Washington, D.C. Discovers Constitution

Friday's big news, which broke a bit late for H&R:

A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's long-standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.

In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent" on enrollment in a militia.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the city cannot prevent people from keeping handguns in their homes. The ruling also struck down a requirement that owners of registered firearms keep them unloaded and disassembled. The court did not address provisions that prohibit people from carrying unregistered guns outside the home.

The decision marks the first time a federal appeals court has struck down a portion of a gun law on Second Amendment grounds.

That's huge. And one angle you probably won't hear: This is the direction DC public opinion has been moving toward for some time. Only one month ago Marion Barry, DC's statesman/punchline who now holds a city council seat, proposed a halt to the gun ban.

Comments

Norman | March 10, 2007, 3:32am | #

Good news, I guess, but hardly DC's most pressing problem. Perhaps someday they'll have similar luck getting somebody to recognize their right to representation in Congress. While I'm loathed to rank the order of importance of any of our rights, I think the right to have your interests represented in the body that governs you should be considered fundamental.

Armed and Hammered | March 10, 2007, 4:08am | #

Let's not get too worked up over this. It won't be long before this is ballyhooed by various and sundry leftist hacks as a naked attempt by the neocon-stacked judiciary to condone the unfettered shooting of minorities. After all - only racist white folk have any interest in RKBA, right?

kwais | March 10, 2007, 4:23am | #

Norman,
I don't think there are any rights more important than the right to defend yourself.

This is great news.

My opinion of GW goes up a notch.

John C. Randolph | March 10, 2007, 4:39am | #

Umm... According to that article, Barry didn't propose a halt to the gun ban at all, he proposed a 90-day period in which people would have to register guns, after which the current ban is re-imposed. Sounds like yet another confiscation ploy to me.

-jcr

The Real Bill | March 10, 2007, 4:42am | #

I think that the right to self-defense is a fundamental part of the right to life. The second amendment shouldn't be needed, but obviously, it is. It would be nice if it stated specifically that the right is an individual one; "the people" is too easy to fudge.

steve | March 10, 2007, 6:04am | #

"It won't be long before this is ballyhooed by various and sundry leftist hacks as a naked attempt by the neocon-stacked judiciary to condone the unfettered shooting of minorities."

Well, the majority did cite Dred Scott in support...

Guy Montag | March 10, 2007, 6:10am | #

Norman,

This is one of those rare cases that a bunch of fancy-robed folk did some real reading. They proved that 2 out of 3 judges can read, given the proper three judges.

The one who can't read thinks that the right to keap and bear arms is not an individual right and does not apply to DC because it is not a State.

On that Congressional representation thing, as soon as the States amend the Constitution in your favor then that right will exist. Until then DC has to settle for 3 electoral votes for president.

Akira MacKenzie | March 10, 2007, 6:25am | #

From the blog Guy mentioned:

But her [Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson] other main point is that the majority's assertion to the contrary constitutes nothing more than dicta because the Second Amendment's protections, whatever they entail, do not extend to the District of Columbia, because it is not a State.

So the Bill Of Rights doesn't apply to D.C. because it's not a "state?" I always thought a certian segment of D.C. population (i.e. politicians) lived by ignoring the constitution, but I didn't think it went THAT far.

Akira MacKenzie | March 10, 2007, 6:27am | #

EDIT: That third paragraph is supposed to be in normal text. I fudged up the closing italics HTML tag on the quote.

Guy Montag | March 10, 2007, 6:29am | #

Another Marrion Barry item: his protest against taxation without representation is not going as well as Wesley Nipes'.

Abdul | March 10, 2007, 6:42am | #

While I'm glad that the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment is finally getting some play outside of the fifth circuit, this might not be as big a victory as we hoped.

From reading the opinion, it seems that the judges are still open to a lot upholding a lot of gun control like mandatory registration, bans on certain kinds of weapons, etc.

Emboldened gun control groups are certanly going to redouble their efforts in this regard.

Guy Montag | March 10, 2007, 6:45am | #

Akira MacKenzie,

Actually, I am kind of amazed that some judge has not granted DC disproportional representation in the Congress under some silly taxation representation logic found on bumper stickers and license plates, not in the Constitution.

We see statements like Norman's all of the time and they sound fair and nice. True, they are "fair" and nice wishes, but that pesky Constitution is in the way, expressly allowing representation in the House and Senate to States only.

All sorts of other rights of the people are protected in the District and Territories, but representation in the Congress is no more a "right" in the District than it is in Guam.

As for individual rights, all of those are supposed to be protected in the States and in the Territories, including the right t keep and bear arms. Yes, that is one that is walked over all of the time in the manner that you notice.

Guy Montag | March 10, 2007, 6:47am | #

before an oversite goes too far, I heard of this from a mediageek post yesterday afternoon on another Reason thread.

Guy Montag | March 10, 2007, 7:39am | #

David Weigel and Reason scoop the NRA by 2 hours:


Subject: D.C. Gun Ban Ruled Unconstitutional!
Date: 3/10/2007 2:53:50 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: [e-mail]

crimethink | March 10, 2007, 7:46am | #

Weigel is shilling for Marion Barry! (DRINK)

The whole bit about DC not being part of "a free State" reminds me of Stephen Colbert's interview with DC Congressional Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton.

Colbert: I checked your voting record; you've not voted once while you've been in office. You want to defend that?

Norton: Well, our government is imposing taxes on us in the District of Columbia without giving us a vote in the House and the Senate.

Colbert: Isn't that for states? You're not a state.

Norton: We're not a state, it's in the Constitution --

Colbert: But it's "We the people of the United STATES", what the Preamble to the Constitution says. You're not in the United States, you're in the District of Columbia; those aren't states. It's not "United States and a District", it's U--

Norton: You are the first to suggest that the nation's capital is not in the United States.

Colbert: I don't think it is.

Norton: Oh my goodness! That's civics lesson #2. We are a part of the United States of America.

Colbert: But you're not a state. Just by definition, aren't you not in the United States? You have to give me that.

crimethink | March 10, 2007, 7:50am | #

Of course, though I haven't heard her reaction yet, I'm sure that Norton (and her taxpayer-financed gun-toting bodyguards) will line up behind the "DC isn't a free State" argument after this ruling.

Guy Montag | March 10, 2007, 7:56am | #

crimethink,

She piped up about a proposed bill to guarantee the citizens of DC the right to bear arms saying that shopkeepers can already have handguns to defend their stores.

I meant to go back and look that up, because I was a bit skeptical about the assertion. Something to do after I calculate my unconcionable federal incom taxes this weekend I suppose.

crimethink | March 10, 2007, 8:05am | #

Guy Montag,

The DC gun ban does exempt places of business, but of course that's not the main issue; the inability of people to protect themselves in their homes is.

The bill passed the House, but loyal Republican Bill Frist refused to bring it up in the Senate, saying it would cause more important legislation (read: Schiavo, defense of marriage) to be delayed.

Guy Montag | March 10, 2007, 8:12am | #

crimethink,

He is not shilling for Marion Barry, he is channeling Dr. Bernadine van Dohrn! (DRINK)

thoreau | March 10, 2007, 8:16am | #

Weigel doesn't shill. Weigal shills. Get it rite, peeple!

(I lurnd how too spel from a miletery loyer.)

Guy Montag | March 10, 2007, 8:37am | #

Actually, this ruling is just in time. If it takes a while to go through the rest of the court system the people of DC may be able to defend themselves from the Club G'tmo detainees that Rep. Jim Moran (C-VA) wants to scatter across the East Coast.

D.A. Ridgely | March 10, 2007, 8:38am | #

David Weigel and Reason scoop the NRA by 2 hours:

The NRA would probably have gotten the news sooner if it wasn't using the Weigel Filter.

Egon | March 10, 2007, 8:39am | #

A flood of guns! A bloodbath! Our streets awash in blood! What about the children!?

anonymous coward | March 10, 2007, 8:45am | #

Let's not get too worked up over this. It won't be long before this is ballyhooed by various and sundry leftist hacks as a naked attempt by the neocon-stacked judiciary to condone the unfettered shooting of minorities. After all - only racist white folk have any interest in RKBA, right?

You've delayed the entry of joe into this thread, because you anticipated his first reaction.

Col DuBois | March 10, 2007, 8:46am | #

Still, Weigal linked to the Washington Pravda article that attempted to minimize the ruling's significance, instead of to a real news source like the Volokh Conspiracy.

Guy Montag | March 10, 2007, 8:48am | #

Radley Balko has some comments on his 'blog.

The money quote:

I particularly like this line from the Post editorial:

According to its myth, only criminals have had guns in the city and now law-abiding citizens will be able to arm themselves for protection.

Um, isn't this "myth" true on its face? If guns are banned in the city, everyone in the city who owns a gun is a criminal. And if this ruling stands, law-abiding citizens would now be able to arm themselves for protection.

How long will it be before that stupid DC $500 per round of ammunition fine is to be addressed?

Kind of makes that decision to get or not to get a magazine extender for the Benelli Nova Pump easier, but not the method that I prefer.

jp | March 10, 2007, 8:52am | #

For those who may be interested, the case is Parker v. District of Columbia (the WaPo article doesn't mention the name, as far as I can tell). It's not posted on the DC District Court's website yet: http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/opinions/district-court-2007.html

Volokh Conspiracy has a link to the opinion in the Mar. 9 post at 1:23 pm.

Guy Montag | March 10, 2007, 8:53am | #

Col DuBois,

mediageek provides useful links in this comment.

Alan Vanneman | March 10, 2007, 9:01am | #

Gun lovers will be glad to know that the appeals court cited the Dred Scott decision as precedent. Here's the story, from the WSJ:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/03/09/dred-full-decision/?mod=blogs

Guy Montag | March 10, 2007, 9:03am | #

Reason employees trapped in the District of Columbia: What personal protection firearm do you plan to purchase and carry when your freedom to do so is restored?

crimethink | March 10, 2007, 9:06am | #

Vanneman,

The point that was cited from Dred Scott is pretty uncontroversial, that citizens of the US do not lose their constitutional rights by living in part of the US that is not a state. Though it would have been wise to try to find a different case to cite...

Guy Montag | March 10, 2007, 9:10am | #

Alan Vanneman,

Are you referring to this passage?

“Although Dred Scott is as infamous as it was erroneous in holding that African-Americans are not citizens, this passage expresses the view, albeit in passing, that the Second Amendment contains a personal right,” Silberman observes, before moving on to other precedents.

I hope you are not opposing protected personal rights by any means necessary, to include tar and feathers.

Col DuBois | March 10, 2007, 9:10am | #

Jess Bravin : Wall Street Journal
as
David Weigel : Reason
?

joe | March 10, 2007, 9:24am | #

I think a lot of people will be surprised by how little reaction there is to this.

You're just certain there are "gun grabbers" hiding under your bed, ready to take to the streets after this ruling. I doubt it.

crimethink | March 10, 2007, 9:31am | #

joe,

I sure hope they're not under my bed -- that's where my guns are!

crimethink | March 10, 2007, 9:36am | #

More seriously, joe, your point is undermined by the editorials today in the NYT and WP, and the DC mayor's press conference about this topic. Those wheels all had to be turning within an hour of the decision, so it looks like the reaction is off to a strong start.

Guy Montag | March 10, 2007, 9:38am | #

crimethink,

Let's hope this strong start is interrupted by a strong stone wall.

(prediction: joe will call me homophobic for mentioning 'stonewall')

crimethink | March 10, 2007, 9:43am | #

For those who may be interested, the case is Parker v. District of Columbia

Since the only plaintiff found to have standing was Heller, not Parker, does the case name change if it goes forward to SCOTUS?

joe | March 10, 2007, 9:44am | #

crimethink,

I didn't say there would be NO reaction. Certainly, we can expect some noise.

But I doubt anything meaningful will happen.

I think libertarians have such little experience with victory that they're having trouble recognizing it.

Gun control is over, man. Groups like the NRA are going to raise as many alarms as they can to keep their coffers full and absolutists will still have plenty to crow about, as they always do, but the legal and political gun control ediface built up in the 70s and 80s was stopped in its tracks a decade ago, and it being pulled down. This ruling is just the latest stage.

joe | March 10, 2007, 9:45am | #

Guy,

Tell you what, post the same comment under my name, and then rob can call you a homophobe!

FinFangFoom | March 10, 2007, 9:46am | #

Right now the decision's effect is limited to the District because its in the DC Circuit. If the Supreme Court takes it, if it upholds it on the same grounds as the DC Circuit, then it will be limited to federal law. States can do whatever they want. The DC Circuit explicitly notes in a footnote on p. 39 of the opinion that the 2nd Amendment is not incorporated against the states. That means states can make guns illegal if they want.

crimethink | March 10, 2007, 9:51am | #

joe,

From your keyboard to God's monitor.


FingFangFoom,

The footnote only says that the Supremes have not recently dealt with the question of whether the 2nd is incorporated against the states, and since DC is directly governed by the federal government, that argument doesn't matter in this case.

andy | March 10, 2007, 9:52am | #

"After all - only racist white folk have any interest in RKBA, right?"

True story: I was chatting with a young Brasilian fellow online once and I brought up the fact that I'm a supporter of the NRA. He then proceeded to inquire: "So I guess you're a member of the KKK, too." I shit you not.

Granted, this is only a personal anecdote and he was only one guy, but I had no idea ANYONE thought that supporting the RTBA is racist...

Col DuBois | March 10, 2007, 9:54am | #

andy: what do you expect from a stupid Brazilian?

VM | March 10, 2007, 10:01am | #

" | March 10, 2007, 9:54am | #
andy: what do you expect from a stupid Brazilian?"

GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL



[runs off]

FinFangFoom | March 10, 2007, 10:02am | #

crimethink, that's what I said. Except that I said not/versus not dealt with. The Supreme Court just makes stuff up as it goes along. It doesn't derive its decisions from the platonic ideal of the Constitution.

crimethink | March 10, 2007, 10:04am | #

I said not/versus not dealt with.

That's a pretty huge distinction in constitutional law.

FinFangFoom | March 10, 2007, 10:05am | #

My uncharitable view of foreigners' views of the United States is that they tend to know more about the U.S. than we do about their country, but they don't actually know much. An American on the other hand might not know where Brazil is, but he won't act like he's an expert on it either.

Col DuBois | March 10, 2007, 10:10am | #

Maybe that's because foreigners tend to be from god-forsaken shitholes that no one in their right mind would want to know anything about.

FinFangFoom | March 10, 2007, 10:11am | #

Actually, it says that it hasn't been incorporated:

After citing precedents stating that only the federal government is constrained by the second amendment it states that:

"Indeed, the Second Amendment is one of the few Bill of Rights provisions that has not yet
been held to be incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment."

Then it dodges questioning precedent becuase it is in DC. Not that it would go against the SCOTUS anyways.

I highly doubt the Court will hold, if it even grants cert, that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states.

crimethink | March 10, 2007, 10:16am | #

You're collapsing "has not been held to be incorporated" into "has not been incorporated" again. There is a HUGE difference between the two. The latter would force the Court to follow stare decisis, while the former does not.

FinFangFoom | March 10, 2007, 10:17am | #

not really

bj | March 10, 2007, 10:21am | #

This is a naked attempt by the neocon-stacked judiciary to condone the unfettered shooting of minorities.

FinFangFoom | March 10, 2007, 10:23am | #

So the black people are going to kill the white people in DC?

Naked Neocons | March 10, 2007, 10:28am | #

Yeah, and we'll attempt to condone your ass too if you piss us off! Consider yourself warned!

shecky | March 10, 2007, 10:51am | #

I think Joe at 9:44am probably makes a couple good points about both libertarians and the state of gun control these days.

Captain Holly | March 10, 2007, 10:54am | #

Gun lovers will be glad to know that the appeals court cited the Dred Scott decision as precedent.

That's okay, because gun controllers have been relying on the openly racist Cruishank decision for years....

FinFangFoom | March 10, 2007, 11:01am | #

I don't know about this being a nail in the coffin of gun control. I think this could be, if the SCOTUS were to find that the 2nd was incorporated against the states and/or RTBA is not predicated on the prefatory language, akin to Roe in that it creates a movement up against it. I don't think gun control laws are unpopular, but I do think people currently think less about them since the crime rate has dropped so much. This might change that. It could even be strong enough to get amendment XXVIII.

Captain Holly | March 10, 2007, 11:04am | #

Gun control is over, man. Groups like the NRA are going to raise as many alarms as they can to keep their coffers full and absolutists will still have plenty to crow about, as they always do, but the legal and political gun control ediface built up in the 70s and 80s was stopped in its tracks a decade ago, and it being pulled down. This ruling is just the latest stage.

I would agree. (Quick! Someone get the smelling salts for joe!)

Gun control is a losing issue except in a few navy-blue states and cities. Deep down inside most people, when given the choice, would rather have a gun than not.

That's why gun control always polls better before the election than it does on election day: People tell the pollsters what they want to hear, and then vote the opposite way.

The biggest losers in this decision are the Democrats. Having this before the Supreme court in 2008 ensures that gun control will be a major issue in the next election.

brotherben | March 10, 2007, 11:08am | #

aint we gonna needs guns to pertect our kinfolk when all the terrists get here after the dumacraps cut and run from Iraq? cause if we aint fightin em there we all know we gots ta fight em here.

Wasnt Dred Scott a rasta fighting for the right to blaze 1 up in public? Part of a religious thing?(wink wink nod nod)

joe | March 10, 2007, 11:21am | #

andy,

You wrote, "True story: I was chatting with a young Brasilian fellow online once and I brought up the fact that I'm a supporter of the NRA. He then proceeded to inquire: "So I guess you're a member of the KKK, too." I shit you not.

Granted, this is only a personal anecdote and he was only one guy, but I had no idea ANYONE thought that supporting the RTBA is racist..."

The problem here is that "supporting the RTBA" isn't the same thing as "supporting the NRA." The NRA has aligned itself with some pretty hard-right groups and positions over the last decade and a half. It's the equivalent of opposing the war vs. supporting International ANSWER.

kwais | March 10, 2007, 11:26am | #

The 2nd Ammendment is America's original homeland security.

Bob Smith | March 10, 2007, 11:40am | #

What in the Constitution distinguishes the 2nd Amendment from the rest, such that every other Amendment but the 2nd is incorporated against the states? I don't see it anywhere. It must be in those "emanations and penumbras" for which we ordinary folk need smart people, like Supreme Court justices, to see and understand.

FinFangFoom | March 10, 2007, 11:41am | #

What in the Constitution distinguishes the 2nd Amendment from the rest, such that every other Amendment but the 2nd is incorporated against the states? I don't see it anywhere. It must be in those "emanations and penumbras" for which we ordinary folk need smart people, like Supreme Court justices, to see and understand.

Pretty much.

MP | March 10, 2007, 12:02pm | #

I highly doubt the Court will hold, if it even grants cert, that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states.

I bet the court will dodge this altogether. They'll stay narrowly focused on DC.

smartass | March 10, 2007, 12:08pm | #

The 2nd Ammendment is America's original homeland security.

I believe you meant "Ammendmment."

Guy Montag | March 10, 2007, 12:21pm | #

David,

So, are you going with a pistol or are you going to go all the way with a shotgun holder on the Segway :)

tomWright | March 10, 2007, 12:28pm | #

Andy, et. al.:

True story: I was chatting with a young Brasilian fellow online once and I brought up the fact that I'm a supporter of the NRA. He then proceeded to inquire: "So I guess you're a member of the KKK, too." I shit you not.

I am not surprised. I have received the same sort of comment in Mensa meetings here in N.J.

I told a member there once that I was an NRA member and his first response was: 'So how do you feel about blacks?'

Being submerged in a political viewpoint has nothing to do with nationality or intelligence. It comes from being taught a viewpoint at an early age and having it constantly reinforced by the people and community around you, and never questioning or having your views challenged.

In fact, in Mensa I have found the same set of ideas, from anarchy to communist, as elsewhere. They just use larger words to justify their prejudice.

Barry | March 10, 2007, 12:29pm | #

"The NRA has aligned itself with some pretty hard-right groups and positions over the last decade and a half. It's the equivalent of opposing the war vs. supporting International ANSWER."

Perhaps you can name them?

Note that being in the same location as the ANSWER kooks, protesting the same war, is not equivalent to supporting their other positions. The NRA has aligned itself with NOW and the ACLU, too, in the last decade and a half.

"Aligning" happens all the time with an advocacy group. It means little or nothing, when the alignment revolves around some specific issue like CFR, a gun control initiative, the Iraq War, public land access, etc. Attempting to smear by association is the tool of a talk-radio demagogue, and not even one who's good at it.

tomWright | March 10, 2007, 12:36pm | #

FinFangFoom, et. al.;

I highly doubt the Court will hold, if it even grants cert, that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states.

If I recall correctly, when reading about this suit when it was first filed, one of the reasons it was done in D.C. was specifically to avoid the issue of 14th Amendment incorporation. This strictly challenges whether the 2A is an individual right. Since 14A questions are not raised, it is fairly certain that the USSC would not rule on that question, should the case make it that far.

But that is a ways off, since D.C. has said they plan to apeal to an enbanc hearing of this court first, as happened in Emerson.

The beauty of this ruling is that it is not dicta, as the discussion of the 2A was in Emerson.

joe | March 10, 2007, 12:44pm | #

Spare me, Barry. Those aren't NOW bumper stickers and ACLU buttons that get sold at every NRA conference.

joe | March 10, 2007, 12:46pm | #

"Note that being in the same location as the ANSWER kooks, protesting the same war, is not equivalent to supporting their other positions."

No, but it certainly doesn't help your image - you know, the image people have the NRA? The subject of andy's anecdote? The one my comment was about?

crimethink | March 10, 2007, 12:48pm | #

joe,

Are you implying that KKK bumper stickers and buttons get sold at NRA conferences?

crimethink | March 10, 2007, 12:51pm | #

joe, that's not what you said. You said "It's the equivalent of opposing the war vs. supporting International ANSWER." Not "having the image of being associated with ANSWR." You weren't impugning the NRA's image, but their substance.

Barry | March 10, 2007, 12:54pm | #

"Spare me, Barry. Those aren't NOW bumper stickers and ACLU buttons that get sold at every NRA conference."

Who is selling them and what are they selling?

Never been to an NRA convention, myself. Have you? (You probably wouldn't call them "conferences" if you had. Even the VPC refers to them as "conventions.")

"No, but it certainly doesn't help your image"

As a gun-owning, organic-food-eating (and growing), pit bull rescuing, free-market-supporting 40-year-old surfer, I long ago grew out of giving a crap about being stereotyped. I especially grew out of believing that image=reality.

News flash: Al Gore doesn't really care about the earth, and Britney Spears was no goody-two-shoes. Hence, the name of this site and associated magazine are "Reason", not "The National Enquirer."

joe | March 10, 2007, 1:05pm | #

crimethink,

No, too far. Not KKK stickers, but the far right of the culture war. They've become so invested in guns as a cultural wedge issue that they've created a rather unfortunate brand for themselves.

If anyone read my comment as implying that the NRA was allied with the Klan, that wasn't my intent.

joe | March 10, 2007, 1:07pm | #

crimethink,

I was talking about image.

Barry,

"As a gun-owning, organic-food-eating (and growing), pit bull rescuing, free-market-supporting 40-year-old surfer, I long ago grew out of giving a crap about being stereotyped. I especially grew out of believing that image=reality."

Well, you should. Or rather, the NRA should, if they want to do an effective job influencing public opinion.

Guy Montag | March 10, 2007, 1:12pm | #

I just realized what this thread was lacking: GUN PORN!

Yes, it has been a while since I was accused of being a 'blog whore, so I am actually posting a link to one of my own 'blogs.

Saiga-12 details: 12 GA, auto-loading, 3" chamber, takes 5 rd. box magazine, 19" barrel threaded externally for chokes. Full choke on barrel in photograph.

Benelli Nova Pump details: 3.5" chamber, 18.4" barrel, cylinder choke (not threaded), tube magazine with plug removed, mercury recoil reducer added (not really needed), ghost-ring sights (for slugs).

Added bonus: Scary FOX news channel on TV in background! ooooooooooooo

I hear that stupid KKK and hating black people crap at 2600 meetings all of the time. It does not have to be confined to NRA issues (lifetime member and it was not a gift, I bought it myself), just saying you are against marriage on an H&R thread will get you the same thing.

Thrall | March 10, 2007, 1:12pm | #

What is this constitution you speak of?

I had no idea there was a state where guns were BANNED.

pigwiggle | March 10, 2007, 1:15pm | #

No, but it certainly doesn't help your image - you know, the image people have the NRA? The subject of andy's anecdote? The one my comment was about?

Well, the thing is people don't really give a shit about what the NRA actually does. You know, when you've got an axe to grind. Take, for example, my favorite lefty blog TalkLeft.com . As defense layers they are pro RTBA. When New Orleans tried to temporarily outlaw gun ownership TalkLeft ranted for a week about the NRA's conspicuous silence. They were so convinced the NRA only cared about white folk's RTBA they missed the suit the NRA filed the day the ban was announced, and the subsequent public statements. The suit managed an immediate injunction and was ultimately successful.

I was talking about image.

Yeah, and the image is that the NRA is mostly white conservative men, so they must be racist.

Guy Montag | March 10, 2007, 1:24pm | #

Ooops! The Benelli is 12 Ga. too.

crimethink | March 10, 2007, 1:26pm | #

just saying you are against marriage on an H&R thread will get you the same thing.

I'm assuming you mean "...saying you are against gay marriage..."

Guy Montag | March 10, 2007, 1:31pm | #

crimethink,

Nope, just saying that you are against marriage is enough. I swear!

See Guns as A non-issue | March 10, 2007, 1:31pm | #

"Deep down inside most people, when given the choice, would rather have a gun than not."

Project much.

Egocentric views of the world are unproductive.

FinFangFoom | March 10, 2007, 1:33pm | #

I'm against marriage.

Guy, I support your right to own guns, but not to drink Bud Light.

Guy Montag | March 10, 2007, 1:38pm | #

Guy, I support your right to own guns, but not to drink Bud Light.

Then I must use my guns to defend my right to drink Bud Light, even though I stick to Foster's and heavy Bud. Stella when at Dragonfly.

joe | March 10, 2007, 1:39pm | #

The media response to this is interesting. The WaPo and NYT are freaking out, but I cannot find a lefty blogger who is against this ruling.

Bobbo | March 10, 2007, 1:40pm | #

On the matter of DC's representation, I've come to the conclusion that the outlying residential areas of DC should be ceded to Maryland and Virginia and the city should eventually be reduced to the areas around the White House, the Mall, the Capitol, the Supreme Court Building, etc., and in exchange get some of Arlington containing various other monuments and government buildings. The final goal being that DC is nothing but government (and some business, restuarants, gas stations, convenience stores, etc) and has only one family living in it, and they aren't even residents.

Guy Montag | March 10, 2007, 1:40pm | #

Oh, that box in the picture is full of computer parts; I did not consume the original contents :)

Guy Montag | March 10, 2007, 1:43pm | #

Bobbo,

Northern VA has plenty of government buildings already. Ever hear of the Pentagon, CIA, NRO?

Give DC to Maryland. Keep it on that side of the river please.

crimethink | March 10, 2007, 1:45pm | #

joe,

But can you find a lefty blogger who is for this ruling? Or is the lack of outcry just because it's a Saturday morning?

Wait a minute...Dave Weigel is apparently for this ruling. You may have a point. ;-)

joe | March 10, 2007, 1:46pm | #

Bobbo,

But DC really is a city unto itself. It's got its own downtown, urban neighborhoods - How can you split a city in half?

There are a lot of potential answers - statehood, incorporation into MD, or an amendment specifically addressing Congressional representation - but the city of Washington actually exists.

joe | March 10, 2007, 1:50pm | #

crimethink,

Matthew Yglesius is for the ruling. I know kos is for the ruling. On the other hand, the Boston Globe hasn't written anything about it yet, an you know they're going to weigh in, so it's probably best to give it a couple of days before drawing a conclusion.

From what I've read so far, the score is about 2-0-8.

Guy Montag | March 10, 2007, 1:51pm | #

joe and Bobbo,

The part of DC that was once VA has already been taken back by VA. It is called Arlington County and is the only county in VA (that I know of) with no cities. It is mostly "city" anyway.

Consult a map and look at the DC area. It is not an accident that Arlington County "completes the diamond shape" of DC.

Also, the VA/MD/DC border is the only one I have noticed that is on the bank of a river, not down the middle. One can go to Gravelly Point park, step in the water and they are in DC.

So, part off the rest to MD, it can be Washington, MD for all I care.

JLM | March 10, 2007, 1:53pm | #

"But can you find a lefty blogger who is for this ruling?"

http://guntotingliberal.com/archives/905

FinFangFoom | March 10, 2007, 1:54pm | #

The MD border is weird because of the charter of the colonies of VA and MD made it that way. I think that other states all follow the international law rule which is down the middle of the navigable channel. What this means for the Mississippi with its oxbow lakes, I don't know.

Just a factoid.

crimethink | March 10, 2007, 1:56pm | #

joe,

None of the options you mention are politically feasible. Giving a <10 sq mi area two senators ain't going to fly in the heartland, and it's going to require a constitutional ammendment. Ceding the land back to Maryland might be easier, but it would require the approval of the MD legislature who will not be anxious to share their power with DC politicians. Also, come to think of it, that may require an ammendment, since the Constitution specifies that the "seat of government of the United States" is not to be established inside any state.

A constitutional ammendment dealing only with representation in the House might have a shot, but anything that tinkers with Senatorial representation would be impossible even with a constitutional ammendment.

crimethink | March 10, 2007, 2:06pm | #

Matthew Yglesius is for the ruling. I know kos is for the ruling.

How strange, then, that there's absolutely nothing about the ruling on their blogs. I tracked through hours worth of Kos kavetching about FoxNews hosting a Dem debate, though.

jf | March 10, 2007, 2:20pm | #

joe,

I love when you're like this. Heck, I can only find one minor thing you've said that I even feel the need to comment on:

Well, you should. Or rather, the NRA should, if they want to do an effective job influencing public opinion.

I don't think the NRA needs to worry about influencing public opinion as much as they need to do what they have been doing very successfully: raising funds to challenge gun laws. If the success of the ACLU was predicated on their Q score they would have gone the way of the woolly mammoth in the 1980s.

jimmy smith | March 10, 2007, 2:25pm | #

Does Mayor Barry need some heat to protect his stash? Good enough reason for me. Property is property.

Letalis | March 10, 2007, 3:48pm | #

No need for the NRA to raise alarm bell, huh? Ever heard of the United Nations? If anybody hates armed peasants more than urban American Democrats, it is the UN.

JorgXMcKie | March 10, 2007, 4:52pm | #

Guy Montag and FinFangFoom, I give you ILLINOIS v. KENTUCKY, 500 U.S. 380 (1991) on Findlaw.com.

The original Illinois-Kentucky border was basically the Illinois shoreline on the north side of the Ohio River. You could be fishing from the Illinois bank in the Ohio River and be given a ticket by a Kentucky game warden for not having a Kentucky fishing license.

And anyone living in DC who wants to vote for Senator or US Rep should feel free to move to one of the 50 places where this is possible.

Egon | March 10, 2007, 5:02pm | #

Guy,

Nice guns. I just got a Nova Pump in trade, but it's not the tactical version. (What am I going to do with a bird gun?) Also in the collection, a Mossberg 500 and a tacti-blinged Winchester 1300.

If I had it to do over again, I'd start with an 870p, but I love my shotguns.

Guy Montag | March 10, 2007, 5:18pm | #

JorgXMcKie,

Cool! I used to live in IL but never knew that.

More gun porn, this time with added hybrid juiciness.

Shot 18/25 and 16/25 on the wobble range today :(

Egon,

My son has a Mossberg 590. Cool gun. I kid him that his is a "long barrel" (20") and he does not even need to bring shells to go trap shooting.

When you strip that Benelli down to clean it you will love it. Seems to me that Mossberg uses too many loose parts. Might want to get a 1/4" punch for those trigger housing pins. The cap on the magazine of the Benelli has a tip for pushing the pins out.

Billy Roberts | March 10, 2007, 5:24pm | #

I hate to throw cold water on this celebration, but I just read the decision. While seemingly upholding the Second Amendment, it effectively neuters it. Here is an excerpt:

"That is not to suggest that the government is absolutely barred from regulating the use and ownership of pistols.... Reasonable restrictions also might be thought consistent with a ‘well regulated Militia.’ The registration of firearms gives the government information as to how many people would be armed for militia service if called up. Reasonable firearm proficiency testing would both promote public safety and produce better candidates for military service."

That's upholding licensing, registration, regulation, and restrictions. Just about every other gun law in the nation.

Especially puzzling is this, from the summary:

"To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the
Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the
depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)."

The court seems to be saying the People have a right to defense from the "depredations of a tyrannical government," while at the same time giving that tyrannical government the ability to regulate how the People do so.

Just what part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand?

Billy L. Roberts

Kap | March 10, 2007, 5:41pm | #

Re the NRA & the KKK:

The sad irony is that the NRA was actually founded in part to fight the KKK. Seriously.

From hit #2 on the obvious Google search:

* The Klan Act and Enforcement Act [which criminalized the KKK] were signed into law by President Ulysess S. Grant, who used their provisions vigorously.
* Grant's vigor in disrupting the Klan earned him unpopularity among many whites, yet after Grant left the White House, the NRA elected him as its eighth president.
* After Grant's term, the NRA elected General Philip Sheridan, who had removed the governors of Texas and Lousiana for failure to suppress the KKK.
* The NRA was founded by former Union officers, and eight of its first ten presidents were Union veterans.
* During the 1950s and 1960s, groups of blacks organized as NRA chapters in order to obtain surplus military rifles to fight off Klansmen.

To which I add: the NRA is chartered in...wait for it...New York City.

Kap | March 10, 2007, 5:51pm | #

Also, my snooping about on the related Daily Kos stories in the past few months has shown them to me to be surprisingly pro-RKBA.

I think the anti-gun sentiment in the Democrats is largely a generational thing, prevalent only in the Baby Boomers. The young'uns grew up playing first person shooters and are quite OK with a nice hunk of polymer and steel.

The Wine Commonsewer | March 10, 2007, 6:00pm | #

Somebody sent me a really cool link to dozens of great photos of scary looking rifles and, of course, I can't find the dang thing. So, you'll have to make do with this:

If guns were treated like cars

LarryA | March 10, 2007, 6:21pm | #

Gun control is over, man.

HR 1022.

Roy Haddad | March 10, 2007, 6:26pm | #

Just what part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand?

The same part of "shall make no law ... abridging" in the 1st amendment that they don't understand.

Considering the status quo, I don't think anything the Supreme Court does could possibly worsen the situation. Until the Supreme Court rules, there is, for all intents and purposes, no 2A right.

joe | March 10, 2007, 6:54pm | #

crimethink

I guesss you missed this:

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2007/03/i_was_strapped_with_gatswhen_y/

It's from this morning.

kos hasn't mentioned the ruling yet, but regularly writes about opposing gun control.

joe | March 10, 2007, 7:20pm | #

I agree with Kap - it's a generational thing. That explains the divide betweent the blogosphere and the print media.

LarryA, it's not going anywhere.

Ventifact | March 10, 2007, 8:38pm | #

I'm from the videogame generation, or whatever we might call them (us). I did the typical head-off-to-college and lived among the infidels for 4 years and had the pleasure of a closeup view of their exhuberant orgy of "liberal" self-congratulation.

They're not cool with guns. Sorry. (I really am...)

Guy Montag | March 10, 2007, 9:05pm | #

Billy L. Roberts,

So, I can keep ranting about gun grabbing Commies like Colin Powell and Rudie?

Billy Roberts | March 10, 2007, 10:26pm | #

Guy Montag, I would. But, maybe I'm missing something. Everyone else seems pleased as punch about this ruling, while I think it will prove to be a disaster.

Billy L. Roberts

Guy Montag | March 10, 2007, 10:27pm | #

I think the issue with giving DC to MD is that there is some tradition that Baltimore must be the crappiest city in the State.

Guy Montag | March 10, 2007, 10:34pm | #

But, maybe I'm missing something. Everyone else seems pleased as punch about this ruling, while I think it will prove to be a disaster.

It is one of those progress things. Nobody expected the blind date to open the door, but a hottie answered in a smart dress and 5" heels.

The question now is it Ann Coulter or RuPaul?

Shem | March 10, 2007, 11:11pm | #

Giving a

Shem | March 10, 2007, 11:12pm | #

Dammit, cut me off.

Giving a 10 sq mi area two senators ain't going to fly in the heartland, and it's going to require a constitutional ammendment.

They don't seem to have a problem giving the State of Wyoming two Senators, even though DC has about 40,000 more people. Frame it as a tax issue, and you'd have no problem picking up the needed states.

Shem | March 10, 2007, 11:15pm | #

The question now is it Ann Coulter or RuPaul?

Guy, Ann Coulter is just thousands of venomous spiders covered with a thin layer of skin. Where's the "good" option?

Guy Montag | March 10, 2007, 11:27pm | #

Guy, Ann Coulter is just thousands of venomous spiders covered with a thin layer of skin. Where's the "good" option?

At the last Reasonoid gathering I became known as "the Ann Coulter fan" (yes, singular), so pick your own hot chick for that.

anonymous coward | March 11, 2007, 7:15am | #

You're just certain there are "gun grabbers" hiding under your bed, ready to take to the streets after this ruling. I doubt it.

and

Gun control is over, man.

Well, this guy was certainly ready a few days after the 2006 election:

Tuesday, November 14th, 2006
A Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives ...by Michael Moore

9. We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a hunter and you should, perhaps, pick up another sport. We will make our streets and schools as free as we can from these weapons and we will protect your children just as we would protect ours.

Except that I'm not sure where he's hiding, since he can't fit under my bed.

anonymous coward | March 11, 2007, 7:24am | #

Roe v. Wade didn't stop the evil patriarchal right-wingers from trying to oppress women's bodies and force them to be breeding stock.

This ruling won't stop Schumer, Feinstein, Clinton, Brady, Moore, et. al from doing the Lord's work to save the children with reasonable, moderate, common sense, moderate, reasonable, gun-control^H^H^H^H^H^H^H safety laws.

wayne | March 11, 2007, 7:46am | #

"They don't seem to have a problem giving the State of Wyoming two Senators, even though DC has about 40,000 more people. Frame it as a tax issue, and you'd have no problem picking up the needed states."

Nor do they seem to have that problem a problem giving the state of California two senators, even though CA has about 28,000,000 more people than DC. The entire west coast has... six senators.

If DC residents had any more "representation" they would each have $90,000 in their freezer, and a crack pipe in their ashtray. Hey, that's kind of a catchy slogan.

Guy, I have never been to a Reason gathering, and I probably never will attend one, but I am also an Ann Coulter fan.

wayne | March 11, 2007, 8:00am | #

Just FYI, the east coast of the United States has 26 senators. Twenty fucking six... More than a quarter of the US senate, and some of you (morons) are crying that you have no representation.

California's population of illegal aliens alone should have six senators.

thoreau | March 11, 2007, 8:35am | #

If DC residents had any more "representation" they would each have $90,000 in their freezer, and a crack pipe in their ashtray. Hey, that's kind of a catchy slogan.

OK, I get why you would mention the crack pipe, because Marion Barry is from DC. But that $90k in the freezer thing is certainly a puzzling choice of imagery, given that the politican in question is a Lousiana politician. So, why did you associate that image with DC?

And, FWIW, while the rest of the east coast is represented, DC isn't.

Oh, and the East Coast has 28 Senators, not 26. There are 14 states on the East Coast: Maine, New Hampshire, Massachussettes, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.

wayne | March 11, 2007, 8:42am | #

"But that $90k in the freezer thing is certainly a puzzling choice of imagery, given that the politican in question is a Lousiana politician. So, why did you associate that image with DC?"

Just a snarky, corrupt politician image.

I pulled up a map of the US and counted the US east coast states. I guess one was so small that I missed it, which just further strengthens my point.

"And, FWIW, while the rest of the east coast is represented, DC isn't."

If politics is "the art of who gets what" then DC is amply represented because DC has the biggest nipple on the sow firmly between its teeth.

Guy Montag | March 11, 2007, 8:52am | #

thoreau,

The Virgin Islands are not represented either. So what?

Now, if the territories are not taxed at all then there is a good argument to ending taxes in DC, but there is no good argument for them being represented as a Citystate.

thoreau | March 11, 2007, 8:57am | #

FWIW, if politics is the art of the possible then a House member for DC is probably the way to go. Whatever one might think of the merits of giving 2 Senators to DC (I actually have no strong opinion), it won't fly. And MD won't take DC. So if DC can't be a state and can't be part of a state, then give it a meaningful House member by appropriate legal means.

wayne | March 11, 2007, 9:03am | #

T,

I respectfully disagree. DC already gets more representation than it deserves from VA and MD congressmen.

Besided, you guys already have Eleanor Holmes Norton, right?

wayne | March 11, 2007, 9:09am | #

Here is another snarky, but true observation. No state north of Virgina would qualify to be a large county in California.

What really needs to be done is to consolidate every state north of Virginia into a single state and then send all those excess senators home. If that was done, the east coast would still have 12 senators; double what the west coast has.

Guy Montag | March 11, 2007, 9:13am | #

I propose that this thread be the weekend open thread.

wayne | March 11, 2007, 9:21am | #

Guy,

I don't know if I can stand a whole weekend of abuse.

thoreau | March 11, 2007, 9:23am | #

Besided, you guys already have Eleanor Holmes Norton, right?

"You guys"? I don't live in DC.

Guy Montag | March 11, 2007, 9:39am | #

I don't know if I can stand a whole weekend of abuse.

It is easier to endure if you don't pay extra for it :)

Nobody Important | March 11, 2007, 9:53am | #

I've posted this here before, but it's worth repeating:

From "Absolutists Politics in a Moderate Package: Prohibitionist Intentions of the Gun Control Movement" by Gary Kleck (Journal on Firearms And Public Policy. Volume 13. Fall 2002. 1 MB PDF, HTML).

Restrictive licensing of handguns can be every bit as restrictive as a handgun ban; under the Sullivan Law’s restrictive licensing system in New York City, less than 1% of civilians have a permit allowing them to legally own a handgun (p.2)

Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Mike Royko stated it more bluntly: “the ultimate goal of the anti-gun lobby is to ban the private ownership of all weapons. That is their ultimate goal, although the anti-gun people won’t admit it. It would be foolish strategy.” (p. 3)

Accused of harboring prohibitionist intentions, they cite their organization’s official current legislative agenda. For example, HCI Chairman Pete Shields seemed to deny any intent of his organization to push for stricter controls on long guns in future when he wrote: “Handgun Control, Inc., does not propose further controls on rifles and shotguns.” Two features of this phrasing are note- worthy. First, the statement pertained to what HCI “proposes,” i.e. its stated policy agenda, rather than what its leadership ultimately wanted. Second, the statement was phrased in the present tense; it said nothing about what HCI might propose in the future. And in fact, within eight years, HCI did push for a ban on various rifles and shotguns. (p. 4)

“This measure may not be much, but it’s a good first step,” thereby acknowledging their intention to follow an incrementalist strategy. For example, HCI Chair Pete Shields admitted in 1976 that “we’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition totally illegal.” (p. 5)

Likewise, Rep. William Clay (D-MO) described the Brady Act as “the minimum step” that Congress should take to control handguns. “We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases.” Similarly, Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) was quoted in 1999 as saying that “Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that’s the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation.” (p. 5)

Thus, there is little serious dispute that gun control organizations, including HCI, are pursuing a step-by-step strategy, where attaining moderate controls facilitates gaining stricter controls. The only point on which disputants differ is how far this incrementalist path will be followed. While some of the preceding proponents openly acknowledged advocating an incrementalist strategy that they hoped would end in prohibition, other proponents, such as the leaders of HCI, do not currently admit to any plans to pursue controls that far. On the other hand, HCI’s leaders do not say exactly how far they will pursue further controls, i.e. what their ultimate stopping point will be. (p. 6)

HCI as an organization has never officially stated that it will never support banning possession of all guns or handguns, and it certainly has never said that it would actively oppose gun bans. Further, HCI has never in practice opposed a gun ban in its history. Quite the contrary, it has actively supported local and state proposals to ban handguns, and has actively defended existing handgun bans passed by local governments. When a ban on handgun possession was passed by the Village of Morton Grove, Illinois, and the ordinance was challenged in court, HCI filed an amicus curiae brief urging the appellate court to uphold the ordinance. (p. 6)

Likewise, in 1978, HCI, under its old name of the National Council to Control Handguns, filed an amicus curiae brief in defense of the Washington, D.C., handgun ban. More recently, in the 1990s, HCI President Richard Aborn urged other cities to adopt the same law.23 Thus, HCI at minimum supports local handgun bans. (pp. 6 - 7. See also my post at December 13, 2006, 5:08pm)

HCI’s support for handgun bans, however, has not been limited to local measures. In the Fall of 1976, under its old name of the National Council to Control Handguns, it contributed $16,000 to a state referendum campaign to ban the private possession of handguns in Massachusetts, providing nearly 30% of the campaign’s financing.24 Thus, HCI has supported state-level, as well as local, handgun prohibition. It has never publicly repudiated this support. (p. 7)

In contrast to HCI, other major gun control advocacy groups openly support prohibition. After HCI, the most prominent national gun control advocacy groups are probably the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV), formerly the National Coalition to Ban Handguns, and the Violence Policy Center (VPC). CSGV, organized by the Board of the Church and Society of the Methodist Church in 1975, unambiguously supports prohibitionist controls.30 Its Web site states that it advocates “a ban on the sale and possession of handguns and assault weapons.” CSGV does not, however, admit to any intentions to ban long guns (aside from the subset they regard as “assault weapons”) as well as handguns, so they too could harbor covert prohibitionist intentions that go beyond their advocacy of bans on handguns and “assault weapons.”

VPC also openly supports handgun prohibition, though a more indirect variant. It supports the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act (H.R. 920), which would grant regulatory authority to the Department of the Treasury that “would subject the gun industry to the same safety standards as virtually all other products sold in America.”32 This does not sound much like a gun ban, until one knows how VPC anticipates this regulatory power being used. In a 1999 New York Times op-ed article supporting this bill, VPC’s executive director, Josh Sugarmann, wrote that “any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns.” (pp. 8 - 9)

For example, Common Cause is probably best known for its efforts to reform campaign financing. However, in a 1972 statement presented to a House Judiciary Subcommittee, the organization endorsed a “total ban on the sale and manufacture of all handguns” as well as a proposal that “private ownership of handguns also be prohibited.” Likewise the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Unitarian Universalist Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans for Democratic Action, the National Alliance for Safer Cities, the National Board of the Young Women’s Christian Association of the U.S.A., and the International Ladies Garment Workers’ Union have all at some time endorsed banning the private possession of handguns. (p. 9)

Even the leaders of HCI openly admitted their prohibitionist intentions at one time. In repeated public statements early in the organization’s history, the long-time chair of HCI, Pete Shields, explicitly supported handgun prohibition, and even acknowledged that HCI was following an incrementalist strategy to attain this long-term goal. In July of 1976, Shields told a reporter for the New Yorker that his organization’s ultimate goal was “to make the possession of all handguns totally illegal” (emphasis in original) and was pursuing an incrementalist strategy in pursuit of the goal. He repeated these points in an interview in September of 1977 with Parade magazine. (pp. 9 - 10)

In his 1981 book, HCI Chair Pete Shields assured his readers that HCI had no intention of pushing for further controls over long guns, i.e. shotguns and rifles: “Handgun Control, Inc. does not propose further controls on rifles and shotguns. Rifles and shotguns are not the problem; they are not concealable.”... Yet, within a decade, as soon as the political opportunity arose to restrict “assault rifles” (which are no more concealable than other long guns), both HCI and CSGV began to lobby for a ban on “assault weapons,” an amorphous category largely composed of long guns....This willingness to extend their control efforts to long guns undermines the credibility of HCI and CSGV promises concerning the limits of their future control ambitions. (pp. 16 - 17)

There are also earlier precedents for moderate gun controls being expanded and made stricter until they reached the status of de facto gun bans. New York’s Sullivan Law, passed in 1911, initially allowed almost any adult to get the required permit for possessing a handgun, but legislative amendments and progressively stricter police administration of the law in New York City eventually produced a de facto ban on the private possession of handguns. Likewise, Washington, D.C., initially required only the registration of handguns, but in 1976 passed a law providing that the District would no longer register handguns, effectively banning any further acquisition of handguns. This handgun “freeze” in the long run will become a handgun ban as registered handgun owners move out of the city or die.

While neither Congress nor any state legislature has passed bans on guns or handguns, this is not because no such legislation has been introduced. Proposals to ban the private possession of handguns have been under consideration by the U.S. Congress since at least 1974. For example, Representative Jonathan Bingham had one version or another of a bill banning private possession of handguns under consideration from at least as early as 1974 to as late as 1981. This bill was supported by HCI, when it was called the National Council to Control Handguns (NCCH 1974). More recently, Senator John Chafee (R-RI) introduced a bill in 1992 banning handgun possession, as did Rep. Major Owens (D-Brooklyn, NY) in 1993 (p. 17)

And in 1999, the Attorney General of Maryland, J. JosephCurran proposed banning handguns in that state (p. 18)

I don't think they're going to give up just yet.

Guy Montag | March 11, 2007, 10:23am | #

Nobody Important,

Quite excellent! Especially liked seeing a Mike Royko quote in there.

I don't think for a moment that they are going to give up a bit. They will keep passing and re-passing restrictive laws faster than the reasonable courts can knock them down, while their Leftist freedom hating court buddes ecpand these bans farther than the lawmakers can dream.

In this case, even if this ends up being an end to the DC ban on ownership, they still have a crapload of laws that make only the rich able to own enough ammunition to own and load a gun.

OT: Any DC area folks up for watching the Las Vegas race at Bailey's in Crystal City this afternoon? Coverage starts at 1600 on FOX.

Probably can not get race sound with all of the basketball games going on. Meet up at the bar by whatever TV is showing the race. I am usually able to get it on TV1, but sometimes it is at the other end.

Bailey's is located on the 2nd floor at the corner of S 20th & S Crystal Drive in Arlington, VA. About 2 blocks south of the Crystal City METRO. Free parking (take that Adam's Morgan!) look for the overpass on Crystal Drive near 20th, parking garage right there, another entry point on 20th also.

That is not the only Bailey's in Arlington. Lots of people get that confused.

D.A. Ridgely | March 11, 2007, 10:27am | #

I don't see how D.C. could constitutionally be given a voting member of Congress, and if the Supreme Court did uphold such action it would be the final death blow of federalism. Though I prefer forcing a re-ceding of D.C. into Maryland (which D.C. residents oppose as strongly as Maryland does), I'd be just as happy to see D.C. become a federal income tax free zone with the caveat that no elected or appointed federal official could establish D.C. residency for purposes of tax avoidance.

Guy Montag | March 11, 2007, 10:43am | #

D.A. Ridgely,

A tax free zone would transform that blighted city into something worth visiting.

I don't remember what residency requirements are required for federal elected officials. If they must maintain residence in the district that elected them, that should not be a problem.

I don't see the business with appointed officials being a problem. If they want to live in the tax and gun free zone let them. Whenever the "for the purpose of" term is tacked on they can always find another "reason", like commuting time.

D.A. Ridgely | March 11, 2007, 10:58am | #

Federal officials should be subject to federal income tax, including for example judges. The last thing you want is the people who make, interpret or apply tax laws to be exempt from them. That's what I meant, that merely by virtue of holding such federal office the office holder would be subject to income tax regardless of place of residence.

rob | March 11, 2007, 11:11am | #

Since joe's now gotten so paranoid that I'll continue to point out his latent homophobic/racist/misogynistic tendencies that he's taken to pre-emptive posting before I'm even part of a thread, I feel I should do my best to make his paranoid fantasies as real as I possibly can. He's really wedded to that cross he pretends to bear...

"Tell you what, post the same comment under my name, and then rob can call you a homophobe!" - joe

Wow, STILL smarting about being called out of your closeted bigotry and taken behind the wood-shed! It's sad to see you flinching every time anyone says anything even remotely related. Of course, even a dog flinches when he sees a rolled-up newspaper if he's frequently been popped with it for making a mess on the floor, so I suppose it shouldn't be surprising.

As for the topics at hand - both the ruling and whether DC deserves representation...

This is probably a mixed bag ruling and celebrations from either camp would be premature. Although that quote where Michael Moore talks about not taking hunting firearms away is a perfect example of a guy with his head up his arse.

As usual, throughout the thread, joe is wrong as usual on several points: 1.) that the NRA is somehow closely allied to far-right organizations rather than allying itself with whichever organizations happen to be going in the same direction on the matter at hand at that moment (this is a common fallacy about alliances - in reality, they never last forever); 2.) being to the right of joe is somehow synonymous with being a racist - (joe is a living, breathing example of how being on the left doesn't make one free of offensive prejudices); 3.) the belief that there aren't authoritarian jack-asses who very much want to enact legislation to ban fire-arm ownership (the strategies are available on the web, as is the proposed legislation, as has been pointed out to joe's sudden silence).

One last thing, I contribute to the NRA and the ACLU every year. If either of them started to worry