Should the D.C. Handgun Ban Have Been Overturned?

Recommend (8) Comments (1)

There are not enough police to protect DC residents, nor are the authorities there duty bound to protect them.  How ironic that the same city which says it can’t protect its citizens also prevents those same citizens from protecting themselves.

Warren v. District of Columbia was a case where a woman was gang raped for fourteen hours, even though she had phoned the police twice before the rapists gained entry into her apartment. The police never arrived.  Ms. Warren sued the District of Columbia for negligence in protecting her, but the court ruled in favor of the District, stating:

[The] government and its agents are under no general duty to provide ... police protection to any particular individual citizen, but, rather, duty to provide public services is owed to [the] public at large. [See Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A. 2d 1, (1981).]

Thankfully, another DC resident, Becky Griffin, did have a gun.  In December, 1993, Becky used an unregistered firearm to defend her family from certain death.

After two thugs entered Becky's home, they began preparing to burn the house.  They were armed with knives and had already tied up one of her daughters with duct tape. As one of the intruders charged Becky, she grabbed her gun and shot him.  The other fled -- that being the good news. The bad news is that Becky was in possession of an illegal gun.

A Washington Times editorial summed up the predicament this way:

A Northwest woman fended off two thugs . . . saving her life and those of her daughters in the process. Now comes the hard part: waiting to see if the U.S. attorney's office will charge her with illegally defending herself. There is nothing in DC law that exempts those . . . who use weapons [banned since 1976] in self-defense.

Most people would agree:  it's absurd that officials should even have the option to prosecute someone for a clear-cut case of self-defense.