May 17, 2007
To Appeal or Not to Appeal...
Mayor Adrian Fenty has had a pretty easy run so far. Spare a recent brush-up over some lifted school reform plans, Fenty's first five months in office have proven that he's dedicated, energetic and well-liked. But the recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Circuit deeming the city's restrictive gun laws unconstitutional has dumped a load of pressure and expectations on Fenty -- both locally and nationally.
As the Post reported this morning, Fenty's options aren't as easy as one would think. On the one hand, he could appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, setting up the first battle royale over the Second Amendment since 1939. On the other, he could let the Court of Appeals decision stand and start loosening up the city's gun laws. If he appeals, he stands to lose, and lose big. After all, a loss could allow the Supreme Court to knock down certain gun regulations nationwide, and no big-city mayor is happy with that prospect. Should he not appeal, he could face complaints locally, especially from communities that have been affected by gun violence and don't see more guns as a solution.
And as of May 8, when the full Court of Appeals declined to rehear the case, Fenty has 90 days to make a decision.
Fundamentally, this is a local issue, and should be kept us such. While gun rights advocates are surely prepping for a battle before the Supreme Court, the District's laws don't have to be the reason they get one. While the Court of Appeals thoroughly criticized the city's restrictive gun laws, it did not swear off regulations all together. This should be a crucial consideration. Judge Laurence H. Silberman was careful to argue that the District's gun laws were unconstitutional only because they were so extreme -- after all, they absolutely prohibit handguns and require that all other guns be stored in an almost unusable state. And the six residents who brought the case were not demanding assault rifles and armor-piercing bullets -- they only wanted handguns for in-home protection.
Councilmember Marion Barry (D-Ward 8) may already have a workable solution. Earlier this year, he proposed that the District's gun laws be suspended for 90 days, thus allowing residents to purchase and legally register handguns. We say take it one further. Also require that they submit to background checks, take gun safety classes and keep the guns properly stored so that kids can't get to them. It's been 30 years since the gun laws went into effect, and no better time exists to dust them off and see what could be changed and what could be improved.
Ultimately, this might be a good time for a citywide -- and national -- conversation on guns and gun control. Does the Second Amendment grant an individual right to own a gun? Many scholars, including liberal ones, think so. But is that individual right free from moderate regulations necessary in urban areas? Not in our view, and surely not in Silberman's.
Fenty will likely use up his 90 days to make up his mind. We're sure he'll carefully consider the merits and dangers of each option, but we hope he recognizes that first and foremost, this is an issue for the District. If gun rights advocates want to knock down New York or Philadelphia's gun laws, let them go ahead and try, but Fenty shouldn't give them a reason to use the city as a means to do so.
|
We say take it one further. Also require that they submit to background checks, take gun safety classes and keep the guns properly stored so that kids can't get to them.
I dunno, Martin. Sounds like you're setting a dangerous precedent. Before you know it, you'll be requiring 70-year-olds to take vision tests before they get a drivers license, and kids prove they're functionally literate before they get a highschool diploma. And I can't recall the NRA being against gun safety classes; they're actually licensed to provide them.
What's more interesting to me is that this may finally answer the question of why the 2nd Amendment, out of the whole Bill of Rights, is always singled out as a "collective right." Is that restriction applicable to any other right? Religion? Speech? Quartering troops? Search and seizure?
Well, 70-year-olds do have to take vision tests to get a drivers license...
I don't see my proposal as anything radical. It seems obvious that the city should be able to limit who gets a gun and under what circumstances. If I can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, then a guy with a history of violence shouldn't be given a handgun, right?
I get the feeling that Martin knows that this is probably going to be loser for the anti-gun crowd. Even many liberal law professionals agree that the 2nd Amendent is an individual right. And let me ask this, when it comes to the first amendent, why is it that all of these issues try to be taken to the supreme court. For example, a youngster wears a t-shirt to school with what some consider an inapropriate message and try to deny rights under the first amendent, off we go to all of the courts possible. Therefore, in my opinion, this DC case should go to the Suprement court. I am willing to take our changes, are you?
I think you're forgetting a wee little incident that happened at Virginia Tech. Unless there's some sort of mental capacity test to prove you're not insane (and stamping "NOT INSANE" on your forehead doesn't count), we're going to have some problems. I meet at least 3 certifyably insane people in DC every day on the way to work, not counting the guy in Gallery Place with the bible and the megaphone.
"If I can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, then a guy with a history of violence shouldn't be given a handgun, right?"
Exactly right. He'll just buy one off the black market or steal it. Me (the person without a history of violence) should be allowed the same means to defend myself.
"And the six residents who brought the case were not demanding assault rifles and armor-piercing bullets -- they only wanted handguns for in-home protection."
I don't buy the "at home protection" line for a second. Maybe some people actually want- and will argue they have a right to- handguns for "at home protection". But the real movers and shakers in the gun lobby will never be satisfied until (yet more) handguns are on the street.
If there is any compromise that must be made, let it be made on long guns. Those still kill more people on the streets and in the clubs than anyone wants, but at least they're harder to hide.
Can't you write something with some substance and backbone?
Can't you write something with some substance and backbone?
"If there is any compromise that must be made, let it be made on long guns. Those still kill more people on the streets and in the clubs than anyone wants, but at least they're harder to hide."
If making guns illegal isn't keeping gun crimes from happening, why would making concealing handguns illegal keep gun crimes from happening?
"If making guns illegal isn't keeping gun crimes from happening, why would making concealing handguns illegal keep gun crimes from happening?"
That's a false argument. Substitute "liquor" for guns and "public drinking" for "gun crimes" and see how your sentence reads.
But I love how, on que, you toe right up to the line of advocating concealed-carry handguns. I appreciate the honesty.
John -- I don't think the anti-gun crowd is going to line up against Fenty if he chooses not to appeal. They're fully aware of the stakes should the Supreme Court knock the city down, and given the current make-up, it just might. It'd be better for them to have D.C. re-fashion it's gun laws than have gun laws throughout the country declared unconstitutional, right?
Monkeyerotica -- I agree with you, and I would hope that a person with a history of mental illness and/or violence would be excluded from legally owning a gun.
Mark -- But the real gun lobby doesn't really have sway here. Short of the annual attempt to have Congress nullify our gun laws, the District is a solidly gun control city, in my opinion. The six residents, to my knowledge, said nothing of the NRA nor were represented by them.
This raises the issue though, if fenty were to rewrite the gun law instead of challenging before the supreme court, would the new law still have to be approved by congress? And if so, is there anyway he could even get a new law through congress that stopped short of what the supreme court would likely require us to do anyway?
"Mark -- But the real gun lobby doesn't really have sway here."
Their money spends just as freely here as anywhere else.
Mark,
But who are they going to buy off? Which member of the council will suddenly take a some NRA money and become their best friend?
Let residents buy handguns if they pass background checks, take a basic handgun safety course and a course on what is legal and what is not legal regarding defensive uses of firearms.
Perhaps a 10 day waiting period. Transport of firearms should be simple, locked case unloaded.
CCW permits should be available. Since we are supposedly equal under the law, scrap so called good cause and replace that with a decent training course, say 8 to 16 hours.
Costs of permits should be keep reasonable so as to no unduly burden people of limited means.
That would be a reasonable balance between personal rights and public safety.
Gun rights proponents are going to go after concealed carry next, so why not fix everything now and be done with it.
Nicki
There is no law preventing you from yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, you're not gagged when you go in. What that restriction on free speach says is that you can be punished if your shout causes harm after the fact.
What the current DC gun laws do is assume that residents cannot be trusted with firearms and so invoke prior restraint against their use. Of course this only applies to us common folk. Elected officials and legislators either have armed bodyguards or special exempt permits since being more equal they have a better right to protection.
D.C's gun control experiment flopped in a major way. Disarmed citizens are easy prey for criminals. Self-defense with a weapon is a civil right that protects law-abiding citizens from criminal predators. Government gun control laws do nothing and was a false promise to make us safer. History has exposed that false promise and the D.C. Court of Appeals ruling directly addresses the failure of gun control.
No government agent can protect you. You have to protect yourself. It is a socially compelling interest that government not be allowed to restrict individuals from having weapons to defend themselves against criminals. And the Constitution of the United States forbids our government to infringe upon that right. It is about time the Supreme Court set things straight and declare the government has exceeded its authority under the color of law.
It'll be interesting to see the Fed reaction, once every nutcase in DC parks and on the street can carry a firearm (concealed weapon permits are the inevitable conclusion to any forced lifting of the gun ban in DC). Those same lawmakers that are carrying on about the need for guns may feel differently if they lived in an actual urban area that has become a dumping ground for the mentally ill from all across the nation.
DC has some fairly unique logistics problems in relations to gun control. We are chock full of high profile targets (both buildings and people), moreso than any other place in the US. And equally chock full of nutcases.
I'm of mixed opinions on gun control. I grew up with guns, and I like guns.
But we all seem to be ignoring the obvious here - nutcases from everywhere come to DC because the microchip planted in their brain tells them they are due an audience with the President or because Xandar the Overlord has commanded them to do so. The Feds gutted the mental health programs decades ago, so these folks roam the streets of DC, often for years. And very few of them have ever been diagnosed as nuts, so a background check ain't stopping them.
Uh, realize this a couple days late, so won't expect a response. Still, really wanted to ask one question. You say you think there are some "reasonable" controls or laws or whatever that should be allowed. Looking at the wording of the 2nd Amendment, what part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED don't you understand?
What part of OUT OF CONTEXT don't you understand?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I really like how pro-gun nuts never like to print the first half of that sentence, which has prompted the decision AGAINST the "constiutional right" to carry firearms case in this country, as was the precedent set by nearly every major court case in the last 80 years.
Some current federal firearm laws:
Convicted felons cannot possess firearms.
Persons convicted of domestic violence cannot posses firearms.
Persons adjudicated mentally deficient cannot possess firearms.
All dealer firearm sales require a background check for the above.
Persons under 18 cannot possess handguns nor can they purchase long guns from dealers.
Persons under 21 cannot purchase handguns from dealers.
Dealer firearm sales require a record of sale confirming the identity, residence, background check result, etc. be maintained.
Persons whose firearms are used in accidental shootings because of improper storage can be tried under existing negligence/endangerment laws.
Waiting periods do nothing. One gun a month laws do nothing. You want to do something that works? Enforce violations of federal firearm laws in federal court (Project Exile), don't allow local prosecutors to fail to charge or plea bargin down/away these charges. Adopt 10-20-Life and Three Strikes laws.
"I really like how pro-gun nuts never like to print the first half of that sentence, which has prompted the decision AGAINST the "constiutional right" to carry firearms case in this country, as was the precedent set by nearly every major court case in the last 80 years."
The first half of the sentence is an absolute phrase which does not restrict the main clause (second half) of the sentence.
Of the US federal circuit courts, the decisions are about half and half regarding the individual right/collective right arguement. Of the roughly 38 US Supreme Court cases which mention, quote, or refer to the Second Amendment or right to arms, about 35 support the individual right reading.
Do not confuse the following issues: The right to possess firearms, the right to openly carry firearms, and the right to concealed carry of firearms.
The vast majority of firearm owners do not openly carry or carry concealed, legally or illegally. There are people who have concealed carry permits, but this is a small percentage of firearm owners and even then only a fraction of them carry on a daily basis.
Some numbers to ponder:
-- Annual crime uses of firearms = less than 0.2% of all firearms owned. (less than 0.4% of handguns)
-- Annual suicide uses of firearms = less than 0.008% of all firearms owned
-- Annual murder uses of firearms = less than 0.004% of all firearms owned
-- Annual accidental deaths with firearms = less than 0.0006% of all firearms owned