OC/DC: The Supremes Wade into Gun Debate with a Bang
Posted by: Jeff Solsby | 03/18/2008 1:04 PM
The Supreme Court today heard oral arguments in a district court case ultimately testing the constitutionality of the District of Columbia gun ban. The Washington Post does a day-end recap here, and the Times has a good piece (great headline!) here.
Chief Justice Roberts makes a brilliant and compelling point in his exchange with Justice Breyer, noted in the Post piece.
I lived in the District for nearly six years and during that time kept guns in my home (they were legally registered and locked in accordance with DC law). I was regularly struck by several troubling facts. First, many people I know kept firearms for protection despite the strictest ban in the nation consequences be damned. Second, said ban does/did nothing to stop the transport of a legally-available product from Virginia and Maryland across lines into DC. Third, it's the type of law (like so many) that is unreasonable not just in its scope (in this case, hope) but also in its enforcement. Here is a recent Washington Post article on DC crime statistics.
The best line: "The increase in gun violence in the District comes as the city is waging a U.S. Supreme Court fight to preserve its 30-year-old gun law, one of the strictest in the nation. Critics have said the law violates Second Amendment rights and has been proved ineffective, as evidenced by the large number of guns that wind up on city streets. D.C. officials argue that matters would be even worse without the law." That would be a great hope, if it weren't a false assumption: people intent on committing a crime are just that--intent on committing a crime. Breaking one more law doesn't really weigh into the decision.
Maybe once and for all the fallacy of restrictive gun laws' effectiveness will be demonstrated not just by District crime statistics, but also by the highest court in the land.
Chief Justice Roberts makes a brilliant and compelling point in his exchange with Justice Breyer, noted in the Post piece.
I lived in the District for nearly six years and during that time kept guns in my home (they were legally registered and locked in accordance with DC law). I was regularly struck by several troubling facts. First, many people I know kept firearms for protection despite the strictest ban in the nation consequences be damned. Second, said ban does/did nothing to stop the transport of a legally-available product from Virginia and Maryland across lines into DC. Third, it's the type of law (like so many) that is unreasonable not just in its scope (in this case, hope) but also in its enforcement. Here is a recent Washington Post article on DC crime statistics.
The best line: "The increase in gun violence in the District comes as the city is waging a U.S. Supreme Court fight to preserve its 30-year-old gun law, one of the strictest in the nation. Critics have said the law violates Second Amendment rights and has been proved ineffective, as evidenced by the large number of guns that wind up on city streets. D.C. officials argue that matters would be even worse without the law." That would be a great hope, if it weren't a false assumption: people intent on committing a crime are just that--intent on committing a crime. Breaking one more law doesn't really weigh into the decision.
Maybe once and for all the fallacy of restrictive gun laws' effectiveness will be demonstrated not just by District crime statistics, but also by the highest court in the land.
Mr. Ayer registered as a Republican to be electable in an interim election with no incumbents. He did...
Though through constant scrutiny and endless analyzing, the widely accepted notion in America is that the second amendment constitutionally protects the citizens to legally own a firearm. To better address the continuous problems which plagues D.C. with violent crimes, Supreme Court and government officials should be addressing the proven, evident, and widely available data that less gun control leads to lower violent crime.
The greatest example in America that supports the claim that lax gun laws correlate to a decrease in crime is Kennesaw, Georgia. In 1982 the city passed the ordinance mandating each head of household to own a firearm. Since the passing of this law, the city has been witness to steeply declined crime rates. This correlation between supporting/promoting gun ownership not only proves a point on paper, but gives validity to common sense support of gun ownership. It is a matter of fact that a criminal is highly less-likely to commit a crime with the possibility in-mind that a citizen may be armed and ready to defend him/herself.
Officials in Washington need to wake-up, end infringing on the civil rights of residents in D.C., and put an end to the unconstitutional District of Columbia gun ban.
For more information on Kennesaw, Ga, the New York Times had an excellent article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/opinion/16reynolds.html