Supreme Court Votes To Overturn DC Gun Ban
You can download the full 157-page ruling from the main headline on DC.gov. This CNN article has a fairly succinct summary of what’s at stake, and I also recommend Adam’s excellent discussion of the ruling at KOS. This ruling is significant on two different levels, one level being what it means for the District, and what it means for the country as a whole. I’ll address both in turn.
In terms of the District, the reality is the city’s demographics are changing—rich, white folks are moving in, and poor black folks are being pushed further and further out. The city is bringing in dollars hand over fist from all the development, and with those dollars comes investment, and then comes crime. Thus you have the sudden zealous need to preserve gun ownership in an area that traditionally has been considered a commuter city, and not safe because of all the scary brown people.
The problem with the gun ban is that it had zero effect on the flow of illegal guns into the city, from states like Virginia with their notoriously weak gun laws and gun shows that’re essentially arms bazaars like it was Kabul. Ironically, since DC has (to my knowledge) few or no registered firearms dealers, this will be a bonanza time for Virginia gun sellers, as all the DC residents flock across the river to buy handguns.
I fully support the right of any American citizen to own a gun, even though I don’t like them personally. The Constitution is for everyone or it’s not. (More on this in another post.) My worry is that you’ll get a lot of wannabe urban vigilantes who’ll buy massive-caliber firearms and not spend a day at the range getting trained. Then they’ll end up killing themselves, their kids, or some innocent schmuck, and sue the city or the gun manufacturer. Guns are not toys, and if owning a firearm came with compulsory training, I’d feel much more comfortable about the concept.
On a national level, Dahlia Lithwick wickedly notes that Scalia’s majority opinion doesn’t seem to reconcile well with his notion that “more Americans will be killed” if we give Gitmo inmates habeas corpus. But that’s to be expected from this Court, which now seems to exist solely for the purpose of vacillating between extreme strict constructionism and equally extreme “new law” in order to fulfill the right-wing Federalist Society/corporatist agenda.
I’m also dismayed that gun rights are probably going to take a huge chunk of airtime in the campaign now, which will prove more beneficial to McCain than to Obama, and eat up space that we need to discuss the economy, Iraq, global environmental issues, etc. Obama is already trying to run from his previous position on the gun ban, which won’t bode well if it comes up in debate.
But there IS an upside to this, though…now there is no logical way anyone can argue DC does not deserve the rights of full statehood. We pay taxes, we go to war, we obey the laws, and now we can own guns. How can we reasonably be denied a full vote in Congress after this day? I’d love to see the tortured logic used to justify that.
Overall, while I’m not jazzed about the decision and what surrounds it, it’s a good stepping-stone to getting DC voting rights enshrined in law, but I fear it will also pollute the campaign debate and national discourse to placate that eternally-oppressed class of gun owners who think the sky is falling if someone sneezes the words “well-regulated.”
June 26th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Utter and complete bullshit. The only way you can believe that gun ownership is an individual right is if you think that the authors of the Bill of Rights weren’t very familiar with the English language.
A “Person” is not a “People”
The right of a Person to keep and bear arms
The right of the People to keep and bear arms
They were not as grammatically ignorant as we are today.
Stats show that homicide and suicide rates dramatically dropped after the gun ban.
A pistol is a weapon of murder. Period. It is an expression of power over another person’s life, and the possession of one is an authoritarian punch in the face for anyone who thinks that they can behave in a civil manner, or anyone who believes in the cause of peace over war.
Do I do what the police want, what the government wants, because they know best? No. I do it because they can shoot me if I disobey, and most of the time get away with it. No reliance on my intellect, my moral understanding of the world, no acceptance of my different perspective- it’s do or die.
Embracing this ruling is a total capitulation to authoritarianism, that Might makes Right.
Well done.
June 26th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Aaron,
The oft-quoted phrase goes like this:
“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.”
At the time, America’s standing army consisted entirely of volunteer citizens and the odd conscript or slave, so the idea of separating the citizens’ right to bear arms from the protection of the nascent country was ludicrous. Now, obviously, things are different, but you can’t play linguistic games and say “the People” are not the same thing as “a Person.”
I completely agree with you that guns are designed for one purpose only–to harm or kill other living beings. That’s why I will never own one. I also agree that the ability of a ruling body to exercise its will is contingent on the amount of power it can flex.
But I don’t agree with you that this is a capitulation to authoritarianism. That was yesterday with the FISA cloture vote. This, while disturbing and upsetting, is also leverage we can use to show people that DC citizens are entitled to all the same rights as any other citizen. If the Constitution is going to be administered selectively, then it means nothing and should be ignored.
The reality is that homicide in DC is nothing like the constant stream of bloodshed everyone thinks it is. It’s drummed up constantly by a sensationalist press, usually when a white person is killed in a fancy part of town. Meanwhile, black men, women, and children die every day in other parts of the city and barely merit a mention. The law change won’t affect that at all, since those guns were illegally gained anyway.
On a national level, I ask you this: If gun ownership is truly viewed as a sacrosanct individual right, why isn’t it higher across the country? I think that’s because despite the hysterics of the gun lobby, the reality is because most people just don’t want to own the freaking things.
If anything, encouraging mass gun ownership across the country could probably lead to more lawlessness, not less. If you’re an authoritarian ruler, you want your populace quiescent, submissive, cowed, and most of all, disarmed.
June 26th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Bad decision, bad precendent, bad timing.
I wish I could be optimisitic about your thought on DC statehood.
I fear Washington is going to become a more dangerous place. It’s been proven time and time again that handgun ownership does little or nothing to stop crime, unless maybe you allowed concealed weapons! j/k
June 26th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
I pretty much agree with you on the gun logic. However, I do not see how you can try and bolster the Statehood argument. I don’t think it either helps or hinders the Statehood argument.
I will grant there is no special reason apart from politics and esthetics for DC not to become a state, except perhaps a bad precedent.
Columbia, the 51st State… Not my first choice, but I could abide it.
June 26th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Martin, I appreciate your considered opinion on the ruling.
I’ve written a letter or two to Eleanor Holmes-Norton asking about the disparity between ‘we should have the right to representation’ vs ‘we shouldn’t have the right to bear arms’.
I got a form letter back, without regard to my point, which retread the same old well-worn argument, and backing it up with a veritable ‘and my other constituents agree with me, so shut ya face.’
This is a step in the right direction, because now the only deprivation of rights to which we are subjected is coming from an external source. Perhaps now that our local government (has been forced to) admit that our population is mature enough to enjoy second amendment rights, the rest of the country will admit that we are also mature enough to have representation.
June 26th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Interesting post! I have linked to this at The DC Feed.
June 26th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Greg,
I think the argument can work, especially since this is all about usurping states’ rights through federal power. How, then, can we not be a state if it was our city that served as a benchmark for this test?
I do agree, though, that DC is in for some rough times. I have a bad feeling your prediction is going to come to pass.
June 26th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Nick,
Since we’re well into the weeds on bad precedent, I see no reason not to compound the error.
And if making DC a full state gets us the vote in Congress, that’s the tack we have to take.
June 26th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Matt,
*squints at your photo icon* Hey, don’t I know you?
I’m glad we agree on this issue, even if (as I suspect) we disagree on the larger point about guns. You’re right–it is all about our maturity as a citizenry. Can we handle the responsibilities that come with power? I think so.
DC is a dangerous place at times, yes. But I’ve lived here over a decade and been in every part of the city, sometimes by myself, sometimes very late at night. Worst thing that’s ever happened to me is that my car got busted into. The point is that danger is everywhere, and people shouldn’t be afraid of DC due to sensationalism and a bad image.
We deserve the chance to determine our own destinies, and paradoxically, this decision may help us do that.
June 26th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
DC Feed,
Thanks for the link! I’ll be sure to add your site to my blogroll now that I know it’s out there.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:32 am
Martin, you and I have shared a beverage together once or twice
I’ve always maintained than a gun ban in DC wouldn’t fix much without a gun ban in MD and VA, which wouldn’t fix much without a gun ban for the rest of the country. But I don’t think anyone knows what kind of havoc would be unleashed if the Government tried to disarm its citizenry; I also wonder how much of that Governmental fear may have influenced the decision.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
“…this will be a bonanza time for Virginia gun sellers, as all the DC residents flock across the river to buy handguns.”
That has been illegal under Federal Law since 1968. Federal law prohibits EVERYBODY – including licensed dealers – from transfering handguns out of state. An out-of-state individual must have the handgun sent to a dealer in that individual’s home state. The individual can then get the handgun from their in-state dealer after going through that state’s background check requirements, waiting period, etc.
The ONLY exemptions are:
1. Handguns made before January 01, 1898. (However, some states don’t recognize this exemption.)
2. Handguns that do not fire a cartridge; blackpowder, etc. (Again, some states don’t recognize this exemption.)
3. Handguns recognized as “Curios and Relics” (defined as being at least 50 years old, recognized as historically important, and/or specifically exempted by the Treasury Department) may be sold direct ONLY to holders of valid Federally-issued Curio & Relics licenses. (Yet again, some states don’t recognize this exemption.)
There are additional exemptions for bona fide law enforcement departments and governmental units. However, as these are not individuals, it’s beyond the scope of the discussion.
Heller is a great decision, but it certainly didn’t end the prohibition on interstate sales of handguns!
July 1st, 2008 at 1:32 am
Your thoughts about the upside of this ruling were anticipated 80 years ago. See
http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2008/06/26/attention-supreme-court/