Same Hoary Prediction
It seems that every, single time there is a law passed allowing handguns to be used or carried, there are dire predictions from anti-gun zealots. The streets, they say, will soon run ankle deep in blood as a direct result of the passage of…(insert law). When Florida passed carry laws, the predictions were made. Nothing of the sort happened. Other states pass concealed carry laws, out roll the predictions. Nothing of the sort ever occurs. So it is today that the Washington Post predicts wholesale carnage in Washington, DC after the Federal Appeals Court decision striking down major parts of that city's draconian gun ban.
IN OVERTURNING the District of Columbia's long-standing ban on handguns yesterday, a federal appeals court turned its back on nearly 70 years of Supreme Court precedent to give a new and dangerous meaning to the Second Amendment. If allowed to stand, this radical ruling will inevitably mean more people killed and wounded as keeping guns out of the city becomes harder. Moreover, if the legal principles used in the decision are applied nationally, every gun control law on the books would be imperiled.
The 2 to 1 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down sections of a 1976 law that bans city residents from having handguns in their homes. The court also overturned the law's requirement that shotguns and rifles be stored disassembled or with trigger locks. The court grounded its unprecedented ruling in the finding that the Second Amendment right to bear arms extends beyond militias to individuals. The activities the Second Amendment protects, the judges wrote, "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or continued intermittent enrollment in the militia."
I note, rather dryly, that there appears to be no obstacle to criminals getting guns in Washington whatsoever, since gun crime there is quite rampant. Gun laws in general only keep guns out of the hands of those who obey the laws in the first place. I'll be willing to predict that there will not be ankle deep blood in Washington, DC anymore than there have been in any other place that allows gun ownership. (What anti-gun zealots fear in this ruling is the confirmation of an individual right to bear arms, specifically and clearly stated. That will bring the screeching to a crescendo.)
Other Links to this Post
-
Flopping Aces — Saturday, 10 March , 2007 @ 2:20 pm
-
Maggie's Farm — Sunday, 11 March , 2007 @ 5:45 am
By Kathy, Saturday, 10 March , 2007 @ 3:07 pm
There is no individual right to bear arms in the Constitution. The Second Amendment does not say individuals have the right to own guns.
This ruling is the result of a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment. In other words, legislating from the bench. I guess having strict constructionists on the bench is not so much desired by conservatives when a strict constructionist ruling would not have the result that conservatives want — eh?
By Gaius, Saturday, 10 March , 2007 @ 4:23 pm
Your imparted “wisdom” hinges on a modern interpretation of the word militia. The onething the founders feared was a government that took away weapons. That is how tyrannies happen.
By Kathy, Saturday, 10 March , 2007 @ 7:02 pm
“Your imparted “wisdom†hinges on a modern interpretation of the word militia.”
Actually, no. The word “militia” is understood to imply a collective, not an individual, right. There’s no ambiguity there. The disagreement over whether gun ownership is a collective, or an individual, right, hinges on the words “the people.” The appeals court in this ruling decided that “the people” has an individual, not a collective, meaning. After reading the opinion, I am inclined to agree.
You will notice (or maybe you didn’t, or won’t) that I did not say I disagreed with the court’s ruling. I simply said it’s not a narrow ruling. It’s a ruling that takes a broad view of the language in the Second Amendment. Nothing inherently wrong with that. I just find it amusing (and hypocritical) that conservatives would be cheering a broad interpretation of the Constitution when it suits their ideological leanings.
The founders feared a lot more than one thing when they wrote the Bill of Rights (or when Jefferson did). That’s why there are 10 amendments, not one. And, to correct your final statement, tyrannies happen when the people (collectively and individually) not only allow, but help, their government to place itself above the law. In the context of our particular country, with its unique Constitution and Bill of Rights, tyranny happens, or tyranny threatens, when the government takes away our right to keep and bear arms, or our right to speak and write freely, or our right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure in our homes and possessions. The Second Amendment is an essential part of the Bill of Rights. The other nine are no less essential.
Most of the commentary on this ruling from liberal bloggers has been approving of the ruling. That is because, unlike neocons, liberals do not believe in cherry-picking the Bill of Rights.
By Chris, Sunday, 11 March , 2007 @ 6:33 am
Well, since the militia of time consisted of ordinary citizens who may or may not have had some semblance of military training, and who also may have been expected by the state governments (who were responsible for raising and maintaining them) to bring their own weapons to muster, and since these citizens were individuals in their own right, then I don’t see how it is inconsistent to believe that the founders would describe “the people” as a group of individuals.
I fail to see how a group can have rights that do not directly impute to the individuals that make up that group. This is an exercise in basic logic, not reading legal tea leaves. No long-winded or tortuous explanations are needed.
The founders expressed a need for militias because the nascent government was fearful of creating a standing army, which had traditionally been an instrument for an oppressive government to maintain its hold on power. The states, if you examine the history of their use of troops, often failed to adequately support those troops in terms of pay and equipment. As I stated before, many states fully expected their citizens to report for duty with their own weapons, at the least.
Thomas Jefferson was a chief supporter of a bill of rights, but he was not the author. James Madison drafted the original articles, which were based on the Virginia Bill of Rights written by George Mason. One of the tenets of this document was a stricture against a standing army, and the need for citizens trained in arms, forming bodies of militia.
And finally, we see that hoariest of complaints about conservatives, the dreaded H-word. Yes, we are hypocrites if we don’t function according to someone else’s ideas of consistency, and, since hypocrisy is the Most Deadly Sin, we are therefore condemned to the outer darkness, where there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
By Chris, Sunday, 11 March , 2007 @ 6:36 am
Oh, and I forgot to mention that none of this is germane to Gaius’ original point, that we will almost certainly not see an increase in gun violence if D.C. relaxes their strictures on gun control. In fact, most scholarly studies indicate that there will, in fact, be a decrease in gun crimes, since criminals rarely like to be held accountable for their predations, and being shot by a citizen is just that, holding them accountable for their choice of vocation.
By old_dawg, Sunday, 11 March , 2007 @ 2:24 pm
Another commenter noted that DC will “solve” its new problem with gun ownership laws as strict as those in New York City, so I don’t expect the crime rate to go down anytime soon.
Gun laws only restrict the rights of honest people. The criminals are already violating them and the various governments aren’t prosecuting gun law violations except when committed by honest people.