A case has been in review for a while in D.C. This case is important for two reasons. One is that it is reviewing the rights of an individual to keep and bear arms. The other is that this review is being held in a Federal Court of Appeals. Why this is important is because the decision, depending on which way it goes, will set the course for gun ownership rights for a long time to come. This is one of the first serious challenges to the second amendment to come along in several years. It is made serious by virtue of the fact that the challenge comes in a federal jurisdiction, bypassing all the state level challenges that don't mean so much.
The four year old case is challenging D.C.'s law that prohibits personal ownership and possession of pistols in ones own home. Most federal courts hold the opinion that the second amendment pertains to the right of states to have an armed militia, not that the individual has a right to own a firearm. The Supreme Court has not ruled on this matter in since the 1930's. If the decision were to come down in favor of the law, it would establish an opinion by a federal court that would be unlikely to survive further challenge and severely weaken gun ownership rights in this country.
Today, it was announced that the appeals court had the good sense to overturn D.C.'s law. Washington city leadership has vowed to appeal which all but assures that this matter will come before the supreme court. Given the present makeup of the SCOTUS, there is an excellent chance that the country will return to a condition where the second amendment has a more similar meaning to that intended by the country's founders.
D.C.'s leaders all say that their intent is to reduce gun violence. It is odd that their position is at odds with the verified findings of the last ten years that improving access to firearms tends to curb violent crime while increasing property crime. It seems that when you make owning a firearm a crime, the law abiding turn in their guns but those who don't abide by the law keep theirs. All over the country, where states have enacted concealed carry laws there has been a corresponding and correlated reduction in violent crime.
Maybe with this ruling, D.C.'s leaders will get the reduced violence they want. I wonder which they want more?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
It just goes to show that you can find data to support any position you might want to formulate. While it is true that there are studies that can demonstrate that increases in gun ownership decrease crime... there are other studies that show just the opposite. This is a case where Occam's Razor is best applied in the face of not knowing which account to believe...
But first a little a little public service announcement: (1) Most people are not properly trained in the handling of fire arms. (2) Most people act before they think. (3) Most people think the worst of most other people.
So back to Occam: Is it more likely that crime will be reduced by putting guns in the hands of inept, hot headed, and paranoid individuals?
I think not...
Great Britian successfully banned private ownership of firearms. Even the police don't carry them. As a result, violent firearm related crimes and (more importantly) accidental shootings have dropped to almost zero.
I don't defend anyone's right to own a firearm because it makes no sense. Anyone who convinces themselves that they and their families are safer because they have a gun in the house are severely delusional.
Of course, if I think I'm going to convince anyone to turn in their guns... then I'm delusional.
Post a Comment