It is the intention of the conferees that
their respective Committees will seek to
revise the District of Columbia Criminal
Code prior to the effective date of the
transfer of authority referred to. (Emphasis
added.)
3
The House D.C. Committee report further notes that the conferees
on the Home Rule Act provided for a single House veto of
Criminal Code changes that might be made by the Council once
the jurisdiction was transferred from the Congress to the
Council. The report states:
This reinforces the commitment of the Congress
to maintain exclusive jurisdiction over amend-
ments to the Criminal Code until the Law Revision
Commission has completed its study and made its
recommendations, and the Congress has acted on the
totally revised Criminal Code.
The District of Columbia Government, in its attached views
letter, agrees that a major revision of the D.C. Criminal
Code is necessary and should not be undertaken without the
benefit of the Law Revision Commission's recommendations. It
points out, however, that empowering the D.C. Council to enact
changes in the D.C. Criminal Code should not be delayed fur-
ther, because there are a number of, additions or revisions
to the criminal laws which are urgently needed.
A number of such provisions have been proposed by the District
to the-Congress -- for example, proposals to prohibit the
unauthorized use of credit cards, to include mobile homes
within the scope of the crime of burglary, and to make it
unlawful to obtain telecommunication services through misrepre-
sentations. Moreover, the D.C. Government maintains that
enactment of such changes would not interfere at all with the
work of the Commission.
The effect of the Dent amendment in the enrolled bill is unclear.
As noted earlier, it was apparently intended to prohibit the
Firearms Control Regulations Act which would ban possession of
handguns to anyone who does not, on the date of its enactment,
possess a valid registration for a handgun. That measure will
become effective unless Congress disapproves it within 30
legislative days, a period which will elapse sometime at the
end of September. However, the Department of Justice advises,
in its attached views letter, that the enrolled bill, in
and of itself, would not invalidate the gun control measure.
4
Moreover, the effect of the bill is also uncertain in other
respects. First, the amendment references articles regulated
under Title 22 of the D.C. Criminal Code. However, it is not
clear whether licensing of firearms would be affected by
the amendment because under the District of Columbia Code,
the licensing of firearms is carried out pursuant to authority
found in Title I of the D.C. Code, a provision which predates
home rule. Second, the amendment references "criminal offenses."
In the District of Columbia it is not clear what constitutes a
"criminal offense" since District of Columbia law, as interpreted
by the courts, is not settled in regard to whether or not
criminal sanctions imposed pursuant to police powers translate
civil violations into criminal matters.
We agree with the District of Columbia recommendation that the
bill be disapproved. It can be argued that a further extension
of the limitation on the D.C. Council is consistent with the
original intent of Congress that a thorough revision of the
D.C. Criminal Code be completed before the D.C. Council is
empowered to enact changes in the criminal law. However, we
believe the basic issue presented by the bill is whether the
two-year extension is necessary to protect the Federal interest
in the District of Columbia and if it and the Dent amendment
are consistent with the purpose of the Home Rule Act, namely
the grant to the inhabitants of the District of Columbia of
powers of local self-government.
In our view, the bill is not consistent with the right of self-
government for the citizens of the District of Columbia under
the Home Rule Act. Extending the limitation on the D.C. Council's
authority to change the Criminal Code is unnecessary. Additions
to the D.C. criminal laws are needed now to enable the District
to meet the challenges of a changing society. Granting the
power to the D.C. Council to legislate on local matters under
the Code would not interfere with the work of the Law Revision
Commission and the Council does not require the results of the
Commission's study to weigh the need for such legislation.
Further, this bill is not necessary to enable the Congress to
protect the Federal interest in the District of Columbia. The
Home Rule Act gives the Congress clear authority to disapprove
D.C. Government legislative acts. Finally, the Dent amend-
ment, as noted above, is both an unnecessary erosion of the
home rule concept and uncertain in its effect on other actions
of the D.C. Government.
A proposed veto message is attached for your consideration.
Jam Director James T. Lynn L.Rg
Enclosures
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WALTER E. WASHINGTON
MAYOR
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004
AUG 27 1976
Mr. James M. Frey
Assistant Director for Legislative
Reference
Office of Management and Budget
Executive Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20503
Dear Mr. Frey:
This is in reference to the facsimile of the enrolled
enactment of Congress entitled:
H.R. 12261 - To extend the period during
which the Council of the District of
Columbia is prohibited from revising the
criminal laws of the District
which you transmitted on August 25, 1976. The enrolled
bill would amend section 602 (a) (9) of the District of
Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganiza-
tion Act (the "Self-Government Act") [D.C. Code, § 1-
147 (a) (9) ] by extending for two years. the prohibition
against the Council of the District of Columbia taking
any action "with respect to any provision of title 23
of the District of Columbia Code (relating to criminal
procedure), or with respect to any provision of any law
codified in title 22 or 24 of the District of Columbia
Code (relating to crimes and treatment of prisoners) "
Section 602 (a) (9) currently provides that the Council
may exercise such authority on January 3, 1977; this
bill would postpone the date on which the Council could
exercise this authority to January 3, 1979. Addition-
ally, the bill, as amended during debate on the floor
of the House of Representatives upon the adoption of
the "Dent Amendment", prohibits the Council from taking
any action "with respect to any criminal offense per-
taining to articles subject to regulation under chapter
32 of title 22 of the District of Columbia Code" (re-
lating to weapons), until January 3, 1979. The bill's
provisions are totally inconsistent with the principal,
stated purpose of the Self-Government Act, namely the
"grant to the inhabitants of the District of Columbia of
powers of local self-government", P.L. 93-198, § 102
(a), 87 Stat. 777; it therefore is unacceptable.
An essential aspect of the right of self-government is
presently denied to the citizens of the District, as
they still are denied the authority to enact criminal
laws and those relating to judicial procedure and
the treatment of prisoners. Notwithstanding that the
proper subjects of such laws are of paramount concern
to the inhabitants of this City, this bill seeks a
further postponement of the citizen's authority to ad-
dress these concerns, for another two years. It would
deny to the citizens of the District the exercise of a
right -- through its elected officials - explicitly
granted to them seventy years ago, when Congress pro-
vided:
The Council is hereby authorized and
empowered to make
...
all such usual and
police regulations
...
as the Council may
deem necessary for the regulation of
firearms, projectiles, explosives, or
weapons of any kind. D.C. Code, § 1-227.
The original purpose of the bill, as stated by Chairman
Diggs, its author, was to give the District of Columbia
Law Revision Commission sufficient time within which to
make recommendations to the Congress for the comprehen-
sive revision of the District of Columbia Criminal Code.
The Commission, which was established subsequent to the
enactment of the Self-Government Act by P.L. 93-379,
88 Stat. 480, has begun the task of reviewing the crim-
inal laws of the District and has made significant
- 2 -
progress. The District agrees that no major revision
of its criminal laws should be undertaken without the
benefit of the Commission's recommendations, and so
informed the House District Committee by letter of
June 29, 1976. However, there are additions to the
criminal laws which are needed to enable the District
to meet the challenges of a changing society. A number
of such provisions have been proposed by the District
to the Congress -- for example, proposals to prohibit
the unauthorized use of credit cards, to include mobile
homes within the scope of the crime of burglary, and to
make it unlawful to obtain telecommunication services
through misrepresentation. Nonetheless, these proposals
are still pending before the House District of Columbia
Committee.
The enactment by the Council of provisions such as the
foregoing would not interfere with the work of the Com-
mission. And it cannot be said that the Council requires
the result of the Commission's study to weigh the need
for such legislation. Nor can it be said that in the
absence of the provisions of the subject bill there would
be no Congressional "oversight" of acts of the Council
pertaining to the criminal laws: § 602 (c) (2) of the
Self-Government Act provides that such act of the Council
shall take effect only if not disapproved within thirty
days by either the House or the Senate.
The discussion of the amendment on the floor demonstrates
that it was premised on a fundamental misunderstanding
of the Self-Government Act. Its stated purpose is to
"prohibit ... Criminal Code changes by any subterfuge
or any roundabout, off-the-street method by any depart-
mental police regulation". Cong. Rec. H. 8798 (Aug. 23,
1976, daily ed.). These considerations aside, the
impetus for the amendment -- the passage of the Council
of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 -- was
an exercise by the Council of explicit police power
conferred on it by D.C. Code, § 1-277. Its legislation
does no more than to amend similar police power
- 3 -
regulations adopted by the prior appointed Council, in
1969, under the same authority. Thus, the amendment
seeks to strip the City's elected Council of an author-
ity which Congress conferred long prior to its grant of
home rule, and permitted an appointed Council to exer-
cise.
In conclusion, this bill would extend, for an additional
two years, the period during which the people of the
District may not enact, regardless of manifest need,
any criminal laws, nor any police regulations with res-
pect to any weapon mentioned in D.C. Code, § 22-3201,
et seq. Its provisions are inconsistent with the spirit
of the Self-Government Act and the principle of self-
determination. It does not serve any Federal interest;
rather it is addressed to a matter which is essentially
local in nature. Therefore, the District Government
strongly urges that H.R. 12261 be disapproved. A pro-
posed message of disapproval is attached.
Sincerely yours,
Mayor
Starling Duch
STERLING TUCKER
Chairman
Council of the District of Columbia
Attachment
- 4 -
B
Tab C
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Today, I have signed H.R. 12261, a bill "To extend the
period during which the Council of the District of Columbia
is prohibited from revising the criminal laws of the
District."
The prohibition on the Council's changing the Criminal Code
is necessary because completion of the comprehensive revi-
sion and recodification of the Criminal Code by the Congress
is a prerequisite to the transfer of jurisdiction to the
Council over the D.C. Criminal Code.
The bill gives the District of Columbia Law Revision
Commission additional time within which to make recommenda-
tions to the Congress for the comprehensive revision of
the District of Columbia Criminal Code. The Commission
has begun the task of reviewing the criminal laws of
the District but will not be able to complete its work by
January 3, 1977, when without this legislation, the D.C.
Council would have been able to amend the District of
Columbia Criminal Code.
No major revision of the District's criminal laws should
be undertaken without the benefit of the Commission's
recommendations.
C
IF VETARD
TABB
TO THE HOUSE OF' REPRESENTATIVES
I am returning, without my approval, H.R. 12261, a bill
"to extend the period during which the Council of the District
of Columbia is prohibited from revising the criminal laws of
the District". This bill would extend for two years, or until
January 3, 1979, the prohibition against any action by the Council
of the District of Columbia on any provisions of the present
District laws relating to crimes, criminal procedure, and the
treatment of prisoners.
The bill would give the District of Columbia Law
Revision Commission additional time within which to make
recommendations to the Congress for the comprehensive revision
of the District of Columbia Criminal Code. The Commission,
which was established subsequent to the enactment of the District
of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization
Act, has begun the task of reviewing the criminal laws of the
District but will not be able to complete its work by January
3, 1977, when, under current law, the D.C. Council will be
able to amend the District of Columbia Criminal Code.
I agree that no major revision of the District's criminal
laws should be undertaken without the benefit of the Commission's
recommendations. I do not agree, however, that it is either
even
wise or necessary to delay further the time when the citizens
of the District of Columbia, through their elected representative
may exercise the right of self-government in area that
this which
(affects their daily lives.
will affect
from taking any action "with respect to any criminal
offense pertaining to articles subject to regulation
under charter 32 of title 22 of the District of
Columbia Code" (relating to weapons) until January 3,
1979.
Although some confusion has arisen regarding the
intended force and effect of H.R. 12261, I am advised
only
by the Department of Justice that the measure is
applicable in the future and is irrelevant to
the
To the enastment of then "Firearms Control
Regulations Act of 1975" (act. 1-142), recently adopted
by the District of Columbia.
Consistent with the right to self-government
of District citizens, I have in the past supported fully
the legislative powers of the District, subject only to
2
the constraints imposed by the Home Rule Act itself
or some overriding Federal interest. This operating
principle properly should apply regardless of the views
of the Executive on the merits or shortcomings of
individual legislative items. In the circumstances
involving H.R. 12261, 2 there find is simply no indrestato justification
interference with this principle of self-
determination.
For these reasons, I am returning H.R. 12261
without my approval.
THE WHITE HOUSE
September
, 1976
D
H. R. 12261
Minety-fourth Congress of the United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, the nineteenth day of January,
one thousand nine hundred and seventy-six
An Act
To extend the period during which the Council of the District of Columbia is
prohibited from revising the criminal laws of the District.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That paragraph (9)
of section 602 (a) of the District of Columbia Self-Government and
Governmental Reorganization Act (D.C. Code, sec. 1-147 (a) (9)) is
amended by striking out "twenty-four" and inserting in lieu thereof
"forty-eight", and by inserting, immediately preceding the word
"during", a comma and the words "or with respect to any criminal
offense pertaining to articles subject to regulation under chapter 32
of title 22 of the District of Columbia Code".
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
SEP 2 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Subject: Enrolled Bill H.R. 12261 - District of Columbia
Criminal Laws
Sponsor - Rep. Diggs (D) Michigan
Last Day for Action
September 7, 1976 - Tuesday
Purpose
To extend the period during which the Council of the District
of Columbia is prohibited from revising the criminal laws of
the District by direct amendment of the D.C. Criminal Code or
through changes in police regulations.
Agency Recommendations
Office of Management and Budget
Disapproval (Veto
message attached)
District of Columbia Government
Disapproval (Veto
message attached)
Department of Justice
No objection
Discussion
The District of Columbia Home Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973,
delegates to the Council of the District of Columbia the authority
to make changes in the criminal laws of the District, but not
until January 3, 1977. The Congress, in a related action, enacted
the District of Columbia Law Revision Commission Act, approved
August 21, 1974, which established the District of Columbia Law
Revision Commission to examine the District's laws and to recommend,
Attached document was not scanned because it is duplicated elsewhere in the document
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
I am returning, without my approval, H.R. 12261, a bill
"To extend the period during which the Council of the District
of Columbia is prohibited from revising the criminal laws of
the District."
The purpose of the bill is to give the District of
Columbia Law Revision Commission additional time, until
January 3, 1979, within which to make recommendations to the
Congress for the comprehensive revision of the District of
Columbia Criminal Code. The Commission, which was established
subsequent to the enactment of the District of Columbia Self-
Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, has begun the
task of reviewing the criminal laws of the District but will
not be able to complete its work by January 3, 1977, when,
under current law, the D.C. Council will be able to amend
the District of Columbia Criminal Code.
I agree that no major revision of the District's criminal
laws should be undertaken without the benefit of the Commission's
recommendations. I do not agree, however, that it is either
wise or necessary to delay further the time when the citizens
of the-District of Columbia, through their elected representa-
tives, may exercise the right of self-goverment in an area
that affects their daily lives.
The Congress should not prohibit changes in the District
of Columbia's criminal laws which may be needed now to meet
the problems of the community. A number of such changes have
been proposed by the District and are pending before Congress.
Granting the power to the District of Columbia Council to legislate
on local matters such as these would not interfere with the
work of the Commission. Furthermore, the Council does not require
Attached document was not scanned because it is duplicated elsewhere in the document
the results of the Commission's study to weigh the need for
such legislation. Nor is this bill necessary to enable the
Congress to protect the Federal interest in the District of
Columbia. The home rule law gives the Congress clear authority
to disapprove District of Columbia legislative acts.
Finally, an amendment to H.R. 12261, added on the floor
of the House with hasty and inadequate consideration, would
prohibit the Council from taking any action "with respect to
any criminal offense pertaining to articles subject to
regulation under chapter 32 of title 22 of the District of
Columbia Code" (relating to weapons), until January 3, 1979.
This provision is objectionable on two grounds: first, like
the bill as a whole, it is an unnecessary erosion of the home
rule concept; second, it is ambiguous and its potential effect
on other actions of the District of Columbia Goverment is unclear.
For these reasons, I am returning H.R. 12261 without my
approval.
THE WHITE HOUSE
September
, 1976
tile with H.R. 12261
MATURE of COLUMBIA
( Our Copy - capy also pent to Central Files)
COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
3:14.11 3-11
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20004
DAVID A.CLARKE
RECEP. AND SECURITY UNIT
1976 AUG 30 PM 6 55
Councilmember-Ward I
30 August 1976
Sim
By
The Honorable Gerald R. Ford
President of the United States
Washington, D. C.
Dear President Ford:
I was most pleased to learn from the House Republican
Conference Legislative Digest (August 20, 1976, Vol. V,
No. 281, p.4.) that the administration is opposed to H.R.
12261, and this letter is to earnestly solicit your veto of
that bill now pending before you for approval or veto.
The issue involved in this bill is that of the degree
of democracy to be afforded to the citizens of the National
Capital in the governance of local affairs and not the narrow
issue of gun control in the District of Columbia.
H.R. 12261 was designed to extend for two years a pro-
hibition currently in the Home Rule Act prohibiting the
Council from legislating with respect to three titles of
the D. C. Code (22-24) in which most of the District's
criminal law is codified in order to allow the D. C. Law
Revision Commission to complete its work on recommending
changes. I respectfully submit that H.R. 12261 violates
fundamental principles of this country which are embodied
in your statements with respect to the District and in the
platforms of both major political parties and furthermore
is not needed to attain the goals for which it was intro-
duced.
In declining to sustain the Mayor's veto of our Affirmative
Action in District Government Employment act and in sus-
taining the Mayor's veto of the District of Columbia Shop-
Book Rule act, you announced your intention to act with respect
to matters arising from the District in such a manner as to sus-
tain the local government except where the federal interest
was substantially affected or where the Home Rule Act was
violated, and, in accord with your policy, you let stand our
Date
9.1.76
Action Copy KenLegarus
info Copy
The Honorable Gerald R.. Ford
30 August 1976
Page 2
override of the Mayor's veto of the Affirmative Action act
despite your personal aversion to some parts of it. This
action was basically consistent with the plank of your
party's platform which calls for "full /District/ home rule
over matters that are purely local": and that plank of my
party's platform which calls for "elimination of Federal
restrictions in matters which are purely local." More
importantly, it is consistent with the fundamental principle
of democracy upon which our country was founded. I urge you
to extend your policy regarding the District to bills
originating in Congress as well as to bills coming to you
from City Hall.
In no area is local dominion more clearly proper than
that of the criminal law. The federal government has
religiously avoided involving itself with the definition and
enforcement of local laws to the extent that it has consistently
refused to commission a national police force even for the en-
forcement of its own relatively few criminal laws. Instead,
it has chosen to address crime through assistance to local
jurisdictions. Thus there is no substantial federal interest
in the matter of local criminal legislation. Indeed this
is conceded by the bill itself which recognizes that such
authority will come at some time.
Moreover, the bill is not necessary to the revision of
the criminal code. Our Law Revision Commission is working
hard on its recommendations and the local government has
expeditiously assisted it with all that it has requested.
The delay has been in the time Congress took to enact the Law
Revision Commission Act (eight months after the passage of
the Home Rule Act) and the time Congress took in approving
the Commission's original budget. The Commission Act gave
the Commission four years from the date of first appropriation
to complete its work. Moreover, the Council is anxious to
receive the Commission's product, and, given its relative
importance in the Council's universe of concern as opposed
to its importance in the Congress' far wider universe, it
is more likely to receive expeditious and careful attention
in the Council than if it goes directly to Congress. The
Congress will of course retain its powers of disapproval and
original legislation if you veto the instant bill so that
there will continue to exist more-than-adequate procedures
to protect any federal interest.
The Honorable Gerald R. Ford
August 30, 1976
Page 3
Over half of the city's Advisory Neighborhood Commissions
have voted to oppose H.R. 12261 and none have voted to sup-
port it. Moreover the Steering Committee of the Division of
the Unified Bar of the District of Columbia relating to courts,
lawyers, and administration of justice has recommended opposi-
tion to the bill.
I would also like to discuss what the bill is not. It is
not a gun-control bill nor an anti-gun-control bill. When it
came before the House, Congressman Dent moved an amendment to
prohibit local legislation with respect to articles governed
by one chapter of one of the prohibited titles some of which
include rifles and pistols. (Others include machine guns,
sawed-off shotguns, razors, switchblade knives, bowie knives,
and false knuckles.) In his presentation, Congressman Dent
indicated a concern with the Police Department doing what the
Council cannot do and with the recent local passage of the
Firearms Control Regulation act of 1975 (122 Cong. Rec. H 8797-
H 8800) (August 23, 1976). He apparently felt that the Police
Department promulgated the Police Regulations of the District
of Columbia which is not the case, as the Council promulgates
these regulations pursuant to authority dating back to at
least 1887 (See D. C. Code, secs. 1-224-1-227. Please note
that 1-227, adopted in 1906 and not repealed or expressly
amended by H.R. 12261, specifically authorizes the "regulation
of firearms, projectiles, explosives, or weapons of any kind.")
More importantly, Congressman Dent agreed with the Chairman
of the House Committee on the District of Columbia that his
amendment would not affect the Firearms Control Regulation act
of 1975 which so disturbed him when he said "anything previous
to the amendment to the act today would be in effect, if they
/the Council7 put it into effect." (122 Cong. Rec. H 8800
(August 23, 1976)) The bill therefore does nothing with
respect to the Firearms Control Regulation act of 1975. Un-
fortunately, the Senate's rapid consideration left no indi-
cation of its intent.
The bill should also be disapproved because of the confusion
it has created. Apart from the statements of Congressman Dent
and the Chairman of the House District Committee that the bill
would not affect the Firearms Control Regulation act of 1975,
others have argued that it will and some in the public may be
led to disobedience by the confusion. If Congress wants to
disapprove our act, they have in the Home Rule Act a procedure
for doing so involving disapproval resolutions for which several
The Honorable Gerald R. Ford
August 30, 1976
Page 4
proposals have been introduced. This procedure involved
only the Congress and not the President and should be
employed rather than a charter-amending bill necessitating
your action when the Congress does not approve of some local
measure we have passed. To allow H.R. 12261 to become law
would be to establish a precedent--not only of enactment of
confusing and undemocratic legislation for the District--but
of requiring Presidential attention to relatively minor matters
of local concern because Congress chooses not to use the pro-
cedures it has ordained for itself.
Sincerely,
David A. Clarke
Chairperson, Committee on the
Judiciary and Criminal Law
cc: James M. Frey, Esq.