March 9, 2007
Fenty Responds to Gun Law Ruling
In the wake of this morning's ruling that the District's gun laws are unconstitutional, Mayor Adrian Fenty has promised to appeal the decision. In a statement Fenty said:
I am strongly opposed to the Court’s decision. District residents deserve every protection afforded to them under District law. I will instruct my Attorney General and the Solicitor General to explore every legal option that will uphold the City’s gun ban.An appeal would go to the full panel of judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Circuit, and afterwards to the U.S. Supreme Court. Fenty noted that the city's gun laws will remain on the books for the time being, so if you ran out to a local weapons emporium to stock up, head on back with the arsenal and all your receipts -- you might be waiting a while.
|
Advertisement: DCist Continues Below!
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
Do you really want people to be able to own handguns?
Look at it this way. I am a sociopath. I hate Jason Linkins for his bad acting. I am not rationale.
Do you want someone like me to own a handgun?
Case closed.
Last time I checked, the sociopaths that hang out on my corner and their sociopathic kids all seem to have no trouble finding handguns to terrorize law abiding citizens like myself.
But I'm white,
have no criminal record,
have 3 degrees,
drive a car,
contribute something to society,
so of course I should not be allowed to own a gun.
Great law.
Since something like 95% of DC's violent crime takes place on the streets or in other public places, I guess that's where law abiding people will need to be armed in order to adequately protect themselves under the 2nd amendment. Or so I suppose the NRA's next argument will be.
Since something like 95% of DC's violent crime takes place on the streets or in other public places, I guess that's where law abiding people will need to be armed in order to adequately protect themselves under the 2nd amendment. Or so I suppose the NRA's next argument will be. How's that for realism?
Memo to Norfolk & Western: It's safe(er) to come back to DC. Lock and load and book another show at DC9. The thugs won't step to you now -- they know you might be legally packing heat. Stand tall on U Street indie rockers. Ride to the sound of the guns. Let Martin Astermuhle and the collectivists hole up at Saint-Ex while you conceal, carry and rock out!
This is so disappointing. DC should be making an example for other cities - ban guns and have extremely strict penalties for offenders. I wouldn't be surprised if we get back to our murder capital top spot.
We've all just been made less safe.
"realist," you give us white people a bad name with comments like that. Fu**ing idiot.
Can someone please tell our idiot-mayor that the Attorney General and Solicitor General are not his but are the District's? His "my attorney general" reference is further proof that we need an elected attorney general in D.C.
I've been mugged at gunpoint twice (both times around U St.) and burgled once (Dupont). So I don't think this has much to do with "people [being] able to own handguns."
I'm not saying that I'd carry a gun around with me--though I would like to keep one at home. But I would like for any criminal thinking about committing a mugging to have to wonder, at least for a second, whether his target is armed as well as he is.
The gun laws in DC have been around since the 70s and I have not heard or read anything that has stated that they were the cause of crime reduction in the 90s. From what I understand no one really knows why crime did go down in the 90s nation wide. Also, no one knows why crime has risen in the last few years.
I understand that most of the guns that are in DC are brought in from Virginia. Who does this ruling affect, exactly?
I am not pro arming oneself, but I can't even begin to imagine why anyone would want to drive a cab or operate a liquor store in this city. In NYC, every cabbie *might* have a licensed gun under his seat (since they face losing their hack license if they don't pick up even the shadiest looking character standing with his hands in his pockets on the corner of a high-crime block) and every bodega owner *might* have a licensed gun under the register to protect themselves from frequent hold-ups.
Seriously, everyone who shouldn't have a gun probably has one in DC, so maybe a Fenty needs to be up in arms (pun intended) over affording some other type of "protection" for district residents.
As I understand it from NPR, the District's argument in support of the ban was that the Second Amendment only permits "militias" to bear arms, and that the District can therefore prohibit "civilians" from owning handguns. Militias? Have any of those existed, outside of Michigan of course, in the past 200 years? If that's indeed the argument that was made, then it should have come as NO surprise that the District lost. Truly moronic!
Even if handguns are legal in the district, I'm sure the D.C. city council will make it so tough to purchase guns and ammunition in the district that the nothing will change- all the guns and ammunition will flow from Virginia, the thugs will have the weapons and the only thing that will increase are crimes of passion involving guns. No DCist readers are in danger of getting mugged for their IPods and their $125 "chucks".
Andrew, the argument that the existence that militias were the reason for the second amendment is at least partially correct, since it's mentioned in the same line as the main clause. And people do use that argument all the time to explain why the second amendment does not prevent firearm control laws. It's not ridiculous like you think; whether or not something has faded into history is irrelevant to constitutional law. Ever heard of a letter of marque and reprisal? I mean, everyone loves pirates these days.
There are two kinds of creatures in te survival/food chain: Predators and Prey. Historically, you have a better chance of being shot in D.C. (per 100,000) than in the entire country of Iraq. This is 'with' your gun-bans 'n 'law's. Criminals do not obey laws BECAUSE THEY'RE CRIMINALS! Convicted felons are forbidden by law from buying or possessing 'any' firearms (nationwide). I carry a handgun (openly) every day (1911-A1, .45acp) and my wife carrys a snubby .38spl. or her .40cal auto. We carry everywhere it's permissible to do so. All of my neighbors here in the desert are 'heeled'. It's no big deal. We refuse to be 'victims'. It would appear from some comments that you prefer to be victims or assume that criminals will abide by some 'law'. The 2nd Amendment provides for citizens to defend themselves. Law Enforcement Officers are sworn to protect the 'public'... but the 'individual' must fend for themselves. If you would read various comments by Thomas Jefferson (et al) on the subject of 'arms'... you'd realize that. VA, PA, & DE have realized that as well. To quote Robert A. Heinlein: "An armed society is a polite society" Predators prey only on the weak and defenseless. 'Gun bans' ensure that the average citizen remains defenseless. Your choice.
Another thing about concealed handguns... If I were carrying one... I dunno... in a holster or in my waistband... and someone approached me with their gun already out and pointed at me... Would I draw on them? Probably not. I'd probably realize that as soon as I made a move to do that, I'd get shot before I could complete the draw. The criminal miight even be nervous enough to shoot me if he only *thought* I was going for a gun. How many times have police etc shot people who were reaching for a wallet? That's what they and robbers both ask for...
I guess in this case I'd expect the robber to get both my money and my gun. That's not a pleasant thought. As for a concealed gun thwarting the robbery, I'd be at the mercy of some random bystander also being armed and inclined to intervene. And I'm not thrilled by the thought of being anywhere near a public shootout, either.
"Also, no one knows why crime has risen in the last few years."
No one knows why because crime rates have actually decreased in DC in recent years.
Postulating over theoretical scenarios where gun owndership may help or hinder the situation is good discussion, but that has little to do with the decisions made on legal rights to possess one.
Let me see now;
1. the court says the ban is unconstitutional
2. Fenty says it doesn't mater, it will still be enforced.
3. I guess then that Fenty has no problem with supporting unconstitutional acts.
Doesn't that make Fenty a tyrant?
Peter: Your post is pretty heavy on the hyperbole, and it's just not accurate. Fenty never said he'd disobey the court. He said he'd appeal. Big difference. And as is almost always the case, the law doesn't change during the appeal process.
CDTrave wrote: "Postulating over theoretical scenarios..."
I was posing a hypothetical scenario (a very likely one, at that), not a theoretical scenario. This is what any competent person would do when assessing various policy options.