DC Gun Ban article from Foxnews

[maverick2076]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336689,00.html

John R. Lott Jr.: D.C. Gun Ban Proponents Ignore the Facts
Tuesday, March 11, 2008

By John R. Lott, Jr. and Maxim Lott

For gun control proponents and opponents a lot is riding on a former security guard for the Supreme Court Annex. Next Tuesday , the Supreme Court will hear arguments over whether the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and its requirement that any rifles or shotguns remain locked violates the plaintiff, Dick Heller's, constitutional rights.

Whatever the court decides, no one expects them to end gun control any more than the First Amendment's "congress shall make no laws" has prevented the passage of campaign finance regulations. The decision is likely to be limited to just whether a ban "infringed" on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

If the D.C. ban is accepted by the court, it is hard to believe that any gun regulation will ever be struck down. If the court strikes it down, where the courts draw the line on what laws are considered "reasonable" regulations will take years to sort out .

Thus far the District of Columbia has spent a lot of time making a public policy case. Their argument in their brief to the court is pretty simple : "banning handguns saves lives."

Yet, while it may seem obvious to many people that banning guns will save lives, that has not been D.C.'s experience.

The ban went into effect in early 1977, but since it started there is only one year (1985) when D.C.'s murder rate fell below what it was in 1976. But the murder rate also rose dramatically relative to other cities. In the 29 years we have data after the ban, D.C.'s murder rate ranked first or second among the largest 50 cities for 15 years. In another four years, it ranked fourth.

For Instance, D.C.'s murder rate fell 3.5 to 3 times more than Maryland and Virginia's during the five years before the handgun ban went into effect in 1977, but rose 3.8 times more in the five years after it.

Was there something special about D.C. that kept the ban from working? Probably not, since bans have been causing crime to increase in other cities as well. D.C. cites the Chicago ban to support its own. Yet, before Chicago's ban in 1982, its murder rate, which was falling from 27 to 22 per 100,000 in the five years, suddenly stopped falling and rose slightly to 23 per 100,000 in the five years afterwards.

Neither have bans worked in other countries. Gun crime in England and Wales increased 340 percent in the seven years since their 1998 ban. Ireland banned handguns and center fire rifles in 1972 and murder rates soared — the post-ban murder rate average has been 144 percent higher than pre-ban.

How could this be? D.C. officials say that the ban will disarm criminals. But who follows a ban and turns their guns in? Criminals who would be facing long prison sentences anyway if they were caught in a crime, or typically law-abiding citizens? By disarming normal people, a gun ban actually makes crime easier to commit.

Unfortunately, the Department of Justice has actually sided with D.C. in important parts of the case, and the court has granted Solicitor General Paul Clement 15 minutes to make his argument. While largely paying lip service to the Second Amendment being an "individual right," the Department of Justice brief argues that an "unquestionable threat to public safety" from unregulated guns requires a lower standard must be adopted in defending it than is used to defend the rest of the Bill of Rights. But if they really believed that their evidence showed this, just as with the classic exception for the First Amendment of "falsely shouting fire in a theater," it wouldn't be necessary to treat the Second Amendment differently .

But what has not gotten much attention is that for the first time in U.S. history an administration has provided conflicting briefs to the Supreme Court. Vice President Dick Cheney has put forward his own brief arguing that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right that is no different than freedom of speech.

The DOJ constitutional argument is similar to that of D.C. It argues that since the government bans machine guns, it should also be able to ban handguns. And they claim that D.C. residents still retain a right to self-defense because the city doesn't ban locked shotguns and rifles. Locks, they claim , "can properly be interpreted" as not interfering with using guns for self-protection.

Factual errors underlie the rest of the argument — for in D.C., rifles and shotguns become illegal as soon as they are unlocked. That means the city can prosecute anyone who uses one in self-defense, even if it was locked before the incident. Is that a "reasonable" restriction on self-defense? Gunlock requirements are also associated with more deaths and more violent crime as they make defensive gun uses more difficult. Machine guns are also not banned .

It makes sense that the DOJ is backing the ban, given that it would lose regulatory power if it were struck down. As the DOJ lawyers note in the brief, striking down this ban could "cast doubt on the constitutionality of existing federal legislation."

The Department of Justice and D.C. politicians can talk all they want about how necessary handgun bans are to ensure public safety and the "reasonableness" of the restrictions. But hopefully the Supreme Court will see past that. At some point, hard facts must matter. This is one point where public safety and individual rights coincide.

*John Lott is the author of "Freedomnomics" and a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland. Lott recently consulted with the Independence Institute on changes in D.C. crime rates. Maxim Lott is a junior at the College of William & Mary

[Penn]

Yet, while it may seem obvious to many people that banning guns will save lives, that has not been D.C.'s experience.

It may seem obvious to a bunch of idiots.

[casingpoint]

Despite the machinations of the antigunners, which now apparently includes the U.S. Government, the very near future is likely to find the legal groundwork laid for U.S. citizens to legally keep and bear machine guns in the wake of Heller v. D.C.

def: machination--a scheming or crafty action or artful design intended to accomplish some usually evil end

That pretty well sums up the Solicitor General's brief. What an abrupt turnaround from a previous brief on the same matter from the Justice Dept. former Attorney General John Ashcroft.

[stevie_d_64]

Yet, while it may seem obvious to many people that banning guns will save lives, that has not been D.C.'s experience.

It may seem obvious to a bunch of idiots.

But then again you give them (idiots) wayyyyy too much credit...

I do see what you mean though...

[htxred]

so someone please confirm my suspissions are correct on why the DOJ supports DC with this gun ban???

[LarryH]

so someone please confirm my suspissions are correct on why the DOJ supports DC with this gun ban???

I believe this quote from Lott's article answers your question. Don't remember who said it but "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Ya give some people a bit of power, and they don't want to give up even a little bit of it. They'd rather have even more.

"It makes sense that the DOJ is backing the ban, given that it would lose regulatory power if it were struck down. As the DOJ lawyers note in the brief, striking down this ban could "cast doubt on the constitutionality of existing federal legislation."

[45 4 life]

Anyone given thought to what may happen if the court rules to uphold the ban. We may be in a fight for our lives in the very near future. When I think about that and the elections coming up I get cold shivers down my back.

[jimlongley]

Anyone given thought to what may happen if the court rules to uphold the ban. We may be in a fight for our lives in the very near future. When I think about that and the elections coming up I get cold shivers down my back.

Yes, and I get chills too, but for a slightly different reason. If SCOTUS rules the wrong way, the Brady Bunch and its ilk will rise to new extremes in rhetoric, not to mention the legislative issues.

Of course if they do rule that the DC laws should stand, then that's really pretty much all there is to it, but the Brady types will not hesitate to trumpet their victory. I remember when Morton Grove was decided and they represented the decision as a judicial imprimatur endorsing all handgun bans, which has not followed. So there is some hope.

[KBCraig]

Anyone given thought to what may happen if the court rules to uphold the ban.

In 36 states, absolutely nothing will happen.

Hawaii, New York and New Jersey will see little change other than strengthening their current position, since they can't get much more anti-gun than they currently are.

California, Maryland and Massachusetts will probably see further restrictions at the local level.

Illinois will remain deadlocked; Chicago can't get more anti-gun, and the rest of the state will remain powerless to do anything about it.

Minnesota might suffer further restrictions.

We may be in a fight for our lives in the very near future. When I think about that and the elections coming up I get cold shivers down my back.

Now, now... talk of armed insurrection will get you a stern talking to!

[htxred]

do you guys think a nationwide gun ban could possibly happen? i would hope SOME people that represent US would stop that from happening..

[frankie_the_yankee]

If SCOTUS upholds the DC gun ban, it clearly puts the battle for 2A rights in the legislative arena. One "unintended consequence" might be to awaken the huge number of hunters and other gun owners who are not currently members of the NRA to get on board. NRA membership could swell from the current 4+ million to 5 or 10 million or more. More gun owners will be motivated to register and vote, and they will be less likely to be distracted by other issues. People might also think twice before throwing their votes away on minor party candidates with no chance to win. And politicians would be even more careful to avoid getting on the wrong side of gun owners than they are now. (They might not be too bright, but every last one of them knows how to count.)

Basically, what I'm saying if that if we get a bad ruling, there will be a lot of blowback from our side.

That being said, I'm still hopeful, and hoping, for a good ruling. Establishing the 2A as unequivocally an individual right, subject to strict scrutiny and (eventually, in a future ruling) incorporated to the states through the 14th amendment would be something I've been dreaming about almost all my life. It would be like Brown v Board of Education. It would change how history textbooks are written, and what is taught to our children. It would restore the rights of millions that are currently denied in places like Chicago, NYC, NJ, CA, and other centers of government repression.

It would be a great day.

[casingpoint]

the 2A as unequivocally an individual right, subject to strict scrutiny

Scrutinize all they want, but any infringement is illegal.

[frankie_the_yankee]

the 2A as unequivocally an individual right, subject to strict scrutiny

Scrutinize all they want, but any infringement is illegal.

There is nothing wrong with holding that opinion, but don't get your hopes up. There is not the slightest chance The Court will rule that way - at least not in the way you mean it.

While I am quite confident that DC's blanket handgun ban will be struck down, I am equally confident that they will not rule that any regulation = an infringement and hence, is not allowed. Even in a best case scenario, DC will end up with considerable latitude to regulate the purchase and possession of guns, including "reasonable" (in their opinion, not ours) time, place, and manner restrictions on carrying.

FWIW, none of the briefs supporting Heller that I've read (and that's most of them) argue that any or all regulations are inherently infringements and therefore unconstitutional.

If we can get strict scrutiny, that will be a big thing, as it will open the door to a suit against the city of Chicago. To rule against Chicago's handgun ban would require The Court to "incorporate" the 2A against the states through the 14th amendment. That would be another huge step forward for gun rights.

[45 4 life]

We may be in a fight for our lives in the very near future. When I think about that and the elections coming up I get cold shivers down my back.

Now, now... talk of armed insurrection will get you a stern talking to! [/quote]

You know of course that I was speaking in terms of the political and legal battles

[Moonpie]

I pray the USSC comes in with an individual ruling.

The mean old cynic in me believes the court will in no way allow a ruling that can be used to roll back 70yrs of anti-gun legislation.