D.C. Gun Ban Struck Down
Posted by Chap at 6/27/2008 12:38 PM and is filed under uncategorized 
The big news this week came out of the Supreme Court of the U.S. which yesterday struck down the "D.C. gun ban" law.
The opinion by Judge Scalia found that the Amendment was a personal right, not a group or "collective right" solely limited to standing militias. By extension, it found that there is an inherent right to self-defense tied up in the Second Amendment which permits the private owning of firearms.
I agree.
The Supreme Court's opinion, in my observation, simply confirmed what most Americans already believe -- that law-abiding citizens have a right to own firearms and that (like all rights) it is subject to reasonable regulation.
In short, you cannot "ban" firearms in a locality any more than you can have a blanket "ban" on political parties or newspapers. If that were the case, then the language of the 2nd Amendment would be a modern-day nullity -- and that is surely not the case.
In my humble opinion, the D.C. law was singularly ineffective. Despite the ban, there are hundreds of gun-related deaths every year. There are comparatively more deaths in D.C. than there are in cities in Virginia with similar demographics and relatively free access to firearms (e.g. Richmond or Norfolk).
This is not to argue that more guns equals less violence. I doubt that also. But I do know that a legal ban only impacts the actions of law-abiding people. And they are not the ones committing crime.
Have to respectfully disagree with you on this one for a number of reasons- most of which were expressed in other letters to the editor in today's WAPO- however what everyone seems to be forgetting is that the law and SC decision in question was about a Democratically elected government's decision to ban HAND GUNS- not all guns.
This distinction seems to have been lost- which I think is important because DC did allow for shotguns or rifles which are more accurate and a better choice for home defense.
thanks Tyler for chiming in. A quick extra point -- remember that any long gun in DC would have to be disassembled even if kept in the home (not much use there). As for democratically elected governments, that's a premise behind any laws in this country ... but we have a Bill of Rights to limit even democratic decision.
I completely agree Chap. I think the right to personal and collective self defense, which is what the 2nd amendment is really getting at, is such a fundamental legal right that it would exist even without the amendment. The restrictions purposed by Mayor Fenty immediately after the ruling seem like they would fail legal challenges should they be enacted. Requiring fingerprinting to own a hand gun??? Really?
Anyhow, the stances that you and other great public officials such as Mr. Deeds have make me proud to be a Virginia Democrat.
Don't worry. Here in DC we have three whole weeks to work on some Scalia-proof gun laws.
I've started drafting some:
http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2008/06/27/dc-gun-license/
I have to say I was surprised to find myself in such total agreement with an opinion from Justice Scalia. As they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day. I guess he was due.
Maybe it's just my rural background but I can't for the life of me understand how some of my fellow liberals can be so allergic to the notion of protecting the 2nd Amendment as an individual right. (But there have been some notable exceptions, for example, Eugene Robinson of the Post wrote a thoughtful column favoring the court's ruling this morning. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR2008062603656.html) And as you said, it isn't as if reasonable regulation can't be imposed - as is the case with ANY right.
The op-ed in today’s Post Outlook puts the gun to protect the home in proper perspective. Having a handgun in the home greatly increases the likelihood that a family member will be shot or you will shoot yourself. The probability of a successful use of a handgun to defend your home is small. While Justice Scalia’s comment sound great on paper, it is just not in tune with reality. In my home, we have two dogs who will alert us to any intruder, the intruder will than search for a far less noisy home to enter. I also wonder about the rights of those people who will now be killed by uncontrolled handguns. Does anyone care about them?
Ed, the answer is simple. If YOU don't like guns or think your kids will find them don't keep them in YOUR home. Keep your politics out of MY home (where guns are a plenty) and we will get along just fine.
I did not comment on the legality of keeping a gun in the home, with the Supreme court decision such is clearly legal. My comment was directed at the thought that having a gun in the home would increase the safety of those living there. This appears not to be true. If you wish to have guns in your home, that is your decision. If you or your family is injured or killed by one of these guns, (a far more likely event than defending your home),I will be sadden by your loss.
Ed, I appreciate your sentiment toward accidental gun injuries, I as well am saddened by any loss of life, related to guns or otherwise. However, you (and the WP) are referring to a discredited study by Arthur L. Kellerman. (1) Kellerman admits that his study did "not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm." He also admitted his study did not look at situations in which intruders "purposely avoided a home known to be armed." This is a classic case of a “study” conducted to achieve a desired result. In his critique of this “study”, Gary Kleck notes that the estimation of gun ownership rates were “inaccurate” , and that the total population came from a non-random selection of only two cities.
Of the 43 deaths reported in this flawed study, 37 (86%) were suicides. Other deaths involved criminal activity between the family members (drug deals gone bad). (1)
Of the remaining deaths, the deceased family members include felons, drug dealers, violent spouses committing assault, and other criminals.
Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. This means you are much more likely to prevent a crime without bloodshed than hurt a family member. (2)
It has been proven over and over again that guns in the hands of lawful citizens reduces crime. Any time a family member uses a gun inappropriately it is a tragedy. Part of the problem is training. If you have children in the house, they should be knowledgeable about safety issues etc. The parents should store the guns SECURELY so they may not be accessed by their children. Trigger locks don't cut the mustard, they are easily defeated. (3) The ONLY safe way to store weapons in the home is a GUN SAFE the only time a gun should be out of the safe is if it's in a proper holster on your person.
I don't have children in my home but I follow those rules myself. When I leave for work, the gun goes in my safe. When I return home the gun goes in a holster. When I sleep at night the gun is on my nightstand and my bedroom door is locked. This cycle is repeated every day.
Sources:
(1) Arthur L. Kellerman, Protection or Peril?: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home, 314 New Eng. J.
Med. 1557-60 1986
(2) Dr. Gary Kleck, “Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America.” New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991
(3) http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/13/the-lockdown-gun-locks-unsafe-at-any-caliber/
Chap,
This is one of the main reasons I voted for you! Your support for the second amendment.
The decision in a nutshell, jsut allows peopel to now own a handgun in THEIR home, and able to keep a firearm loaded and assembled, ready for defense. Simple. It does not permit concealed carry on the streets, which I wish it would. I carry concealed in VA everyday, but cant in DC (which is where I fear from my safety the most, and until the other day, guns were BANNED)..ironic.
The problem is people and politicians try to solve gun violence by banning guns. It has been proven that it does not work! Instead of patching the problem and slapping a band aid on the symptoms, how about we look and see what the root of the problem is. Guns don't start crime, crime is started from social and economic issues.
Chap, please keep fighting for our rights to protect ourselves.
One last thing, we gun pro people are not tryign to force guns on you and in your life so please do not try to force your anti gun laws on us.
I wonder if Scalia found a specific right in the 2nd amendment itself or instead found it in its application through as he called it "historical narrative"?
I agree with both the Supremes' decision and with Chap's assessment of it.
Law abiding individuals get to decide whether or not they want to keep firearms in their homes; hopefully, they will have the wisdom to take a safety course and to use whatever safety mechanisms they feel they need to employ within their homes in order to keep their own families and visitors safe from accidents.
I grew up with rifles. I used to shoot competitively when I was a teenager. My father (who had been a tail gunner in WW2 and who enjoyed target shooting for sport) taught my brother and me when we were old enough, and he taught us safely and responsibly. Acting safely and responsibly is the responsibility that comes with the 2nd Amendment right, imho.