September 4, 2007
Fenty Announces Gun Appeal
Mayor Adrian Fenty has announced the city has formally filed an appeal to the Supreme Court in the hopes that it will overturn a March decision in which a lower court found that the District's ban on handguns was unconstitutional. Though the appeal has been a month in the making, Fenty and D.C. Attorney General Linda Singer today explained their reasoning in an op-ed published in the Post. In it, they reject the individual right to own firearms while arguing that the Second Amendment does not preclude states from imposing regulations on the ownership and use of guns. Moreover, they state that the handgun ban is central to ensuring the safety of District residents.
We've long been on the fence on this one. On the one hand, there is little doubt that urban areas should enjoy the right to impose reasonable regulations on guns, included among those registration requirements, strict and thorough background checks and mandatory safety training courses. On the other hand, it's tough to argue that the District's outright ban on handguns is reasonable. In looking at the issue as black and white -- D.C. either bans handguns or allows everyone to own them, carry them and sell them -- both Fenty and Singer may have missed some important gray areas in the lower court's decision. The court clearly argued that regulations on guns are permitted, but not those that are so extreme so as to completely prevent a regular resident from possessing one. In essence, the court held that the District could regulate guns, just not ban them.
The appeal couldn't come at a tougher time. In terms of the makeup of the Supreme Court, it's difficult to argue that the newly empowered conservative wing won't look to this case as a great chance to further their cause -- just as they did with cases regarding affirmative action, pay discrimination and student speech. And when it comes to timing, well, it's not easy to make the case that the handgun ban makes District residents safer when the weekend saw a spate of killings and our homicide tally is higher than it was this time last year. Sure, that doesn't mean much in practice -- after all, we could have no more killings this year -- but it makes for some awkward symbolism.
The best outcome for Fenty is that the Supreme Court hears the case and rules in favor of the city. That not being terribly likely, the second best they could hope for is that they choose not to hear the case and force the District into re-tooling their gun laws according to the conditions set by the lower court. Worst of all -- for both the District and every other urban area in the country -- would be that they hear the case and rule that gun ownership is an absolute individual right that no municipality can regulate.
|
Please remind Constitutional primitives that the District of Columbia's "duly constituted militia" is already armed -- and in Iraq. Perhaps members of the District’s 275th Military Police Company, U.S. Army National Guard could be given leave to testify before the courts in this matter. Police officers overwhelmingly support handgun controls.
Not shaping up to be a great legacy for Fenty to leave behind. Does he know something that we don't?
Isn't this the same basic argument DC made before in the lower court, that DC isn't a State so the Constitution doesn't apply here? Can't see how this justifies blowing more taxpayer cash on a case they're bound to lose but, fuggit, they've got a bottomless pot of money apparently.
And of course the cops are in favor of handgun controls. You know the score, Deck. If you're not cop you're little people.
I've always supported gun bans but now that I live in DC, I've changed my mind. I live in Downtown DC and people are getting killed on my block and withing blocks of me every week. The police do little to enforce the laws in this town and I feel like I need to protect myself. Not only do I want a gun but I want a license to carry one on my body.
I'm sure my two cents doesn't count, I'm one of those rare D.C. residents who is also a member of the NRA. Blame my southern upbringing.
It's always interesting how Fenty makes this situation out to be a black or white issue. Perhaps he realizes that if he puts the registration, regulation, and licensing of firearms in the hands of the D.C. government, as well as the training of firearm use, he'd actually be held accountable for our safety in D.C. That is, as opposed to the gun ban, where the administration can just shrug their shoulders at any incident of violent crime, singing the same old song of "guns are banned and this is why," and just tacking an extra charge on the perpetrators of violent crime if they are actually caught. Realistically speaking, how is a gun ban effective when the only time you find out someone possesses an illegal firearm is AFTER they commit a crime with it? Or if you get lucky busting them for possession, a traffic violation, etc.
I also like how he uses the "handguns are used in violent crime and robberies" argument. Yeah, they are. They are also all illegally obtained (having a friend buy a gun in Virginia and then giving or selling it to you is also counts as illegal). It's like the war on drugs - make something impossible to obtain legally and everyone that is willing to risk arrest, fine, whatever, for the benefit of that which is banned will just obtain it at a premium price, illegally. Both criminals and law abiding citizens who want to protect their homes and families, or hell just like going out to the range every once in a while, fall in to this group.
Why not just do what California does and fire a round out of each REGISTERED weapon upon registration and put the bore characteristics on file. I bet you'd not only find that registered, legally procured firearms are in the minority when it comes to those used in violent crime, but you'd also be able to catch perpetrators of violent crime because you would know who owned the gun. Imagine that, a city where murderers were are caught! Though I guess Fenty doesn't want any more work for the Mayor's office.
Am I the only one of the opinion that it won't be a blood bath in the streets the day that people are finally allowed to legally own handguns in the District? The only thing I feel would increase is accidental deaths and injuries associated with people not properly handling handguns, or not keeping them out of the reach of children. And that should be offset by proper training.
Just realized that my post is riddled with grammatical errors, so please spare me your ridicule for that. Typing comments on the DCist at work sucks.
Of course police officers (who are allowed to carry their weapons home and around town with them) support gun control. Its called job security. With the perceived belief that they are responsible for an individuals safety (which has been proven incorrect in the court system, they are only responsible for the general safety, not any individual (other than those select few "important people")) that makes sure that steadily more taxdollars are sent their way. In the end though, the ONLY person responsible for your security is yourself. And the District denies its citizens the most elemental and equalizing device to protect themselves in an escalated situation, the handgun.
The only thing I feel would increase is accidental deaths and injuries associated with people not properly handling handguns, or not keeping them out of the reach of children. And that should be offset by proper training.
You'd think "proper training" would make people safe and courteous drivers, be able to construct an intelligible sentence, and have some basic concept of hygiene, but that isn't where the smart money's at.
Get your head out of your ass, Daniel. Police officers are worried about their own safety, not their job security.
Majority of police officers may tote the official line and support gun control if you ask them but large majority do not if you actually talk to them "off the record". They realize that they show up after the fact and clean up. Do not think that chiefs speak for their officers any more then union leaders speak for union workers. Survey show that majority of police officers and chiefs realize that
A. Criminals will always have guns.
B. No gun control can stop them from aquiring guns
C. Overwhelming majority of citizens can be trusted with guns.
Check out results of this survey conducted of Chiefs and Sheriffs around the United States.
http://www.aphf.org/surveyresults.pdf
When I first moved to DC about 10 years ago I was all in favor of the gun ban, and was happy to live in a city with what I thought was a sane firearms policy. I came from a southern state that had recently enacted a concealed weapons law, and the experience of having circle-slash signs pop up all over town "banning" guns in every building from churches to McDonalds to movie theaters seemed threatening and overwhelming.
However, having now lived through a couple of muggings and several incidents of vandalism to my house and yard, I would like the option to defend myself from those who would injure me or destroy my property. I'm still not sure whether I would buy my own gun, but I'm coming around to the idea that criminals would think twice if they thought their prey was packing.
Largely, my change in opinion is due to the piss poor response of DC police to the crimes I've experienced. As others have said, if the MPD can't/won't protect us, then it's up to the citizenry to do so itself.
"You'd think "proper training" would make people safe and courteous drivers, be able to construct an intelligible sentence, and have some basic concept of hygiene, but that isn't where the smart money's at."
Hence my use of the word "offset" rather than "cured by."
Police support gun control? Well, they are doing a bang up job enforcing it. How many people died this last week? Bravo.
While I'm not in favor of the pistol ban, I have no problem with heavy regulation and compulsory registration of handguns. I imagine that's probably the way this will end up.
That said, people who are so concerned for their safety of themselves or their property can go out today, buy a shotgun or rifle, register it, and keep it in their homes. A 12 gauge shotgun makes more of an impression than a .25 caliber pistol. Plus, it enables you reprise the roll of Carl's mom from Dazed and Confused.
"That said, people who are so concerned for their safety of themselves or their property can go out today, buy a shotgun or rifle, register it, and keep it in their homes."
Really? I dare you to try it. It's technically "possible" in the same way that building your own nuclear reactor is technically "possible."
Plus, even if you legally own a shotgun, the current regulation prevent you from having it available for use. They must be locked up and stored in a different location from ammunition, which must be separately locked up.
Guest #15 is right, it's difficult to get a firearms dealer to sell you a weapon, even if it is a perfectly legal rifle or shotgun. From people I've spoken to, the general consensus is that it's just not worth the risk for a firearms dealer who doesn't really know the rules on the D.C. books. I wouldn't be surprised if it were easier to get a handgun illegally than to get a rifle/shotgun legally.
As for the locking of the weapon and storing bullets / shells in a separate, locked area, I'm curious to know if that part of the law is actually enforced.
Emergency room physicians have found that if you own a handgun it is much, much more likely to harm someone in your household in an accident, suicide, or during misappropriation than it is to legally defend you or your loved ones.
The national study was done at the U of Penn Medical School. Look it up.
Daniel, do you really think that police officers want more shootings in the streets for "job security"? Or did I read that wrong?
Talk to a cop, I don't think that's what they'd tell you.
Ty, I feel you. The longer I'm in the District the more I'd like to be able to carry... I dunno, just so a potential mugger might not know I was entirely vulnerable?
I think this should be voted on by the people of DC once again. If it passes, then we get guns in the city, if not then we don't. I've got issues on both sides but this post is for against--I grew up with guns in my southern upbringing and let me tell you, there's nothing like seeing your two year old brother waving dad's snub nosed .38 special. I did it, took the keys from where my old man hid them and unlocked the gun cabinet and played with all of them except the black powder musket. Didn't occur to me once that a gun still has a bullet in the chamber without the clip and I was 7. If you have a gun and a kid, they will find it--even if you keep it in a vault beneath the house in a pit of snakes. So you may as well teach the 2 year old how to use it. Secondly, at what point during a mugging do you get to play robocop and pull your weapon despite having one already pulled on you. Or will you wear a holster? I can see having one next to the bed and hearing a noise downstairs. Generally though, it's too late when you need it.
"Emergency room physicians have found that if you own a handgun it is much, much more likely to harm someone in your household in an accident, suicide, or during misappropriation than it is to legally defend you or your loved ones.
The national study was done at the U of Penn Medical School. Look it up."
And a study by University of Chicago economist John Lott has shown that communities that allow for gun ownership have overall lower crime rates.
We could trade studies all day on this. By the way, you can also find critiques of both of these studies, and critiques of these critiques, etc.
I was going to write a dispute to the U Penn study but #20 beat me to it. And more rationally, I might add.
Guest 15 or Ty, have you tried to purchase a gun here? I haven't, but would be surprised if it was as difficult as building a nuclear reactor (I recognize your hyperbole here, btw). Can you purchase them in MD or VA? I really have no idea, but would be interested in hearing from someone who has guns in DC. How hard could it actually be if you already own the guns?
I believe you on the gun lock thing, but can't find a link to actual regulations. Do you have one? I don't particularly object to this regulation, though. I agree with Ty that it would be impossible to enforce, so it seems like they can have it or not have it--six on one hand, etc.
But, when handguns are legalized here, don't you think they'll be subject to the same regulation and registration requirements as rifles and shotguns? I don't really see why it's so important to lift the ban on handguns if shotguns and rifles are already allowed.
To be honest Adam I haven't purchased a gun as a D.C. resident, the two that I own reside in Georgia until I decide to drive down there and get them. That said, I was out at a shooting range / gun store in Virginia and was talking to one of the staff members there about the D.C. handgun ban, and he openly told me that he wouldn't even sell me a shotgun or a rifle, simply because he wasn't well versed enough in D.C. gun regulations to feel comfortable signing off on selling me a gun.
I can't seem to find the D.C. website that has the specifics. There was once a page on the D.C. police website that told you what guns are legal and I figured the lock thing would be on there as well.
As for whether or not you will be required to register handguns just like you do rifles and shotguns, I'm sure there will be even more stringent requirements and I certainly HOPE there will be. As of right now the process to register a gun in the District is as follows:
1. Take gun(s) to the D.C. Police office on Indiana Ave.
2. Get fingerprinted and fill out some forms, which are sent to the FBI for processing. At this point you leave with the gun and are informed that you are to return when the information comes back from the FBI.
3. Assuming you are deemed sane, not a terrorist, or whatever it is the FBI does with that information, you return to the D.C. Police office and take some sort of safety exam.
4. Assuming you pass that exam, you get paperwork certifying that you can own a gun in the city and you can leave with the gun.
If you fail the test or the FBI background check I am told you "are responsible for removing the firearm from the District of Columbia." I have no knowledge of what their follow-up procedure is.
That whole fingerprinting thing is pretty ominous, huh?
Also, they give you the gun back if you fail a background check? That makes no sense.
They give you the gun back when you submit your fingerprints because it's your property. I was unclear as to whether or not you were to return with the firearm for the second trip, but I'm guessing you don't have to. Basically the deal is you're legally obligated to get the gun out of the city if you fail the test, is what the cop on the phone told me.
I’m a District resident, more specifically in Ward 8, where gun violence is exceptionally high. I am against repealing the gun laws, for my own personal reasons but am willing to play devil’s advocate for the sake of a good discussion.
It’s important to look at statistics, DC has the nation’s strictest gun-control laws, but as a city we should probably be embarrassed that the city has frequently had the highest murder rate of any large city in the U.S. And yet, by striking down the ban, will we see the opposite effect? Will a surge in violent crime occur? Probably not.
In the five years before Washington’s ban in 1976, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 per 100,000. In the five years after it went into effect, the murder rate rose back up to 35. During this same time, robberies fell from 1,514 to 1,003 per 100,000 and then rose by over 63 percent, up to 1,635. The five year trends are not some aberration. In fact, while murder rates have varied over time, during the 30 years since the ban, the murder rate has only once fallen below what it was in 1976.
So with that said, the gun bans disarm only law-abiding citizens while leaving criminals free to prey on the populace.
As a counter discussion it should be noted that a sub-commission of the United Nations Human Rights Council announced last August, that all nations were required by international human rights law to enact severe gun controls –so severe that the current laws of New York City and Washington, D.C. are not sufficiently repressive. Any Democratic administration would enthusiastically support U.N. gun control and take advantage of the many ways in which international law could be imported into the U.S. without need for legislative approval.
Most handguns in DC come from MD, VA, or NC. Even if people can only buy one per month, there's still enough money to be made reselling them in DC on the secondary market create a supply.
I agree entirely with poster #19 and, I'll add, that, in those home defense cases, a shotgun is more effective than a handgun. Handguns' greatest advantage are portability, which is not a great advantage in home environments unless, of course, you're a criminal and need to carry a concealed handgun into someone *else's* home. And that's not such a great argument for more handguns.
Question: Ty, who's protecting your home and guns from being stolen while you're off at work?
Answer: The same DC's finest who you don't make such a point of not trusting to protect your home while you're at home.
Bonus question: When do most home robberies in DC occur?
Bet you can guess the answer, even if you don't want to admit it...
Ooops- double negative in the "question" part of my comment above. Also, most home break-ins, Obviously, occur when the resident of that home isn't there.
This discussion needs to address the obvious externality of more easily concealable guns in home, which is that criminals will start stealing them out of homes during work hours when the pickings are easier.
Contrary to Mike Licht's erroneous assertion he needs to check the U.S. code - Title 10, Section 311 which defines the militia
“a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.”
The Mayor and the Attorney General incorrect interpretation of the United States v. Miller which prohibits sawed off shotguns due to the fact that it is not standard military equipment.
“Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”
Several key points States v. Miller made clear was that fire arms ownership is an individual right include.
“These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.”
And
“….that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”