'Breaking News' - D.C. Residents Have 2nd Amendment Rights
By Paul Helmke, Brady Campaign president | From the Brady Blog
In a landmark 5-4 opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the U.S. Supreme Court has defined an individual Second Amendment right to own a gun for self defense in the home.
After the decision, the National Rifle Association's Wayne LaPierre said, "This is a great moment in American history.… The Second Amendment as an individual right now becomes a real permanent part of American Constitutional law."
The plaintiff in the case was District of Columbia resident Dick Anthony Heller. As a result of his triumph, he won the right to register his handgun with the local police department.
In fact, he has already done so, calling his handgun registration "Victory!"
All right. At this point you've figured out that this isn't really "breaking news." As most of you know, the Heller decision was handed down last June and Mr. Heller registered his gun a few weeks later in August 2008.
Yet it bears repeating to get the attention of some members of Congress being herded by the shepherds at the National Rifle Association in a bill now pending in Congress.
For the first time in American history, residents of the District of Columbia could get the right to have a voting member in the U.S. House of Representatives. Unfortunately, the NRA is holding that bill hostage with a killer amendment that would strip the District's elected officials of their ability to regulate the ownership and sale of guns to protect the public.
How do they justify robbing DC residents of the right to make their own gun laws as the price for finally giving them the right to a voting member in Congress? According to the NRA's top lobbyist Chris Cox, it is "to restore the Second Amendment rights to lawful residents of the District of Columbia."
I have news for Mr. Cox and those members of Congress stuck in the crook of his shepherd's staff: District of Columbia residents already have Second Amendment rights.
Justice Antonin Scalia, speaking for the Supreme Court, said they did last June. What's more, the plaintiff in that case and other DC residents are exercising their rights.
What's really of concern to the NRA is that Justice Scalia handed down a measured decision that specifically endorsed some restrictions on who gets guns; what kind of guns they can get; how guns are sold, carried and stored; and where guns can be restricted.
What the NRA can't abide is the idea that the Second Amendment and common-sense gun control are now compatible with each other, instead of the false choice they've long portrayed them to be.
While Justice Scalia defined the Second Amendment as an individual right, at the same time he clearly stated that a raft of gun control laws were also "presumptively lawful," and that the list of examples he provided was "not … exhaustive." That happens to be exactly where American voters stand on the issue.
Members of Congress flocking together under the watchful NRA eye should look at the election results in 2008 and 2006, and ask themselves if it's really worth paying for their blessing in the first place.
And such Members should save the District and the country any moralizing about "Second Amendment rights," because it's clearly a non-issue in this bill.
Simply put, duly elected officials of the District of Columbia should have the power to make reasonable gun laws, subject to the Supreme Court's definition, that their residents want to help keep them safe.
It is wrong for Congress to exact one democratic principle as the price for granting another, particularly when the courts have already shown their willingness to deal with the issue of gun rights and gun control.
POST YOUR COMMENTS BELOW
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Gun laws California Requirements of DOJ 2008
California tells its citizens what brand and model of guns its citizens are allowed to buy, and no others.
California even has laws restricting the COLORS a gun may have and not have. California Penal Code 12020-12040 and through 12132.
California requires 3 free samples to be tested by several drop tests onto concrete and only those makes and models tested and approved by the DOJ can be sold.
California requires 3 free samples to have successfully fired 600 rounds and only those makes and models tested and approved by the DOJ can be sold.
California requires a pistol to have a manually operated safety.
California requires a pistol to have a magazine disconnect such that if the magazine is removed the gun will not fire.
California requires a pistol to have a loaded chamber indicator such that an operator can see if the chamber is loaded.
California requires a pistol to have a magazine only of 10 rounds or less, nothing more.
California requires a 10 day waiting period for the background check before you can get a handgun.
California requires a pistol to have a lock or a safe approved by the State before a handgun can be purchased.
California requires that a pistol have the slide lock open after the last round from the magazine has been fired.
California requires that previously approved pistol models have their approval renewed every year.
California requires an approved pistol to imprint onto every round fired the make model and serial number code after January 1, 2010.
California has more than 50,000 words in its gun laws. California Penal Code 12020-12040 and through 12132. "Infringed" to the max.
What about that 2nd Amendment ; "A well-organized Militia, being necessary to the defense of a free State, The Right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".
Well, you "infringe" on anything enough and the original right becomes meaningless. Like 50,000 words in California laws. Most of the people of California are not free to keep and bear arms. They'd get immediately arrested.
Anti-handgun arguments
Anti-handgun arguments focus on the danger to innocents. Because many innocent people, including children, are killed or injured by guns, it is the gun that is at fault and ought to be banished from existence.
Anti-handgun arguments focus on the criminal deeds of gun toting felons to rob, maim, rape and kill innocents and it is the guns borne by those felons that are the cause of such criminal activity and if guns were wished out of existence then these crimes would go away.
Anti-handgun arguments focus on the suicides that occur every year caused by guns and those suicides are the direct fault of the gun and so if the guns went away then the suicide rate would fall dramatically and there would be no more handgun suicides.
All the above arguments are invalid. If all guns were instantly gone, innocents would still be hurt and/or killed by autos, bats, bicycles, boats, chemicals, dark, glass, heights, knives, motorcycles, swords, tools, poisons, and yes, even water.
Accidents, criminal activity and suicides are the reasons gun activists want to ban guns.
Before there were any guns on earth, there were accidents crimes and suicides. Historical accounts abound. The Torah, Bible, Koran and Talmud recount such as do myriads of other ancient documents.
The anti-handguns argument degrades to become only guesses about what the results would be if all handguns disappeared.
Guns are not going to go away. There are too many of them. Worldwide. If guns did go away, they would be swiftly created anew, and by the millions. Worldwide. By governments and in private factories. Stop trying to ban guns. It is a naive and fruitless endeavor.
The argument that the Constitution applies only to Federal laws, and each State or locality can make any laws they wish regarding the right to keep and bear arms, is foolish. It takes away the rights of many citizens of this country and makes each State or locality a Country unto itself. We fought the Revolutionary and Civil Wars over such rights.
Think about this: many violent crimes are or could be PREVENTED by handguns in the hands of good people. Ask those who have done so.
Paul:
The problem is that neither you, the Brady Campaign, nor the DC authorities has any concept of the meaning if the words "common sense".
If any of you did, this situation would never have arisen in the first place.
I realize the application of real common sense would cost you a rather lucrative job, and wipe out the Brady Campaign, but the DC authorities have no such excuse.
No voting block in DC or anywhere else should have the right to strip essential rights from individuals. Without a gun, an individual will always be the victim of a gang. Without a gun, an old, very young, sick or frail person will always be the victim of any stronger person intending evil. Without a gun, any healthy individual will always be at the mercy of another individual with a weapon. Your sympathies are massively misplaced, Mr. Helmke.
All DC residents and all American citizens who wish to visit their nation's capitol should have the right to effective self-defense, and that pretty much means the right to carry gun without fear of being "detained" by any kind of government employee. Until that can be done we are not a free country.
The Heller ruling was a monumental step toward undoing what the anti-rights campaign has been nibbling at for years now. DC city council doesn't get it still. They called semi-auto pistols, machine guns. They stacked wave after wave of restrictions on the exercise of the 'newly aquired right'. Now that the court forced the constitution to be obeyed as it was written, we'll get the DC city council to obey the court. We still have a lot of work to do. We would like all the people who have this right the ability to exercise it. We need some retailers in DC, since you've made it illegal to transfer them across the neighboring state lines and we need places to practice. You wouldn't want us to have guns and not be able to use them effectively. We need to get homeowner defense laws so families don't have to cower in a back room before they defend their children from drug addicts. We need lawful concealed carry like in 38 other states. DC residents need to have all the tools to take back their city from the criminals. Perhaps the Federal Government could help out. We could extend the Civilan Marksmenship program to reuse army pistols, resell them back to the citizens like they have been doing with rifle for the past 106 years. Wouldn't it be great if the DC council helped people use their rights like they do with the 1st Amendment, the 4th, 5th, and voting. This ruling isn't the answer, but it's a good first step.