…making up nonsense to keep handguns from you and me!
That pretty much describes the effort of our esteemed mayor and district
attorney in the WaPo yesterday. For example, they state:
The central meaning of the Second Amendment has long
been settled in the courts. The last time the Supreme Court
directly addressed the provision — which reads, “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” — was
in 1939, in a case called United States v. Miller. The court said
that the Second Amendment’s “obvious purpose” is to ensure the
effectiveness and continuation of state military forces (the
militia mentioned in the amendment), not to provide a private right
to own weapons for one’s own purposes.
Actually, U.S. v. Miller didn’t settle things at all.
Rather, it sends mixed messages, suggesting that an invididual
right to own guns is vital to ensure the continuation of
the militia. For example, the decision notes “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.” Furthermore, in U.S. v. Miller the Court looked at the
right to own a short-barrel shotgun. 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.
Fenty and Miller want you to believe that U.S. v. Miller settled
the matter in favor of people not having an individual right to own
guns, when it does no such thing. You can bet that they won’t be
the last to distort that decision for the purpose of upholding the
D.C. gun ban.
And, of course, gun control advocates like Fenty and Miller
can’t resist making an argument for which there is no evidence:
Against this backdrop, the D.C. Council decided in 1976
to ban almost all private possession of handguns, while allowing
residents to possess properly registered rifles and shotguns. The
council’s reasoning was as right then as it is now. Because
handguns are involved in crimes, accidents and suicides far more
often than other firearms, it makes perfect sense to ask that
residents who want firearms at home choose something other than
handguns.
If that was true, the areas with high rates of handgun ownership
should have high rates of gun deaths and areas with hadgun bans
should have lower rates of gun deaths. There is no evidence supporting that.
Then there is this howler:
The handgun ban has saved countless lives, but this
fundamental part of the District’s public safety laws will be no
more if the Supreme Court does not review and overturn this year’s
decision by the D.C. Circuit.
Once you’ve picked yourself up off the floor in hysterics, you
can quickly point out that D.C. has had one of the highest murder
rates in the nation. So how many lives has the handgun ban really
prevented? My guess is that it has actually caused more deaths than
it has saved by preventing law-abiding people from defending
themselves.
Finally, Fenty and Miller state, “Although handguns might still
be trafficked into the District illegally from other jurisdictions,
the last thing the District needs is even more handguns.”
No, the first thing the District needs is more handguns. We need
them in the hands of law-abiding citizens so they can defend
themselves. When criminals are afraid that the people they intend
to murder, rape, assualt or burgle might be able to shoot them,
they will commit less murders, rapes, assualts and burglaries.
But you can count on the likes of Fenty and Miller to never
understand that.
