March 18, 2008
D.C. Gun Law Faces Supreme Test Today
A little more than a year separates when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Circuit first called the District's gun laws unconstitutional, and the final test those laws will face today before the U.S. Supreme Court. And in a matter of hours, the case will have been heard, the audio of the proceedings will be released, and months of conjecture will fill the space until the justices actually issue a final ruling.
At stake is much more than the District's gun laws. While the city's restrictions on the ownership of handguns is the example that provoked the lawsuit that pushed the issue through the American legal system, the Supreme Court will focus its sights on a larger question -- does the U.S. Constitution guarantee a collective or individual right to own a gun?
We've straddled both sides of the issue. While we think that some form of gun control is necessary in an urban environment, we also think that it's about time that District officials honestly debated the merits and failings of their approach. And while we think that changes are certainly possible and necessary, we've strictly sided with making those changes locally and without undue pressure from the federal government.
Photo by Kelly Nigro
While the justices are surely relishing the opportunity to rule on such a historic case, chances are that their final decision won't be as monumental as some are expecting. Should they choose to side with the individual rights perspective, as seems likely, the justices will probably be careful to lay out a number of guidelines regarding what restrictions, if any, are permissible. Justices like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas might be right-wing ideologues, but it's unlikely that they'd succeed in convincing enough of the other justices to go ahead declare that gun ownership is an individual right that cannot be restricted or limited for any reason.
In this, the District won't win or lose. Yes, our gun laws might be deemed so restrictive as to cross a constitutional line. And yes, a ruling that favors the individual rights perspective would place the burden of justifying any restrictions on gun ownership squarely on the shoulders of District officials. But when the court finally rules, it may agree that reasonable restrictions on gun ownership -- just like similarly reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech, assembly, press and others -- are perfectly acceptable. And while this may anger gun rights advocates, it bears noting that few Americans have ever expressed support for an absolutist view of the Second Amendment in either direction.
If this case should produce anything, it should be a new discussion on guns and public safety in the District. We all agree that the District remains too violent a city; what is less clear is what police, residents, and local government can do to change that. If someone would feel safer owning a handgun in their home, it's necessary that we hear why. If a police officer or elected official can convincingly argue why that gun would be more likely to endanger the community, it's also important that we find out how.
There's little doubt that this a big day for both the District and the Supreme Court. But once all the legal maneuvering is done, what may emerge may not be that different than what we have today.
>> DCist's coverage of the handgun ban.
| 
Pitiful fools. Only now, at the end, do you discover the true power of the 2nd Amendment. You shall pay for your lack of vision.
You thought you could make DC safe by handing over your 9mm symbols of latent homoeroticism and sexual inadequacy. But they have yet to locate my hidden armories of cap-and-ball derringers, chicken bone arquebuses, and dildo ballistas. With this final blow from the Supreme Court, the Mayor can finally dissolve the City Council and the last remants of the Old Republic will be swept away. The regional ANCs will have direct control of their territories. FEAR will keep Wards 1-8 in line. Fear of this fully armed and operational raw sewage trebuchet. In a way, you have determined the choice of the planet that'll be destroyed first. Since you are reluctant to provide us with the location of the Rebel base, I have chosen to test this sewage trebuchet's destructive power on your home Planet of Starbucks.
Yes. That's it. I can feel your anger flowing through you. I am defenseless. Take your Jedi weapon! Strike me down with all your hatred, and your journey to the dark side will be complete!
Second Amendment: 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.
Why couldn't our forefathers write simple English? Sounds like a Shakespearean dialogue: "I am for thee straight: take thou the
bill, give me thy mete-yard, and spare not me."
Arrrrrggghhh!!!!!!
Hell, try doing a sentence diagram on that sumbitch. It's a freaking mess. At least it's no worse than the Preamble. I've seen tentacle porn that wasn't so slippery and tangled.
The regional ANCs will have direct control of their territories.
This may be the funniest line of the entire post.
Why couldn't our forefathers write simple English?
I'm sure they *thought* they were being clear and had no idea that the meaning of the word "is" would one day be up for debate.
Forget English. Why couldn't they write in American?
Lock a bunch of rich honkey Freemasons, deists, slaveowners, hempsmokers, and lawyers in wigs in a room and this is what you get.
While we think that some form of gun control is necessary in an urban environment
The same could be said of street protest in an urban environment; the freedom of speech thing really screws up traffic, better to protest at say FedEx Field or inside RFK.
I certainly don’t want any more guns in DC, but this is not a rural/urban issue.
SCOTUS just sounds dirty. Can I get a ruling on that?
Does Vegas have the odds out yet?
DCist20009,
Well, not just any large group of people could gather in downtown DC and protest whenever they wanted and without consequences. I'm as big a fan of freedom of speech and assembly, but in a city like D.C. or New York or LA there are regulations limiting when and how large groups can gather. So yes, this is an urban/rural issue.
The same goes for gun ownership. If you live in a town of 600 in the middle of Nebraska, gun ownership may not be much of an issue in terms of general crime and public safety. But in a dense urban setting like D.C., gun control is a bigger issue.
Regardless of how you feel about it, the Second Amendment is the most seriously antiquated of the lot.
If the gun ban is stricken down, can we bring back duels? I'd love to go and slap someone upside the head with my lacey gentleman's gloves and offend their honour. Pistols at dawn!
why make it an urban/rural issue? Please, lets divide the country more and more on key issues.
Regardless of how you feel about it, the Second Amendment is the most seriously antiquated of the lot.
IMHO that honor has to go to the Third Amendement re: quartering troops.
Oh, who doesn't want a tight, hot, young Hessian bunking on their futon? Hello, sailor!
Hillrat:
Haha, good point. I was going to say that but for some reason I was thinking that was lumped in with searches and seizures. Now I feel stupid, thanks.
The fundamental question is whether the Bill of Rights applies everywhere, or do urban centers hold some kind of veto power trump card? We're not talking reasonable restrictions: you don't just walk into a car dealership and drive off. You need a license. You want to protest downtown, you need to register and reserve a date. The point is, does a city have the right to put "burdensome" restrictions on Constitutional rights? Having a dissassembled firearm at home renders it useless. Period. Just like saying you can protest the Democratic/Republican conventions in a fenced-in parking lot 5 miles from the convention center renders your First Amendment Rights invalid.
Cranky - Congress would have to repeal the duelling ban for that to be legal. Separate issue, although they could easily bring back the Bladensburg duelling grounds. Real gentlemens' way of settling arguments, particularly over matters of burning import like steamboat speed. None of this bustin caps in asses over leather jackets and sneakers. Duellists knew how to keep it ghetto back in the day.
I beg to differ on the URBAN ISSUE, Martin. My constitutional rights should not be subjected to where I choose to live, work or play.
Let's not forget the opening words of the Preamble: We the People of the United States ... it does not state "We the People of Nebraska or Texas."
i'll be putting together the brackets for the "2009 DC Handgun Battle Royale" once the court smacks down the district's gun laws.
number one seed is going to go to ward 5 (represent!) and ward 3 will have a play-in game with ward 9 to qualify (we don't want to discriminate based on geography. if PG county wants to play, let 'em play!)
Now I feel stupid, thanks.
Don't. We're discussing the Bill of Rights instead of accusing each other of being hipsters/racists/Brosephs/elitists or any of the thousand other *really* stupid things we could be talking about on DCist.
amen, hillrat.
Wizzyliz,
I didn't mean to say that your fundamental constitutional rights changes with where you live. Quite the contrary -- they remain consistent throughout the U.S. But since we accept that every right can be reasonably restricted (the whole you can't scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater), different parts of the country will apply those restrictions based on their circumstances.
If you want to get 500 of your friends and march around downtown DC, you'll probably have the police stop you unless you have a permit because that is a clear disruption of many other peoples' daily lives and needs. If you choose to do the same in a small town in the middle of nowhere, they may look at it differently, at least in terms of the impact it would have on the general public.
No one is saying you don't have the right to free speech or assembly to press in an urban area. What I am arguing is that the restrictions on those rights will differ from area to area. And yes, I do believe there is a difference between urban and rural in this sense.
Let's be real for a moment. This handgun ban only affects law abiding citizens. After living in DC my entire life and knowing a few sketchy characters (along with 5 season of the wire). I highly doubt criminals buy their guns from the local Wal-Mart.
The real question is: Can I start a local neighborhood militia?????
From Monkey's Wiki link:
"Jonathan Ciley, a Representative from Maine, was reluctant participant in another duel here. In February 1838, Ciley was killed by Congressman William Graves of Kentucky. Graves was a stand-in for New York newspaper editor James Webb, whom Ciley had called corrupt. Ciley was inexperienced with guns, and Graves was allowed to use a powerful rifle. A shot to an artery in Ciley's leg caused him to bleed to death in ninety seconds."
WTF? You can challenge someone to a duel and then use another guy as your stand-in? And the other guy can use a rifle? That's bad ass!
More importantly, where can I and my well-regulated milita drill and practice maneuvers with our sewage trebuchet? That sucker's a pain to load, and they won't let us on the roof of Tabaq anymore after the... unpleasantness.
Ciley and Graves were the Tupac and Biggie of their day. Many a Congressman poured out a forty of claret and marsala over their dead homies.
It's as true today as it was then: smoke blunts, not brothas.
Wizzyliz wrote: Let's not forget the opening words of the Preamble: We the People of the United States ... it does not state "We the People of Nebraska or Texas."
AND:
Martin A responded:
I didn't mean to say that your fundamental constitutional rights changes with where you live. Quite the contrary -- they remain consistent throughout the U.S.
+++++++++++++++
And yet the District chose to submit its "The 2nd Amend was put in place to prevent CONGRESS from disarming state militia under the Militia Clause of the Constitution. And since DC isn't a state, the Amendment is inapplicable" argument in section 2 of its brief to the Court. Pp. 35 @ http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/07-290_Petitioner.pdf
Perhaps a little discussion is warranted here: The Mayor, DC Council and many members of this list so often take issue with the fact that we residents of DC have no vote in Congress compared with residents in states. Yet here our tax money has been spent to make the very argument that so many naysayers of DC voting rights so often make: DC is not a state so the rules are different and that’s OK. As a resident of DC, I am somewhat exasperated that DC’s legal counsel would make such an argument for any purpose on my dime.
seriously, people, when are we going to actually see the trebuchet in action? because the suspense is killing me (and i'm sure the smell is driving monkey's family crazy)
Since there is no place for hunting in DC (and therefore an actual reason, IMO, to own a gun) I propose having a lottery giving out vouchers to participate in a joint rat/tourist cull every April/May.
The city can hand out any seized gun from the previous year and all the yahoos get to pop off as many shots as they want.
Trebuchets also allowed, but only for firing rats at tourists
The first thing I thought when I saw that picture was, I'll bet that's what John Wilkes Booth saw when he got to the President's booth in Ford's Theater too early. "S'blood! Still no sign of the villain! I'll bide my time in the saloon. A nip of demon rum to give me courage! Yea, at least they'll never ban liquor or pistols in my fair city!"
Baltimore had "rat fishing" contests for years until PETA shut them down. Good luck getting a rat hunting expedition in DC. You'd have better luck running one for an At-Large Council seat. They'd be much more responsive to constituents' needs and the fact that they're carrying plague only sweetens the deal.
No place for hunting? Hello?! Ever heard of a little place called The National Zoo? They got lions, tigers, bears, and unshaven pandas.
"I beg to differ on the URBAN ISSUE, Martin. My constitutional rights should not be subjected to where I choose to live, work or play."
So should you be able to carry a firearm into the Supreme Court building, or the US Capitol?
How about up and down Embassy Row?
Or in the middle of a Roe v Wade protest?
After all, people do work there. And that US Capitol underground parking area, I mean, really, a hot young thing could get messed with there pretty easily....
And how about in our public parks? You could argue that people live there. There are cases out there saying a shack in a park is a legal domicile.
That honestly is my biggest gun concern. We have a stunning number of whack-jobs that come to DC because the microchip in their brain tells them to come for their special audience with the President or some such crazy crap. A good number of them end up living in parks and on the street. I shudder to think what happens when we arm all these folks.
Dibs on deer hunting in Rock Creek Park!
Tonight! Ultimate Shaved Interspecies Fighting comes live from the National Zoo where local favorite Tian Tian hopes to hold his title against newcomer tourists, Sloane and Tyler Fagan-Dinwittie of Park Slope, New York! The victor goes on to face Shanha, Kloog, and Lars in the regional semifinals to be held on the Planet Triskelion. Contestants will stay at the beautiful Treskelion Hilton as well as recieve the home game version of Ultimate Shaved Interspecies Fighting.
Back to you, Wink.
trebuchet kits
ok, i think it's time to get gothamist to pony up the $150 for us to buy the official dcist trebuchet. we can bring it to all our favorite shows at DC9 and launch shit at people waiting in line up at the 9:30 club.
it'll be FANNNNtastic!
My Constitutional rights do not change by location, you are confusing infringement on these rights with breaking the law. You have the freedom to peacefully assemble and speak your mind, but you do not have the right to break traffic laws, harrass people, and otherwise shut down commerce to make your point. If you march down the middle of Pennsylvania Avenue, you are breaking the law, regardless of whether your intent is to exercise your right of freedom of speech, or because you're a drunken moron who thinks its the sidewalk. It would matter less in Nebraska because they would look the other way on the relatively minor nature of the lawbreaking, not because they have different attitudes toward freedom of speech. Similarly, the freedom of speech DOES NOT give you the right to march straight into a closed convention and interfere with their proceedings. You do however, have the right to sit outside the fence and whine to your heart's content. Thus your freedoms have not been abridged. Nowhere does it say that you have the freedom of speech and the right to practice it loudly in the middle of the DNC meeting.
Gun rights, on the other hand, are abridged far too much, in that I can't even choose to have one in my own home, let alone in a public place where it can harm or affect others. Even if the ruling brings guns flowing into the streets, there will still be Federal and museum buildings than ban guns from the premises. Does that mean that my Constitutional right to bear arms has been taken away? No, I have the right to bear arms the way I want, but not on wherever and however terms I choose. That is a reasonable restriction, but preventing me from owning a gun in the first place is an outright insult to the Constitution.
Hillman - It's not like the current ban is preventing Mr. Microchip from coming to DC with a gun anyway. Remember the nutjob who opened up with an AK in front of the White House? I'm pretty sure he didn't buy that at White Jimmy's Tinhat Parlor and Arms Bazaar off 14th. Then there was the guy with the tractor trailer rig driving up to the Washington Monument. And the guy who flew the piper cub into the White House. And I vaguely recall a couple guys in a big airplane flying into the Pentagon, but that was so long ago. I may be getting that mixed up with Charleton Heston movie. Or maybe it was Nicolas Cage and Steve Buscemi? Anyhoo, point is, always fly out of BWI if you have the option, because parking's a real pain in the sphincter at National and as for Dulles, WTF is up with those "mobile lounge" dealies? If I wanted to spend an afternoon in some mutant dune buggy, I'd sit around smoking loveboat and watching reruns of Speed Buggy.
G.Lover:
My reading and understanding of the District's brief is a little different than yours. The argument is that the 2nd Amendment only limits Congress' power, not states' power, and thus it does not affect the District's power as it is much like a state. In this way, the amendment is federalist to the core, protecting States' (and the District's) rights to act for themselves. Read this way, it is actually expressing the idea that the District is much like a state. (see the concluding paragraph of this section, at p.40)
I would not put much money on this one as a winner argument, and would suggest that the brief's structure supports this. I used to write briefs for a living and I always stuck my weakest argument in between the 2 strong ones. Even more, we see that this argument is the only one without subheadings. So, aside from the legal ground on which this argument relies, the brief's structure belies its weakness in comparison to the other arguments.
Till any of you hipster/racist/brotha/mofos can write an amendment that will pass through the Congress to become part of the Constitution, I say shut the hell up.
Kidding. I just had to take the low road since Hillrat brought it up. It's all his fault.
Time for lunch at my government institutional cafeteria...
By the way, Monkey, Dulles is undergoing a $2B renovation that will get rid of the rolling tram dealies. Whenever it's finished, that is.