The District of Columbia, which has one of the nation?s highest crime
rates, banned private ownership of handguns. Rifles and shotguns were
permitted, if kept disassembled or under an easily removed trigger
lock. It is a reasonable law, far from the ban that some
anti-gun-control advocates depict.
I find that really amusing. First they describe the city's ban on handguns, and then claim that those laws are "far from a ban" because rifles and shotguns are allowed... so long as they don't work.
Speaking of the lower court's striking down the law:
The decision broke with the great majority of federal courts that have
examined the issue, including the Supreme Court in 1939. Those courts
have held that the constitutional right to bear arms is tied to service
in a militia, and is not an individual right.
Will they ever learn to read US v Miller correctly?
The appeals court made two mistakes. First, it inflated the Second
Amendment into a sweeping right to own guns, virtually without
restriction or regulation. Defenders of gun rights argue that if the
Supreme Court sticks with the interpretation of the Second Amendment
that it sketched out in 1939, it will be eviscerating the right to own
a gun, but that is not so. Americans have significant rights to own and
carry guns, but the scope of those rights is set by federal, state and
They can't even state our arguments properly. If the Supreme Court sticks with the 1939 interpertation honestly, I'll be able to buy a new machinegun once the decision comes down. US v Miller protected military weapons even over and above non-military weapons.
It's hard to see how "significant rights to own and carry guns" are can possibly be consistent with a complete ban on an entire class of firearms, restrictive licensing and storage restrictions on all other functional firearms, and a complete ban on carrying functional firearms outside the home.
The District of Columbia City Council concluded that prohibiting the
easily concealable handguns preferred by criminals, and imposing
prudent safety rules on rifles and shotguns, was a good, practical
strategy for reducing crime, suicide, domestic violence and accidental
shootings. Far from a blanket ban, the law strikes a balance between
gun owners and the larger community.
The District's gun laws are the strictest laws in the nation, and the New York Times thinks they are balanced? Sure... balanced somewhere between "really really bad" and "police state".
In a way, it's refreshing to see all these opinion papers coming out and supporting the District's failed gun control laws. It's like flushing game... they're admitting they support handgun bans and extremely restrictive controls on long guns. They've been trying to hide this for years, even since they realized that it didn't sell to the man in the street. But now they can't hide what they really think, and we're not going to let them forget it.
This entry was published Tue Mar 18 11:12:58 CDT 2008 by TriggerFinger
and last updated 2008-03-18 11:12:58.0.