Posted on 01/07/2005 5:53:21 PM PST by 45Auto
The House of Representatives has passed the D.C. Personal Protection Act (H.R. 3193), which would overturn a 28-year ban on handguns in the nation's capital. The Senate version (S. 1414) won't be considered until after the election. In the meantime, the usual suspects are raising the usual arguments against letting D.C. residents defend themselves. Those arguments are bogus, and the legislation should not be defeated because of them. Still, there are important reasons for Congress to step aside and leave this matter to the courts. In a nutshell, here's the erroneous case, then the legitimate case, for Congress to butt out.
The first erroneous argument was predictably made by Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.): "We have got to fight every intrusion into our self-government." Nonsense. Congress, as expressly set out in Article I of the U.S. Constitution, has plenary power over the District and every member of Congress has an independent, affirmative obligation to uphold the Constitution. If the District's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment -- as it does -- then Congress should act to defend D.C. residents' Second Amendment rights.
The second erroneous argument, as made by the Washington Post, is that Congress should not use its plenary power in a supposedly local matter because "the District is hardly unique." Wrong again. The District is indeed unique -- it's a regular contender for the dubious title, "murder capital of the nation." At the same time, it has the most draconian gun laws of any major city -- banning everyday, garden-variety pistols of the kind that disarmed, innocent victims in D.C. have a right to use within their homes for self defense. If "reasonable" regulations are those that prohibit bad persons from possessing massively destructive firearms, then the District's blanket prohibitions are patently unreasonable. The Post got it right in an editorial two years ago: "Some gun laws -- Washington's notably among them -- sweep more broadly than any individual right can reasonably be read to permit."
The D.C. government, a creature of Congress, is constrained no less than the federal government itself by the Second Amendment. Until 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. But unlike most of the other ten amendments, the applicability of the Second Amendment to the states has not been resolved. Yet because the District is not a state and is controlled by Congress, that complex, widely debated question need not be addressed when D.C. law is challenged on Second Amendment grounds.
Nonetheless, there is a valid reason to oppose the D.C. Personal Protection Act. Two Second Amendment lawsuits filed by decent, peaceable, upstanding D.C. residents are now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. I am co-counsel in one of those suits, which was filed by six plaintiffs who simply want a handgun at home to defend their lives and property. If the pending bill is enacted, both lawsuits will be dismissed as moot. After all, plaintiffs cannot challenge a law that no longer exists.
Otherwise, the lawsuits could well be headed to the Supreme Court; and that's where they belong. The citizens of this country deserve a foursquare pronouncement from the nation's highest court about the real meaning of the Second Amendment for all Americans -- not just the residents of D.C. Presently, because the Court hasn't resolved its view of the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms extends only as far as each state's constitution or statutes permit. That's not good enough. A Second Amendment right without a legally enforceable federal remedy is, in some states, no right at all.
Some Court-watchers fear a hostile reception. Maybe so. But if a Republican president is filling vacancies, the Court will probably lean toward a more vigorous assertion of Second Amendment rights by the time the two cases are reviewed. More important, if a good case doesn't reach the nine justices, a bad one will. Spurred by Attorney General John Ashcroft's endorsement of an individual right to bear arms, public defenders across the country are invoking the Second Amendment as a defense to prosecution. How long before the high court gets one of those cases, with a crack dealer as the Second Amendment's poster child?
Yes, the rights of D.C. residents can be vindicated by either legislation or litigation. But a narrow bill aimed at the D.C. Code will do only part of the job. The bill could be repealed by the next liberal Congress. D.C. officials might find ways of skirting the bill's provisions by exercising their bureaucratic discretion. And the bill would have no effect outside of the District. That means, of course, that it would have negligible impact on gun owners' rights when contrasted with an unambiguous proclamation, applicable across the nation, from the U.S. Supreme Court.
This may be a good point; then again, Mr. Levy has a vested interest.
The courts aren't competent to scrub my toilet. Here's a crazy idea: let's act in accordance with the CONSTITUTION!!!
Just a thought....
In such a peaceful place, why would anyone need a firearm?
"More important, if a good case doesn't reach the nine justices, a bad one will. Spurred by Attorney General John Ashcroft's endorsement of an individual right to bear arms, public defenders across the country are invoking the Second Amendment as a defense to prosecution. How long before the high court gets one of those cases, with a crack dealer as the Second Amendment's poster child?"
--good, bad or indifferent case, after what the present Supreme Court did to the First Amendment with McCain-Feingold I sure have no confidence in their ability to produce a rational decision on the Second---
Lol....yeah...I live in Northern Virginia ( manassas) about 30 minutes from D.C. Every night somebody is killed in D.C. And that's not an exaggeration...it's like the wild wild west out there...especially in Southeast D.C.
I read in the Weekly Standard about a year ago that D.C.
is not only the homicide capital of the U.S. but has the
second highest rate in the WORLD. I know this sounds
incredible but that's why I remembered it. I've got an
interesting personal story about gun-control and how it
nearly cost a life and drove me to the NRA.
D.C. is a Third World country governed by dangerous buffoons. I attended high school downtown there 40 years ago and the more people like Marion Barry they elect, the worse it gets. What people thought of as a "bad area" there when I was in school (around North Capitol and Eye St.) didn't even compare to the shape the whole damn city is in today. I wouldn't go back there unarmed today for anything.
Screw their laws. Their laws are getting decent citizens killed on a regular basis.
"He who does not prevent a crime when he can, encourages it"- Seneca
A Woman's Right
One woman's fight to bear arms.
by Robert A. Levy - Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute.
Like many crime-ridden cities, Washington, D.C. has not been able to keep guns away from the violent street gangs. But the city's success in disarming responsible, law-abiding residents has been remarkable. No handgun can be registered in D.C.
Story at: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-levy042403.asp
Obviously you went to Gonzaga . Did you ever walk down Defreese St.? LOL no you didnt, you are still alive.
I highly recommend (if you havn't already read it) John
Lott's book, "More Guns, Less Crime." It was researched
and written when he was at the University of Chicago (now
I think he's with the American Enterprise Inst.) and it is
widely acclaimed as the best analysis yet. If you want to
see all the mythology of gun-control demolished it's all
there. He also goes into demographics and the role firearms
has with women. A great book!
You must feel isolated but have you read Thomas Sowell
and Walter Williams on the subject of black conservatives?
I think they would admire your courage for refusing to
remain on the plantation where the Democrats and liberals
think you belong. They take blacks for granted and think
they own their votes. Congratulations!
I had him autograph my copy when he was at the MN state fair a few years back.
Don't remember Defreese St. But I'm still alive - and far from Eye St. But the Jesuits don't want people to know I went there, so keep it hush-hush, will ya?
The "wild wild west" was quite peaceful, after all everyone was armed more or less. In comparison to the cities of the east, even at the same time, let alone now, it was downright dull and boring.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.