A Dream Deferred

It seems that my aspirations to handgun ownership are going to need to wait a little while, as DC Mayor Adrian Fenty announced his decision to appeal to the Supreme Court to overrule a lower court ruling that deemed the city's ban on handgun ownsership unconstitutional. Cato's Tim Lynch disappoints by deeming this "great news" since "the whole idea of this lawsuit has been to get a good case up to the Supreme Court."

I, on the other hand, actually live here and would have been happy just to see the law amended.

Photo by Flickr user Robert Nelson used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

In urban environment the danger of stray bullets hitting unintended by-standers is a valid concern of the local government.

I would rather postulate a radical liberalization of regulations on edge weapons; a citizen can feel more secure with, say, a katana and wazikashi. Fencing classes could be necessary to get a permit.

Posted by piotr | July 16, 2007 2:24 PM

Geez, just get someone to buy you a damn gun outside the district and bring it to you. Pay them a couple extra bucks, load it and throw it in your sock drawer. Leave it there until you decide to accidentally shoot the errant pizza delivery guy or your girlfriend taking a piss at 3AM. I'd like to see unbiased, provable stats on crimes foiled because of homeownership of a gun. I'd wager they're damn few and far between. Maybe this yearning of yours is a desire to compensate for a sense of deprivation or shortcoming elsewhere?

Posted by steve duncan | July 16, 2007 2:26 PM

steve, I believe that MattY has argued that his desire to own a gun stems not from a paranoid need for home protection but rather from the fact that going down to the shooting range and hitting targets with your own firearm is, simply, fun.

Posted by Tyro | July 16, 2007 2:35 PM

Tyro, that's why God created Virginia. Not much of a jaunt from DC.

Posted by steve duncan | July 16, 2007 2:38 PM

"Maybe this yearning of yours is a desire to compensate for a sense of deprivation or shortcoming elsewhere?"

Yeah, it's pretty obvious Matt is trying to compensate for his bad spelling.

Posted by peep | July 16, 2007 2:44 PM

"It seems that my aspirations to handgun ownership are going to need to wait a little while... "

The minute the gun ban is officially history Ruger will come out with a 9mm with internet access, webmail and 50GB storage for your iPod.

Posted by Njorl | July 16, 2007 2:44 PM

You, Mr. Yglesias, are in the distinct minority amongst DC residents. If you respect their right to determine the laws they live under, you'll move to Virginia or Maryland to own a firearm. An activist judiciary might overturn DC's popular gun ban, but anyone who values democracy would not.

As many have already told you, you can get a few more rights just a few miles from where you live now. Otherwise, get over it.

Posted by James Hare | July 16, 2007 2:44 PM

You need to put some Hogue grips on that sucker.

Posted by abject funk | July 16, 2007 2:45 PM

As many have already told you, you can get a few more rights just a few miles from where you live now.

Someone should use that line of argument to the people agitating to give DC its own voting Representative in the House.

Posted by Tyro | July 16, 2007 2:52 PM

"You, Mr. Yglesias, are in the distinct minority amongst DC residents. If you respect their right to determine the laws they live under, you'll move to Virginia or Maryland to own a firearm. An activist judiciary might overturn DC's popular gun ban, but anyone who values democracy would not."

The argument here is whether personal possession of a firearm is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. Popular opinion has nothing to do with it. Perhaps the citizens of Utah would like the ability to establish a state religion, but they don't get to do that either. That's what the Constitution is for, to protect your rights even when they're unpopular. I thought they covered this in elementary school civics.

Posted by too many steves | July 16, 2007 2:57 PM

An activist judiciary might overturn DC's popular gun ban, but anyone who values democracy would not.

I disagree. Popular does not equal constitutional. Anyone who values democracy would approve of our judiciary upholding the values of the Constitution, since that is what this case is about. If you value democracy AND the current gun law, then turn your efforts towards a constitutional amendment.

Posted by Drew | July 16, 2007 3:02 PM

steves, you beat me to it.

Posted by Drew | July 16, 2007 3:04 PM

As has been made clear in many forums other than this, the District of Columbia is far different than any other place in this nation. The Congress has ultimate authority over the city, which it has devolved to the local government. The local government has enacted a gun ban that anywhere else would be abhorrent to the 2nd amendment; however, within the 10 miles square, it's Congress' turf. IF you can deny District residents the right to vote in Congress for the same reason, it seems silly to say that handgun rights are more important than voting rights.

DC is a different creature constitutionally than the rest of the nation. That's been firmly established. Now the craziest courts available will decide against the will of the people of that city to allow more guns into the city. Guns that will be stolen and used in crimes. The city government and the people of that city overwhelmingly oppose such a move. I don't care what "dreams" Matthew has, but I'd hope he was a little more mature than this.

You may not live around here, but I do. I remember the children killed by stray bullets in the streets of DC even with the gun ban. I remember the 80s before the gun ban, back when we were "murder capital of the united states." Recent immigrants to our fair city may not have that understanding. Perhaps they should talk to the people of DC instead of stroking their guns.

Absolutism is wrong in any form. Even when it's supporting a "right" you cherish. I don't see any mention of wanting to join the militia in Matt's posts.

Posted by James Hare | July 16, 2007 3:04 PM

From La Femme Nikita (original French version):

Intelligence Agency's Firearms instructor: "Maybe we should start you off with a small caliber 22."
Nikita: ignores instructor, looks over firearms, pick ups a 9mm automatic, rapidly fires 6 shots downrange, pulls in target
Firearms instructor: Looks a small cluster of jagged holes and says "Hmmm. I take it you've shot a gun before?"
Nikita: "Not at paper"

Posted by Don Williams | July 16, 2007 3:06 PM

Re Tyro

"Someone should use that line of argument to the people agitating to give DC its own voting Representative in the House."

This is probably the dumbest argument ever posted on this blog. The question as to whether the folks in DC are entitled to representation in the Congress has nothing whatever to do with the local gun laws. By the mentality shown by this comment, people in New York City are not entitled to representation in Congress because of the Sullivan gun laws there.

Posted by SLC | July 16, 2007 3:06 PM

Matt,

I think before you go the gun route (assuming its not for sport as someone suggested) I think you really have to ask yourself whether it would actually make you safer. In other words, would you be willing to use it, could you use it under pressure, and could you live with the consequences, i.e. killing someone. I've survived 25 years in DC without a gun (about half of those in marginal neighborhoods -- now a Ward Three softy) and I don't think I'd ever want one. From time to time when I lived on the Hill I would feel the urge, particularly after a bunch of my friends were help up at gun point, but realistically it would not have been a good idea.

Posted by Klein's Tiny Left Nut | July 16, 2007 3:08 PM

SLC, it is a dumb argument, but it is an argument people felt free to use regarding gun laws. "If you want to own a gun, move" isn't that different from, "If you want a vote in Congress, move." One can even use the same reasoning as the guy who said, "DC is a different creature constitutionally than the rest of the nation" to justify the gun ban.

Posted by Tyro | July 16, 2007 3:11 PM

As the second amendment has been brought up, shouldn't we determine whether MY is a member of the militia or not? Perhaps we should ask the so-called strict constructionists whether they only wish to apply half the language of the amendment?

Posted by jerry | July 16, 2007 3:13 PM

As the second amendment has been brought up, shouldn't we determine whether MY is a member of the militia or not? Perhaps we should ask the so-called strict constructionists whether they only wish to apply half the language of the amendment?

Posted by jerry | July 16, 2007 3:13 PM

As the second amendment has been brought up, shouldn't we determine whether MY is a member of the militia or not? Perhaps we should ask the so-called strict constructionists whether they only wish to apply half the language of the amendment?

Posted by jerry | July 16, 2007 3:13 PM

Webtster's: arms
1 a : a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Amendment II

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.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It would seem a literal reading of the Constitution (leaving aside that pesky "militia" nonsense) would allow Matt to own ANY weapon he wants. Why do citizens condone limitations of the "arms" they can possess when the Constitution plainly states such ownership rights (keep and bear) shall not be infringed? I don't see a qualifier in the original language. Nuclear weapons, fighter jets, cluster munitions, laser emitting satellites, all are arms. I think Matt's point of contention is myopic. He should agitate for freedom to buy a fully laden F-16. Think how much fun that would be on the firing range.

Posted by steve duncan | July 16, 2007 3:17 PM

Re "Absolutism is wrong in any form. Even when it's supporting a "right" you cherish. I don't see any mention of wanting to join the militia in Matt's posts."
-------

1) "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice."

2) Matt doesn't have to join the militia -- he's already a member. As are ALL US males between the ages of 17 and 45, per act of Congress. An act intended to clarify the Constitution but probably invalid even in its loosely restrictive clause per the 9th and 10th Amendments.

US Code citation available on request.

Note that an older version of the act used to define the Militia as all WHITE males of military age -- a clause used by racist White Supremcist governments in the South to unlawfully disarm Afro-Americans in the period roughly 1870-1965.

Posted by Don Williams | July 16, 2007 3:17 PM

i take umbrage at the fact that you think you should be able to own a gun in dc. it is clearly against the will of the majority of the residents. if you think handgun ownership will reduce violent crimes or otherwise benefit the city, then say so. if you just think you deserve to own a gun just because, go to virginia.

Posted by cyates | July 16, 2007 3:23 PM

Since explosives should qualify as arms, then I guess local or state laws against fireworks (bottle rockets, M-80s, etc.) are also unconstitutional. Can't wait until next Fourth of July.

Seriously, though, if we apply strict constructionism to the definition of "arms" then the Second Amendment should apply only to single-shot, muzzle loading, flintlock muskets.

Posted by Virginia | July 16, 2007 3:32 PM

Re Klein's comment "I think before you go the gun route (assuming its not for sport as someone suggested) I think you really have to ask yourself whether it would actually make you safer. In other words, would you be willing to use it, could you use it under pressure, and could you live with the consequences, i.e. killing someone "
------------
I favor Firearms ownership by the common citizen but I strongly AGREE with Klein's comment.

If you own a gun it is essential to understand several things:
a) You are only allowed to shoot in order to stop someone from killing yourself or an innocent third party
b) To stop, you have to shoot , multiple times, at certain small areas (heart, brain) which will almost certainly kill your enemy. The law does not allow you to shoot to wound as a deterrent.
c) Realize that a man with a knife who is within 12 feet of you can rip out your intestines even if you shoot him. Except for brain shots, There is a time delay of at least several long seconds.
c) You MUST have knowledge of the law re use of deadly force
d) You MUST realize that even a justifiable shooting --one which police and the DA rule was legal -- will probably result in a civil suit which will bankrupt you
e) You MUST work out in advance all possible developments and instantly fire when the situation demands it. A high stress situation is not the time to make complex decisions or to wonder into a John Kerry/Hamlet soliquoy.
f) You must realize that there is FAR more to self-defense than having a gun -- being alert, evading dangerous situations, strong locks and alarms,cell phone vice land line that can be cut, etc. A person who is alert but unarmed is far more safe than a person who is armed but is lost in daydreaming.
g) Nonetheless , the gun is the only means to reliably stop a dangerous attacker who is physically stronger than you. Tear gas, tasers,etc are cheap bullshit. As are most martial arts.

Posted by Don Williams | July 16, 2007 3:35 PM

Good commentary on the second amendment:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/103wha.htm

Also, I don't see why Matt's desire to change the district's policy, whether as a matter of right or practical policy, represents an affront to democracy. I'd like to see lots of policies change. Do I need to move out of DC?

Posted by BF | July 16, 2007 3:37 PM

Since folks brought up Home Rule already: Does anyone know why Congress hasn't just gone ahead and invalidated the D.C. Gun Ban? It seems like such a potentially easy way for them to pander even more to the NRA.

Posted by sara | July 16, 2007 3:38 PM

you bring a gun into this house and i will kill you.

Posted by catherine | July 16, 2007 3:40 PM

If you read the debates of the Founders, you will see that the LAST thing they wanted was Democracy. Because mob rule can be as tyrannical as any dictator -- usually, in fact, results in the rise of a dictator.

The whole essence of our government is that even members of a minority have certain inalienable rights. That there are some things the Government may NOT do -- because it would endanger the continued survival of the Constitution.

READ the Preamble to Bill of Rights re WHY those Amendments were added:

"The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and RESTRICTIVE clauses should be added,"

Posted by Don Williams | July 16, 2007 3:46 PM

> a) You are only allowed to shoot in order
> to stop someone from killing yourself or
> an innocent third party

See "Castle Rule", list of states that have passed same.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | July 16, 2007 3:54 PM

My big personal safety tip would be don't walk around in Shaw or Columbia Heights or Adams Morgan or the Hill wearing an ipod. Have some clue as to what is going on around you. And always carry at least a $20 to give to the muggers (a rule I violate time and time again).

I am celebrating a quarter century in DC without being held up or assaulted. My time must be coming.

Posted by Klein's Tiny Left Nut | July 16, 2007 3:56 PM

Seriously, though, if we apply strict constructionism to the definition of "arms" then the Second Amendment should apply only to single-shot, muzzle loading, flintlock muskets.

Posted by Virginia | July 16, 2007 3:32 PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hmmm, I suspect colonial militias possessed armaments (Etymology: French armement, from Latin armamenta (plural) utensils, military or naval equipment, from armare
1 : a military or naval force
2 a : the aggregate of a nation's military strength b : WEAPONS, ARMS) far larger, more complex and more powerful than simple muzzle loaders. Cannons for starters? What say you, Virginia? Please answer as a strict constructionist, of course.

Posted by steve duncan | July 16, 2007 3:58 PM

The commentariat of this blog is typical of a lot of lefty blogs in that it is significantly more pro-gun than would be suggested by the rest of their politics.

I would just like to point out the following: whatever your Rambo fantasies, MY, you are much, much more likely to accidently kill yourself or a loved one than to kill an intruder. Of course, I'm sure you imagine yourself to be the exception, and that you'll be responsible and safe and smart. The problem is that every gun owner imagines this about himself-- I won't be the gun owner who shoots himself accidentally, I won't be the gun owner who gets drunk and shoots his wife, I won't be the gun owner who decides to shoot himself. And yet they still end up shooting their kids in the face.

Second, and more importantly, everyone here seems to talk only about individual rights and responsibilities-- I have a right to defend myself, I'll be a responsible gun owner. But, of course, the point isn't just about you. The point is that the support of gun rights helps to create a system where guns are incredibly easy to come by, which places guns in the hands of drug dealers and wife killers and children. You are not just responsible for yourself. You empower a movement which is responsible for killing innocent people.

But as long as you get yours...

Posted by Freddie | July 16, 2007 4:09 PM

The commentariat of this blog is typical of a lot of lefty blogs in that it is significantly more pro-gun than would be suggested by the rest of their politics.

I would just like to point out the following: whatever your Rambo fantasies, MY, you are much, much more likely to accidently kill yourself or a loved one than to kill an intruder. Of course, I'm sure you imagine yourself to be the exception, and that you'll be responsible and safe and smart. The problem is that every gun owner imagines this about himself-- I won't be the gun owner who shoots himself accidentally, I won't be the gun owner who gets drunk and shoots his wife, I won't be the gun owner who decides to shoot himself. And yet they still end up shooting their kids in the face.

Second, and more importantly, everyone here seems to talk only about individual rights and responsibilities-- I have a right to defend myself, I'll be a responsible gun owner. But, of course, the point isn't just about you. The point is that the support of gun rights helps to create a system where guns are incredibly easy to come by, which places guns in the hands of drug dealers and wife killers and children. You are not just responsible for yourself. You empower a movement which is responsible for killing innocent people.

But as long as you get yours...

Posted by Freddie | July 16, 2007 4:11 PM

The commentariat of this blog is typical of a lot of lefty blogs in that it is significantly more pro-gun than would be suggested by the rest of their politics.

I would just like to point out the following: whatever your Rambo fantasies, MY, you are much, much more likely to accidently kill yourself or a loved one than to kill an intruder. Of course, I'm sure you imagine yourself to be the exception, and that you'll be responsible and safe and smart. The problem is that every gun owner imagines this about himself-- I won't be the gun owner who shoots himself accidentally, I won't be the gun owner who gets drunk and shoots his wife, I won't be the gun owner who decides to shoot himself. And yet they still end up shooting their kids in the face.

Second, and more importantly, everyone here seems to talk only about individual rights and responsibilities-- I have a right to defend myself, I'll be a responsible gun owner. But, of course, the point isn't just about you. The point is that the support of gun rights helps to create a system where guns are incredibly easy to come by, which places guns in the hands of drug dealers and wife killers and children. You are not just responsible for yourself. You empower a movement which is responsible for killing innocent people.

But as long as you get yours...

Posted by Freddie | July 16, 2007 4:12 PM

"whatever your Rambo fantasies, MY, you are much, much more likely to accidently kill yourself or a loved one than to kill an intruder"

What about the odds of not killing anybody? Isn't the most likely scenario: MY takes his gun to the range, has fun shooting inanimate objects, keeps his gun locked away at home and maybe feels a little safer? Maybe brandishes it at some point to deter a violent criminal?

Posted by too many steves | July 16, 2007 4:42 PM

If this is for home defense, forget the handgun. It's useless unless you're a pro, or you want to wave it around drunkenly. You're not the former, and we enjoy your writing too much to want you to do the latter.

Get a 12-gauge shotgun with an 18" barrel. Keep it under the bed. Fill the magazine, but not the chamber, with birdshot.

Take it to the range once every few months and practice with it by shooting at clay pigeons. Don't worry if you don't have a clay dog, you don't have to retrieve targets. Make the wife/girlfriend do the same. Clean it. Now put it back under the bed (the gun, not the girlfriend).

And finally, but most importantly, follow this hard and fast rule: Never, absolutely never, even THINK about touching that thing if you've had so much as a glass of wine.

Posted by Brautigan | July 16, 2007 4:51 PM

Matt most definitely is a member of the militia. According to 10CFR311, which defines the militia of the United States, the militia, in part, "consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and ... under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States." It also includes any women and men older than 45 who inlist in any branch of the military, including the National Guard or the Reserves.

Matt, congratulations, you're in the militia.

Posted by Anna | July 16, 2007 4:55 PM

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

Posted by anna | July 16, 2007 4:57 PM

Re "you are much, much more likely to accidently kill yourself or a loved one than to kill an intruder "
--------
Oh, horseshit. Another "how to lie with statistics" myth. I've owned a gun (actually, guns) for over 30 years without incident and I know a number of people who have done the same.

I do think gun safety training is important but for some reason none of the bleeding heart gun control groups provide any. Instead, the free courses are provided by those cold-hearted bastards at the NRA.

Posted by Don Williams | July 16, 2007 5:03 PM

Other than the right to free speech and press, the right to bear arms is the most liberal of all our rights. No other right balances the power between the elite and the common man then the right to bear arms.

And yes, the right to bear arms is to provide a balance to the armed militias the government has control over. If Bush cancels the election and declares martial law, the people can do something about it. That is why we have second amendment.

Posted by Mark | July 16, 2007 5:03 PM

Re "It also includes any women and men older than 45 who inlist in any branch of the military, including the National Guard or the Reserves."
----------
The age and sexist restrictions are , in my opinion, unconstitutional. Although they were probably intended more to restrict the burden of duty than to restrict gun-owning privileges.

Besides, if we take this "war on terror" seriously then women definitely should be in the militia. Even sexist chauvinists like Victorian Kipling knew that if you want to make them talk, turn them over to the women.

Posted by Don Williams | July 16, 2007 5:09 PM

Re "Maybe brandishes it [handgun] at some point to deter a violent criminal?"
----------
1) You don't brandish a gun. For one thing, an attacker can draw a gun and shoot you between the eyes before your brain tells you what is happening and can command your finger to fire.

2) You only draw a gun to shoot a violent threat. Preferably in the back, if he is in your home and is armed. (You are not required to challenge him or give warning.)

3) I suggest people sign up for a course with firearms trainers like Mossad Ayoob if they are interested in this.

Posted by Don Williams | July 16, 2007 5:15 PM

It’s not necessarily a given that having a gun actually enables one to defend themselves.

Pointing a gun at someone with no intention of using it is gravely risky behavior, almost always a huge mistake, and potentially a suicidal act. One owns a gun for self defense only if one is prepared to use it to kill someone else. To do so one must be legally, tactically and emotionally practiced and prepared – the latter being the biggie, not that the other are small potatoes either.

(Just target practice gets old, absorbing the repeated trauma of an explosion going off in your hand, next to your face, eyes and ears get old.)

But, at the end of the day it takes balls. (One small reason: generally you only shoot those who are bigger than you and can’t overpower; it sucks to miss or only superficially wound them.) My guess, Matt (along with most of the other commenters here) doesn’t have the balls to actually pull the trigger in a real life, life-and-death situation. His fantasies are of being a pointer, not a shooter.

Posted by Dan Stewart | July 16, 2007 5:16 PM

Overthrowing the government is the crappiest justification to advocate the 2nd Amendment. Just ask David Koresh how well it works in real life.

However, it does seem Americans have the right to won a firearm just because. I own several. I have great doubts they'd be of any use for self defense purposes, though given enough warning, I suppose they'd be quite formidable. But they are enjoyable to use. That's a good enough reason for me. Why is MY being being denied that right?

Posted by shecky | July 16, 2007 5:17 PM

PS If you "brandish" a gun at a violent criminal, you've just given him legal justification to shoot YOU in self-defense.

Posted by Don Williams | July 16, 2007 5:19 PM

Why is MY being being denied that right?

I won't pretend that this is a legal justification for DC's handgun ban. But the reason MY is being denied that right is because Washington has been utterly ravaged by gun violence. It's caused an incalculable amount of bloodshed, horror and suffering. The people of DC, especially the poor, minority population, have paid an enormous price for the presence of guns in their city.

Of course, that's the sort of reality you like to ignore when you're an affluent hipster blogger who's too cool by half to make appeals to such mundane concerns.

Posted by Freddie | July 16, 2007 5:26 PM

Re "Overthrowing the government is the crappiest justification to advocate the 2nd Amendment. Just ask David Koresh how well it works in real life"
------------
How about King George III?

Or, if we're having seances, how about polling those 5 million+ people killed by their own government at Auchewitz,etc.?

The alarmist cries over the 2nd Amendment seems blinkered. History ,including recent history, shows that it takes a legal government to kill people on a massive scale. Almost always the exterminated population is disarmed first.

If the fact that we have 300 million people owning 200 million+ firearms manages to deter the rise of an Adolph Hitler or a Joseph Stalin, then the 2nd Amendment is worth it.

Posted by Don Williams | July 16, 2007 5:26 PM

Freddie,

That's nice of you to assume that anyone who's against the gun ban is in favor of kids getting shot in the streets. Do you think the handgun ban has decreased that violence? Do you think the absence of a handgun ban would increase it?

Don, you have a point about not aiming a gun at somebody unless you mean to fire it. I spoke a little loosely about "brandishing" a weapon. But I think you're wrong on the legal point ("If you "brandish" a gun at a violent criminal, you've just given him legal justification to shoot YOU in self-defense"). If you use a gun in the commission of a felony, and you shoot somebody who's trying to stop you from committing said felony, I don't think you can plead self-defense.

Posted by too many steves | July 16, 2007 5:44 PM

That's nice of you to assume that anyone who's against the gun ban is in favor of kids getting shot in the streets.

I just find it incredible that in a discussion of gun control in Washington DC none of you are mentioning the incredible damage that guns have done to the city. It's deeply intellectually dishonest and cowardly. Please, continue with you celebration of gun culture. But recognize the enormous cost to the city in question.

Posted by Freddie | July 16, 2007 5:54 PM

You're missing the point. I don't believe that the handgun ban has had any effect either way on the level of gun violence in DC. I don't think my "celebration of gun culture" has any cost to the city.

Posted by too many steves | July 16, 2007 5:59 PM

Matt most definitely is a member of the militia. According to 10CFR311, which defines the militia of the United States, the militia, in part, "consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and ... under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States."

Congratulations!
Maybe Bush should send the militia to Iraq then once the surge troops come home. :) /snark

@Don

Or, if we're having seances, how about polling those 5 million+ people killed by their own government at Auchewitz,etc.?

Actually, Germany had pretty liberal gun laws. Before WW1 the German Empire had no gun laws at all. With the defeat and revolution in 1918, millions of soldiers came home and a lot of them didn´t turn in their weapons. Which were then used in coups (left- and right-wing). political assassinations etc.
The Weimar Republic then did try to introduce gun laws. But since nobody knew who already owned a gun, these laws were somewhat less than effective.
SO that´s not the main reason.

Posted by Detlef | July 16, 2007 6:08 PM

You're missing the point. I don't believe that the handgun ban has had any effect either way on the level of gun violence in DC.

So the incredible ease in legally purchasing a gun has no effect on the enormous amount of gun violence in this country?

Posted by Freddie | July 16, 2007 6:21 PM

If the fact that we have 300 million people owning 200 million+ firearms manages to deter the rise of an Adolph Hitler or a Joseph Stalin, then the 2nd Amendment is worth it.

C'mon, Don. Are you saying if it wasn't for the 2nd Amendment, Hitler or Stalin would have been elected POTUS by now?

Re "you are much, much more likely to accidently kill yourself or a loved one than to kill an intruder "
--------
Oh, horseshit. Another "how to lie with statistics" myth. I've owned a gun (actually, guns) for over 30 years without incident and I know a number of people who have done the same.

Is it a lie? I have no reason to doubt a gun owner is more likely to kill themselves or a loved one. The real perspective is that very few people are killed by gunshot under any circumstance. Gun owners killing themselves or a loved one sounds damning until one realizes it's really a quite rare event.

I just find it incredible that in a discussion of gun control in Washington DC none of you are mentioning the incredible damage that guns have done to the city. It's deeply intellectually dishonest and cowardly.

We have to keep in mind that guns have been used in DC regardless of their illegality. Allowing someone who's unlikely to ever use a firearm in hostility, such as MY, or even to defend himself, would probably not make the situation any worse than it is.

Posted by shecky | July 16, 2007 6:30 PM

Either the NRA is right or the Second Admendment of the Constitution is right, but both cannot be correct.

The second admendment says that gun owners are to be well regulated.

That gives the government a lot of latitude: it can demand weekly parade ground manouvers for all armed citizens, it can institute random arms inspections at all militia households, it can regulate the make, model, and manufacture of any and all types of arms its militia may hold. And since the second admendment gives the right to arms only in regards to a well regulated militia the right is not an individual right - so crazies can be denied ownership along with felons and the mentally unstable.

Now if on the other hand the NRA is right then not even the criminal can be stopped from owning a gun.

If the NRA is right then the second admendment is just some quaint outdated nonsense whose meaning is to be ignored.

Posted by ken | July 16, 2007 6:35 PM

So the incredible ease in legally purchasing a gun has no effect on the enormous amount of gun violence in this country?

ISTR the best studies on the issue seem to indicate that gun availability really doesn't have much effect on gun violence.

"Incredible ease in legally purchasing a gun" is a bit relative, too. Gun purchases are federally regulated, and in some cases, state and locally regulated even more stringently. The process is generally more rigorous than purchasing, say, pepper spray or archery equipment, or airguns, requiring a background check at the federal level (IIRC), and sometimes waiting periods in some states. I believe even private party purchases are typically regulated the same. If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will correct me.

Posted by shecky | July 16, 2007 6:40 PM

Gun owners always start out as law abiding. And they remain that way until they break the law. Funny how that works.

Guns are always locked away safely and the gun owner knows exactly where each and every gun is.

Odd how that remains true until a gun is found missing or stolen.

And finally: Guns doen't kill people. People with guns kill people.

And mostly it's some innocent family member or friend who dies as a result of people having guns.

Posted by ken | July 16, 2007 6:45 PM

Now if on the other hand the NRA is right then not even the criminal can be stopped from owning a gun.

If the NRA is right then the second admendment is just some quaint outdated nonsense whose meaning is to be ignored.

Unfortunately, it's not so black and white. Clearly the right to bear arms can be infringed, the same way the right to free speech can. Nobody argues that the First Amendment is so absolute that libel can go uncontested. The same applies to the 2nd amendment. For example, full auto firearms are significantly more regulated than semi auto/repeaters, single shots. Until the courts say otherwise, it'll likely stay that way. However, the basic right to bear arms remains intact.

Posted by shecky | July 16, 2007 6:51 PM

Frankly, I think Matt is doing a little trolling here, throwing a flasher overboard and seeing who'll strike. He doesn't seem to have a really well-developed passion on the subject, which would make him a poor candidate for ownership of such an inconvenient item.

I mean, really, you pay $400 for the gun, a buck every time you pull the trigger (unless you handload), buy a gun safe, get a permit, and now you have something that can not only be stolen, but also used against you. What's not to like?

Buy the gun, Matt, and keep it in a safe deposit box in West Virginia. Anybody who can afford a gun can also afford a car and the time off to go shoot it. It's a lifestyle, and some women consider it sexy. You can learn who they are when you go to the gun swap meet to buy your gun.

That oughta cure you.

Posted by serial catowner | July 16, 2007 6:51 PM

We have to keep in mind that guns have been used in DC regardless of their illegality. Allowing someone who's unlikely to ever use a firearm in hostility, such as MY, or even to defend himself, would probably not make the situation any worse than it is.

But that shouldn't and doesn't excuse you from eliminating the actual, real world costs of guns to our society from the discussion. If it wasn't for me, the fact of handgun violence and it's costs wouldn't exist on this discussion thread at all. Does that seem right to you? I don't mean to suggest that there is a simple line between restricting guns and ending gun violence. But I am disgusted with the efforts to simply remove the costs from the discussion. I am simply not moved by the argument that, well, you can't prove that if you made guns illegal, people wouldn't get guns illegally. Even if you restrict the argument to just eliminating violence from legally purchased guns, you'd be saving thousands and thousands of lives.

Gun violence killed more Americans in the 20th century than war. That isn't the end of the discussion, I know. But it belongs in the discussion. And you guys have circled the wagon so effectively you run the risk of losing sight of it at all.

Gun owners killing themselves or a loved one sounds damning until one realizes it's really a quite rare event.

From 1995-2000 gun accidents or suicides killed 5 children a day in this country.

Posted by Freddie | July 16, 2007 6:52 PM

Re too many Steve's comment: " If you use a gun in the commission of a felony, and you shoot somebody who's trying to stop you from committing said felony, I don't think you can plead self-defense."
------------
Yeah, but if the criminal kills a victim who's branishing a firearm, then who's around to testify that the victim drew the firearm in self-defense?

OR-- What if the criminal doesn't draw his gun until the victim already has his out -- and the victim gets nailed because he thought he was holding a magical ray gun and the criminal would surely cower and surrender? Who is going to look like the aggressor to any witnesses who are 40 feet away and who didn't hear the criminal threaten the victim?

Or-- What if the criminal is really an undercover cop who was following you because he was worried about your safety -- but who will react instantly if you point a gun in his face?

Or -- what if a cop sees you confronting the criminal -- but you look like the criminal because you are the one waving a gun at someone.
So the cop draws down on you and is ready to fire if you twitch.

Posted by Don Williams | July 16, 2007 8:04 PM

Re Freddie's comment "But that shouldn't and doesn't excuse you from eliminating the actual, real world costs of guns to our society from the discussion. If it wasn't for me, the fact of handgun violence and it's costs wouldn't exist on this discussion thread at all. "
-------------
The problem is NOT gun ownership. The problem is VIOLENCE. There are many places with high levels of gun ownership but low homicides per capita. Similarly, there are places where guns are banned but with high murder rates. Plus there are many homicides resulting from knifes, baseball bats,etc.

What does correlate with violence is POVERTY. Both in rural and urban areas. If you have a job, savings in a bank, a house and a car, you tend not to get into violent crimes --because you have something to lose.

But if you have been crapped on your entire life -- been starved and maybe sexually abused when young, been stuck in a crappy school district where the teachers themselve couldn't pass the GED, and you haven't a chance in hell of getting a decent life, then you have no reason to care about the law.

None of us have a right to complain about violent crime if we tolerate a government and society which says 50% of our citizens deserve to be treated like animals -- deserve to spend most of their life in the joint and living in fear in grinding ,hopeless miserable poverty.

But that is the society we have -- because the Republicans have been in power for 12 years.

Mainly because the gun control lobby dragged the Democratic Party over the cliff in 1994 through an ARROGANT refusal to listen to the voters --including blue collar union workers -- who tried to explain that not everyone lives in safe yuppie surroundings. That many people --especially in the rural countryside -- can not count on the police responding within 40 minutes.

Posted by Don Williams | July 16, 2007 8:19 PM

Unless Freddie is advocating abolishing the ownership and use of private automobiles he/she should STFU. Save us all time and just post the link to Handgun Control, Inc.

Posted by externality | July 16, 2007 8:25 PM

I think gun ownership as a means of self-defense against crime is pretty delusional for the reasons I expressed above, i.e. you won't be ready, trained enough, poised enough, and decisive (i.e. bloodthirsty) enough to really make a difference.

However, a gun is a pretty convenient way to commit suicide, have a kid do something stupid with, or even lead to a very ill-considered episode of irrevocable domestic violence. My Dad was a cop and I grew up with guns in the house (securely locked at all times). A number of the men who served with my Dad shot themselves over the years. I don't recall one instance when any of them used the gun at home to prevent a crime.

Shortly after retiring from the police force my father dismantled all of his guns and through them away.

Posted by Klein's tiny left nut | July 16, 2007 8:33 PM

That would be "threw" not "through." Too much goddamned sangria.

Fortunately, I don't have a firearm or I might have endangered the PC.

Posted by Klein's tiny left nut | July 16, 2007 8:47 PM

RE shecky's comment "C'mon, Don. Are you saying if it wasn't for the 2nd Amendment, Hitler or Stalin would have been elected POTUS by now? "
----------
1) Of course not. All American politicans have a deep reverence for the Bill of Rights --just look at Dick Cheney and Attorney General Gonzales.

2) Actually, I don't think the wealthy elites of this country would have tolerated Franklin Roosevelt and his handling of the Great Depression if they had not been aware that a far worst fate could have befallen them. Because the millions of starving Americans had firearms.

3) If you look at South America, dictatorships tend to be established by the wealthy whenever their greed ruins the economy and the starving rabble start getting restless. Its not a military coup --it "establishing law and order". Remember what Herbert Hoover and Douglas MacArthur did to the veterans of WWI who demonstrated in Washington DC-- the "Bonus Army"? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army .

4) If Matthew starts getting uppity with his handgun, he needs to remember certain pieces of fine print in the Constitution re the District of Columbia. From the above article on the Bonus Army:

"The marchers were cleared and their camps were destroyed by the 12th Infantry Regiment from Fort Howard, Maryland, and the 3rd Cavalry Regiment under the command of MAJ. George S. Patton from Fort Myer, Virginia, under the overall command of General Douglas MacArthur.

The Posse Comitatus Act, prohibiting the U.S. military from being used for general law enforcement purposes in most instances, did not apply to Washington, D.C. because it is one of several pieces of federal property under the direct governance of the U.S. Congress (United States Constitution, Article I. Section 8).

Dwight D. Eisenhower, as a member of MacArthur's staff, had strong reservations about the operation. Troops carrying rifles with unsheathed bayonets and tear gas were sent into the Bonus Army's camps.

President Hoover did not want the army to march across the Anacostia River into the protesters' largest encampment, but Douglas MacArthur felt this was a communist attempt to overthrow the government and thus exceeded his authority.

Hundreds of veterans were injured, several were killed, including William Hushka and Eric Carlson, a wife of a veteran miscarried, and other casualties were inflicted. "
------------

5) The day of reckoning always comes -- its preordained whenever you allow an ever increasing concentration of wealth. The Great Depression, after all, occurred because the people who wanted to buy products did not have the money to do so and the people with money already had their needs sated and preferred to hide their capital under the mattress rather than invest it in job-producing businesses.

Posted by Don Williams | July 16, 2007 9:31 PM

Wow, so many falacies, so little time to address them! But so many can be addressed simply by reading the damned amendment, and having an elementary grasp of English grammar.

1. Whether Matt is a member of the militia is utterly irrelevant, the relevant question is whether he's a member of "the People". Seems he is.

2. It's not gun owners who are to be well regulated, it's the militia. The need for a well regulated militia is cited as a reason why the people can't be disarmed. How ironic to use that mention as a pretext for disarming them...

3. Guns frequently kill children, if you count gang bangers old enough to join the military if they didn't have criminal records as "children". Not otherwise.

4. "Arms" is a term of art, with an established meaning. Let's not pretend otherwise. It means the sort of weapons soldiers are expected to carry about on their person.

Until we issue grunts out of boot camp their own personal backpack nuke, the 2nd amendment isn't about nuclear weapons. Until we start issuing them super-soakers instead of assault rifles, it IS about the latter.

**********

Matt, if Fenty hadn't appealed, he would have responded instead with a new D.C. gun law, infintessimally less restrictive, and forced us to go through the whole challenge procedure again, just to get to this point. Trust me, going through the Supreme court is your fastest route to the range.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | July 16, 2007 9:43 PM

3. Guns frequently kill children, if you count gang bangers old enough to join the military if they didn't have criminal records as "children". Not otherwise.

Aren't your pro-gun bed fellows just wonderful people, Matt?

Oh, by the way, that is utterly invented. Again, thousands and thousands of children are killed by legally owned handguns in accidents or suicides. Check the Center for Disease Control numbers. It's irrefutable.

Posted by Freddie | July 16, 2007 10:14 PM

PS If you "brandish" a gun at a violent criminal, you've just given him legal justification to shoot YOU in self-defense.

Felony Murder charges trump claims of self-defense. You might be making it more likely to happen, but your cold, dead bones can at least have the comfort of knowing he'll still be guilty. If the police happen to catch him. And they have enough evidence to go to trial. And the jury doesn't go all wonky.

Posted by Jeff R. | July 16, 2007 10:40 PM

I own an antique .410 my great-grandmother gave me when I was ten, a Weatherby my grandfather left me when he died, A Japanese .22 my great-grandfather picked up in WWII and left me. A World War I Springfield with a flip bayonette that came with the .22. If I die before before my father, he's got an M-60 that he brought back disassembled from Vietnam, stashed in a suitcase (if you know what that weighs and you want to ask me if I'm crazy, the answer is "no, he is".)

Now I'm not moving to D.C. but what do you seriously expect people to do with this stuff?

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 16, 2007 10:44 PM

While the U.S. government and media keep focusing on defense policies, campaign advertisement and the war in Iraq, 1.2 billion people in the world continue surviving on less than $1 dollar a day. I would like to see political leaders regardless of their political affiliations, support more international problems that affect our place in this world, such as global poverty. We should not forget the commitment made towards the U.N. Millennium Goals (a pact of ending extreme world hunger by the year 2025) in 2000. While the U.S. government and media keep focusing on defense policies and the war in Iraq, 1.2 billion people in the world continue surviving on less than $1 dollar a day. According to The Borgen Project, an annual $19 billion dollars is needed to eliminate half of the extreme poverty affecting the world by the year 2015. To my sense, it is almost unacceptable to have spent so far more than $340 billion in Iraq only, when we have more than war immunities to change the world and eliminate poverty.

Posted by aileench | July 16, 2007 11:35 PM

This seems pretty straightforward to me. There is little reliable evidence of any kind on gun issues; people on both sides have been caught cooking the books, e.g. John Lott and Michael Bellesiles. These are not exactly marginal figures either. Most of the research out there is so biased as to be completely worthless.

As Michael Moore pointed out in Bowling for Columbine, Canada and Australia have plenty of guns, but much lower homicide (and suicide) rates than we do. And when American cities banned guns in response to rising crime rates, it didn't really have much effect. Crime went down during the 1990s due to the combination of economic prosperity and a lower number of young men. (Almost all violent crime is committed by males aged 16 to 25, so the Baby Boom was also inherently a crime boom.)

Politically, this is a no-brainer. Trying to ban guns not only won't pass and would probably have little effect if it did, but it also pisses off blue-collar workers (especially in rural areas) who should be voting Democratic for economic issues like their fathers and grandfathers did.

Was the assault rifle ban worth losing Congress in 1994?

Posted by Josh G. | July 16, 2007 11:55 PM

It just occurred to me that almost everyone in my extended family owns guns -- including my mother and grandmother (and me) -- and none of us has ever shot anyone on purpose or accidentally. On the other hand, my grandmother did manage to convince a guy to stop hitting my grandfather in the head with a hammer by pointing a loaded shotun at him, with deadly intent. There are a few other instances like this in our collective experience. (Hint: not everyone lives in places where the cops show up right away when you call them.)

Posted by Kiril | July 17, 2007 1:19 AM

Make owning handguns legal in DC if you join the DC militia. Require monthly drill of the militia every third Saturday of the month down at Blue Plains. If you keep showing up, you get to keep your guns.

There.

Posted by Brendan | July 17, 2007 7:24 AM

No one seems to have mentioned the 'well regulated' part of the 2nd amendment. It seems to me that says Congress should be passing laws to ensure the readiness of gun owners to act as a militia. So first all guns should be registered so that owners can be called up when a militia is needed. Second, anyone who wants to purchase a gun should have to pass a background check, maybe the same one as the military but with lesser restrictions on physical disabilities. Third, anyone who wants to own a gun must first pass a safety course and perhaps some basic course on serving in a militia (maybe something run by the National Guard...sort of the first week of basic training?). These all seem reasonable and in line with the ideas expressed in the 2nd amendment. They would help ensure safer gun ownership and would make sure that legal gun owners are not only capable but also useful in the express intent of allowing gun ownership as defined by the Bill of Rights.

Posted by ricky | July 17, 2007 10:43 AM

Ah, come on. You gun control weenies aren't even trying.

Per the Constitution, Congress prescribes the "discipline" which regulates the militia.
So Congress should order Matthew's unit to dress up in the French Zouave Uniform used by some Civil War units -- see http://www.cjdaley.com/146thNYSV.htm

That will certainly have the lawyers at the
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network handing out cards.

Posted by Don Williams | July 17, 2007 11:36 AM

Freddie, the CDC's numbers for childhood gun deaths count as a child anyone aged 0 to 20. Yes, that means adults aged 18, 19, and TWENTY year olds count as CHILDREN for their purposes.

Posted by Anna | July 17, 2007 1:04 PM

And yes, the right to bear arms is to provide a balance to the armed militias the government has control over. If Bush cancels the election and declares martial law, the people can do something about it. That is why we have second amendment.

Posted by Mark | July 16, 2007 5:03 PM

Even with most of the army tied down in Iraq, if the scenario you envision comes to pass, and you start getting uppity with Dear Leader, just remember, bazooka beats rifle, RPG beats shotgun, and flamethrower beats house.

-F.

Posted by Fingal | July 18, 2007 12:24 AM