Go Home Already: Shouts and Murmurs
Man Stops Traffic at 17th and K to Demand $200 Million
Compromise Uncertain on Same-Sex Marriage Law
Morning Roundup: Second Helpings Edition
Fire at 17th and L NW Forces Evacuations
It was on this day last year that the District's longstanding and long controversial ban on handguns was upended, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such blanket prohibitions were an unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment. More broadly, though, what had been the country's strictest regulations of a specific type of gun gave the majority of the court the chance to rule that the Second Amendment granted an individual, not collective right to gun ownership. And it was all because of a District resident whose name now graces the case file: Dick Heller.
If the decision was monumental and momentous, the year in between has been anything but. While city officials originally warned that any such ruling would provoke a sudden surge in gun violence, they quickly came to terms with the legal reality and began what has been a slow and somewhat obtuse process of crafting regulations that allow District residents to own handguns -- after jumping through a number of hoops, of course.
In the meantime, Heller and other residents have filed additional lawsuits against the District, arguing that city officials have continued to flout the spirit of the ruling by throwing obstacles between guns and their hopeful owners. Gun registrations haven't exactly overwhelmed the police, indicating that either District residents aren't too keen on owning guns, or are stymied by the registration process and lack of local gun-shopping options. (The zoning debate process over where potential gun shops could go took place earlier this year.)
The bigger fight has remained on Capitol Hill, where Republicans and conservative Democrats continued an annual tradition of trying to gut the city's gun laws. But this time, the effort -- led by Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) -- was attached to legislation that would grant the District a voting seat in the House, effectively sinking the measure earlier this month. Voting rights activists and their allies on the Hill have expressed frustration that even with a fully Democratic Congress and Democratic White House, they still haven't been able to move forward on enfranchising District residents. Gun proponents have countered by arguing that the move is only a means to make the city comply with the Supreme Court's ruling.
So what comes next? The District recently expanded the number of guns residents could own, a measure meant to prevent another lawsuit. This move, coming nearly a year after the Heller ruling, exemplifies how city officials have awkwardly and haltingly moved to craft rules and regulations that comply with the court's decision. In their defense, the court's dictate left the issue of what regulations are permissible for another day, leaving the District with little exact guidance on how far their limitations on gun ownership could go. The city government has obviously not embraced Heller with open arms, instead attempting to do just enough to allow residents to own guns, but not enough to actually make owning a gun easy. That's governance in a nutshell, isn't it?
In the end, Heller was a symbolic victory that may not have many practical impacts. Will gun violence in the District rise as a consequence? Even if gun murders sky-rocket, linking them to legal handgun ownership is always an iffy proposition. And if violence goes down -- as homicides have this year -- arguing that more guns makes for a safer populace is similarly difficult. Being able to own a handgun in the District may not end up being worth more than the piece of mind for those who feel safer for having them in their homes. Of course, seeing a gun shop on your local corner might be something of a shock, but we're still a few years away from that.
One year later, the Heller ruling has become more about home rule than it has about guns. The city's elected officials argue that crafting gun regulations is their business, and they have the right to impose registration requirements, training mandates and other restrictions. But opponents point out that no matter what the District thinks, it's still under the control of Congress, and if a member wants to make a point about the Second Amendment by gutting the city's gun laws, they will. Both are right, unfortunately. The best we can hope for is that the usual suspects on the Hill come to accept that the District has moved towards complying with the Heller ruling, and maybe next time legislation regarding the District comes up, it won't again be sunk by the weight of the handgun issue.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
http://www.brightestyoungthings.com/i-heart-dc/northern-virginia-in-15-minutes/
Will gun violence in the District rise as a consequence? Even if gun murders sky-rocket, linking them to legal handgun ownership is always an iffy proposition. And if violence goes down -- as homicides have this year -- arguing that more guns makes for a safer populace is similarly difficult.
And yet otherwise intelligent persons continue to insist that correlation equals causation.
Like abortion rights and the First Amendment, the Second Amendment really comes into play when the fundamental right itself is infringed. I think we're doomed to always have extremists nibbling at the edges of those rights, like rats on a sack of meal. Maybe we need those rats to actually $h!t in the punchbowl so that we can appreciate what we take for granted? Ready access to guns won't fix the crime problem, any more than being able to yell fire in a crowded theater will fix the a$$hole with a cellphone problem.
Which is why abortion should be retroactive to the fifth decade. If you don't have your $h!t together by then, abort.
Martin,
Excellent summary. However, one point that was missing is that, as we now see (and that I predicted) the council and Nickles KNOWINGLY passed regulations that would not stand up to muster. Despite months of saying they could defend their regulations, they folded like a deck of cards at the first hint of a lawsuit. I also think you let the Council off to easy. How in the Hell can you possibly think that regulations that don't allow anyone to register the type of gun at the center of Heller would be legal?
The expansion of the gun list is only the first step. Gura's strategy with Heller and the new gun suits is to address just one issue at a time.
What REALLY steams me is how the District's scare mongering and "you can't tell us what to do" attitude likely hurt us in the home rule quest. And the outright LIES parroted by Mendo and Norton as to the public safety issue was just shameful.
The gun laws will fall. I only wish we had leaders who are able to take a broader look at the implications of their actions. Do they realize the damage they've done to an already low reputation up on the Hill?
More legal guns will not lead to more crime, just as gun bans have not stopped crime. I don't believe the two are related. What is clear is that DC continues to be in violation of Heller. Yes, it is my opinion, but my record on this issue has been pretty good.
And for those of you who think that DC's gun regs are fair, I will fully support all of DC's gun regs if you can answer any of the following questions:
1. Why do I need to spend an our of range time firing a handgun if I just want to own a shotgun? That is like requiring a motorcycle test to get a license to drive a car.
2. I can register a semi-auto rifle that is 28" long, but one that can be extended from 31" to 35" is considered an "assault weapon" because it is concealable. How is a longer gun more concealable?
3. If pistol grips on rifles are so dangerous, shouldn't they also be illegal on..um..pistols?
4. How will the ballistics registration scheme help solve crimes in DC when Maryland has spent several million on the same system and it hasn't led to any crimes being solved?
"..arguing that more guns makes for a safer populace is similarly difficult."
No one is really arguing that. Anti-gunners are just throwing that up there. It won't necessarily make for a safer poplace, it will just give INDIVIDUALS a greater ability to defend themselves. It is a moot issue, however, SCOTUS said we had to do it.
it's worth noting that "Dick" Heller comes off as a total lunatic when he speaks for himself -- the ranting and addled thinking make him the very stereotype of a gun nut:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horwitz/dick-heller-in-his-own-wo_b_128559.html
Three comments? You're on a roll. And kudos to Martin for a good post!
Well done Martin! I think you covered both sides well and HCE added some useful food for thought.
I would be interested to hear how many of the registered weapons have been used in crimes and why someone who already has two registered guns needs to take an $80 handgun course to register a $75 bolt-action .22 target/squirrel rifle.
Who does the course for $80?