New York Times favors gun bans...

... and in other news, a dog bit a man today.
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 local laws.
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. [Tweet]

comments powered by Disqus

Subscribe to Atom Feed

I am not a lawyer, and nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice.

This site is run on custom blog software and is being actively developed. Please be forgiving of errors.

This website is an Amazon affiliate and will receive financial compensation for products purchased from Amazon through links on this site.