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.
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.