For a moment, I thought that this editorial criticizing the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia’s ruling against the Washington, D.C.
handgun ban appeared in the New York Times. One expects
that sort of hysteria from Pinch’s rag. But the Washington
Post editorial page, while liberal, is usually, well,
reasonable. This led me to two possible conclusions. Either the
Post editors farmed out the op-ed to someone at the
Times; or gun control is the one of the few areas where
sane liberals still do not permit rational discussion to enter the
debate.
The editorial has many of the hallmarks of hysteria —
overheated rhetoric, distortion, omission of inconvenient facts,
and appeal to authority. Here is a rundown:
Overheated rhetoric: The editorialists panned
the ruling as “radical,” which I take to mean “marked by a
considerable departure from the usual or traditional.” Yet gun
ownership in this nation is widespread, as is the fact that, by and
large, government interference with that ownership is minimal. It
has been that way for quite some time. Indeed, the D.C. Circuit
Court’s ruling seems consistent with what is “usual” and
“traditional” in this nation.
Distortion: The Washington Post claims
the ruling is radical by its deviation from Supreme Court
precedent: “The Supreme Court, in its landmark 1939 decision
United States v. Miller, stated that the Second Amendment
was adopted ‘with obvious purpose’ of protecting the ability of
states to organize militias and ‘must be interpreted and applied
with that end in view.’ Nearly every other federal court of appeals
has concurred in that finding.” The implication here is that the
D.C. Circuit Court is alone on Planet Leftfield. However, as the
D.C. Circuit Court pointed out, at least seven state appellate
courts have held that the Second Amendment protects an individual
right, not just the power of states to form militias (see page 17
of the decision (PDF)). By focusing only on federal court
decisions, the Post distorts the state of court opinion on
the Second Amendment.
Omission: The editorialists also leave out some
crucial sections of United States v. Miller. For example, the
Supreme Court in that case had a pretty expansive definition of
what constituted a militia:
The signification attributed to the term Militia
appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and
legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved
commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised
all males physically capable of acting in concert for the
common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military
discipline.” And further, that ordinarily when called for service
these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by
themselves and of the kind in common use at the
time.
So, all able-bodied men could be called into service but had to
show up with guns of their own. But how can they do that if they
can’t own a gun? Perhaps the able-bodied men in D.C. could borrow
one from those living in nearby Virginia or Maryland.
Furthermore, the guns involved in United States v.
Miller were short-barrel shotguns. The Court stated that it
could find no Second Amendment right to own such a gun because it
was “not within judicial notice that this weapon [was] any part of
the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute
to the common defense.” By implication, then, such a weapon could
be protected by the Second Amendment if it was part of ordinary
military equipment. Suppose it would do any good to point out to
the Washington Post that handguns are pretty standard
issue in today’s military?
Clearly, the Supreme Court in United States v. Miller
was far more ambivalent about the purpose of the Second Amendment
than the Post lets on.
Appeal To Authority: To prove their contention
that overturning a gun ban will “inevitably mean more people killed
and wounded,” the editorialists rely on the authority of the D.C.
Mayor:
The NRA predictably welcomed yesterday’s ruling.
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. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) counters that argument with
the sad record of what results from a proliferation of guns. As he
points out, more guns mean only more violence, and the city already
has too much of both. It is important to note that the ban on
handguns will stay in effect while the city considers whether to
appeal.
That passage is quite funny for many reasons, not the least of
which is that it undermines its own case. Any thinking person
reading it will ask the question, “If the gun ban has been so
effective stemming guns and violence, why does D.C. have ‘too much
of both’?”
Yet the more incisive question is what expertise does Mayor
Fenty have on gun control laws? Has he studied the issue in depth?
Doubtful. Rather, the Post is appealing to authority here,
probably because it has no real evidence that gun bans are
effective. Take a look at the second table here that shows D.C. crime rates per 100,000. In the ten
years following 1976, when D.C. imposed its gun ban, neither
homicides nor robberies declined. In fact, the murder rate trends
upward.
There is also the 2001 issue of the Journal of Law and Economics
that examined gun laws. Among the findings were that safe-storage
laws had no effect on gun deaths, that bans on juvenile possession
of guns did not reduce the homicide rate, and that right-to-carry
concealed handgun laws reduced the rate of violent crime.
The fact is that widespread gun ownership by law-abiding citizens
reduces crimes. Criminals are less likely to attack law-abiding
citizens if they have to worry that those citizens are armed.
It seems to me that those who genuinely believe that laws
banning gun ownership will reduce crime have given very little
thought to the nature of criminals. Why should we expect people who
have no compunction about violating laws against murder, rape and
theft would be inclined to obey a law against owning a handgun? Of
course, posing that question to the political left will do little
good. They’ll just respond with hysteria.
David Hogberg is a senior analyst at the National Center for
Public Policy Research. He also hosts his own website, Hog
Haven.
