Anti-gun Mayor says Supreme Court "in alliance with the gangbangers"

The ripple effect of the DC v Heller ruling is just starting to truly show itself. The next series of law suits have already been filed, and the main target is the city of Chicago and its surrounding suburbs. Once known for having the second most restrictive gun laws in the country, these communities are now number one...uh...without a bullet. These handgun bans are clearly not in compliance with Heller, and mixed reactions are to be expected. While some of the towns and villages are pro-actively repealing their bans in and attempt to stay legal and avoid costly and futile defenses of their bans, others are defining 'reactionary' by lashing out at the judges' decision. What does Tom Barwin, the responsible and upstanding manager of the villiage of Oak Park have to say?

It's just completely befuddling that our Supreme Court would be in alliance with the gangbangers,"

I wonder if Barwin speaks with similar outrage whenever a drug dealer or gangbanger is turned loose on a loophole or a technicality. I wonder if he is incensed every time an arrest is thrown out because of an illegal search. The lesson is that even if one criminal walks, the Constitutional rights of every citizen is protected. The difference in the Heller case is that it was not a gang member or a mafioso that was claiming 2nd amendment protections to avoid a conviction, it was law abiding citizens that wanted the ability to exercise their pre-exisiting rights. This weekend, in an interview with Heller lawyer Alan Gura, the Wall Street Journal shed light on the build up to the case:

Virtually all the decisions that addressed the Second Amendment were styled United States v. Somebody, Somebody' was a crack dealer, a bank robber -- some lowlife who had made a spurious Second Amendment claim as part of a package of desperate appeals. . . We consciously wanted to have plaintiffs from across the demographic spectrum in Washington, D.C. We wanted all manner of diversity, because it's important -- people want to see that you are arguing for a right that is held by ordinary people.

This is what Tom Barwin fails to realize. The people writing him letters and phoning him about wanting to register a gun are not gangbangers - they are regular citizens willing to be fingerprinted and registered (albiet begrudgingly in some cases). If we apply his logic, then the city of Chicago is already "in alliance with the gangbangers." It has passed draconian laws that do little more than prop up the image of a liberal cosmopolitan uptopia. But the paint on the facade is chipping. Chicago's image has become that of a corrupt and dangerous city where the gangs are armed and the people are defenseless. It is time that people like Tom Barwin woke up to that fact and focus their rage on politicians who want to further themselves by destroying our rights.

Heller Tries to Register Gun, DC fails to comply with SCOTUS Ruling

Other 2nd amendment and gun rights sights are covering this story, but I feel like I need to add my thoughts as well. Today is the first day of firearms registration in Washington, DC. The plaintiff (and victor) in DC v Heller, Dick Heller, was the first person to arrive at DC police headquarters to attempt to register his weapons. The result? His application was rejected on two technicalities.

To be fair, it should be noted that though Heller arrived with a lawyer in tow, he did not bring the firearms with him as required. He feared retribution from the city, and wanted express written or recorded verbal consent that actually bringing firearms in from outside the city, even for registration purposes, would not get him arrested. Heller has been storing two firearms he owns with a friend in neighboring Maryland and did not want to fall victim to any legal loopholes in the District's emergency legislation that might make him an accidental felon.

After Assistant Police Chief Peter J. Newsham promised Heller in front of a dozen reporters and news cameras that he would "absolutely not" get in trouble for bringing a revolver into the city, von Breichenruchardt said Heller would do so another day.

While this part of the story may seem fair, things take a bit of a turn when it comes to Heller's other firearm: a .45 caliber semi-auto pistol. Though DC is now allowing the legal registration of handguns, the restrictions are still draconian. Guns must still be unloaded and disassembled, trigger-locked, or be kept in a locked safe - you may not load and assemble the arm until there is "threat of immediate harm to a person." Most egregiously, the city will not allow registration of semi-automatic firearms that can be used with a clip that holds more than 12 rounds, a rule which encompasses 100% of semi-automatic handguns. Do these regulations and restrictions honor in good faith the Supreme Court ruling? Would they pass legal muster? Let's take a look at some excerpts from the majority opinion to get an idea:

Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun.

Scalia also speaks directly about what sort weapons can be banned and what are protected:

Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Semi-automatic pistols make up approximately 3/4 of all handgun sales in the United States, which I think would qualify them as "in common use." In addition, .45 automatic pistols have been issued to the military as a standard sidearm since 1911. It appears that even though Mayor Fenty went on air after the Heller ruling and urged a quick solution to comply with the Supreme Court's decision, this was only lip service. He and the DC city council appear to be adamant about skirting the law and wasting taxpayer money in more legal action that will surely end in defeat for the city.

In response to Heller's failed attempt at registration, Asst. Chief Newsham said:

Firearms registration is a pretty complicated set of rules and regulations, and they can be interpreted by reasonable people in different ways...

The real question is, does it have to be? Does registration need to be so complicated that two reasonable parties can interpret it in different way? Let me submit a piece of anecdotal evidence for a frame of reference. In my home state of Washington, there is no such thing as firearms registration, not for long guns or handguns. Our two largest cities, Seattle and Spokane, have a murder rate below the national average. Washington, DC's murder rate? 5.75 times the average. Food for thought...

A Reasonable Looks at Guns and Suicide

Reason Magazine, as per its name, lends some reason on the subject of firearms and suicide in what is part II of our look at statistics and hysterics in the post-Heller media.

With the subhead "Why buying a gun is not a suicidal act", Reason editor and Chicago Tribune contributor Steve Chapman is clearly prepared to take anti-gun 'experts' to task and ask two very relevant questions:

1. Does access to firearms increase the suicide rate?
2. When it comes to gun control policy, does it even matter?

Naturally, Chapman is not afraid to address the questions that the media is too afraid to ask. Perhaps they are too complacent to do the research. Perhaps they are too complicit and don't want to reveal facts contrary to their presuppositions. Thankfully, Reason is there to pick up the slack:

People who use guns are generally hellbent on ending their lives. So deprived of a sidearm, they will no doubt find another reliable method—rather than swallow a dozen aspirin and wake up in the emergency room. Banning guns is no more likely to reduce suicides than banning ice cream is to curb obesity.

Chapman's ideas are not based on presupposition. He informs us that a National Academy of Sciences report noted that any link between firearms and suicides "is not found in comparisons across countries." In addition, our old friend Gary Kleck (criminologist from FSU) has noted that 13 published studies also have found no meaningful connection between rate of firearms ownership and suicide rate. If this debate were about another bitterly debated topic, such as global warming, the media would be leaping upon anyone who dared question the National Academy and supporting peer-reviewed materials.

With the now-dubios assurances that owning a gun will put your family in imenent danger exposed, Chapman moves to question number 2. Even if all of the hysterics and scare tactics were completely accurate, would that be enough reason to regulate personal safety over personal choices and constitutional rights?

But let's suppose science could establish that people who obtain firearms do indeed increase their death rate...from suicide. So what? Buying a car may shorten your lifespan, since traffic accidents are a major killer. Building a backyard swimming pool creates a potential fatal hazard to you and your loved ones. But nobody says the government should interfere with such decisions.

His tone may sound callous, but the debate is about freedoms and logic, not about feelings and emotions.

Statistic to Counter the Media's Heller Hysteria

Syndicated columnist Larry Elder wrote some insightful commentary this week that provided a much needed counter to the hysterics that the mainstream media has been perpetuating since the DC v Heller ruling.

From Justice Breyer's dissent to the New York Times editorial page, it seems as though the perceived impacts of the ruling are more important than the historical and textual facts of the law. In an amazing but predictable turn of events, the liberal interests in the media suddenly favor security over the individual rights enumerated in the Constitution. While arguing the against the ruling, the number of gun deaths in America is repeated over and over. This is a very clear attempt to stress the potentially detrimental outcomes of affirming the right while diverting attention away from history, state constitutions, natural law, and precedent (note: I recognize that in recent years a number of courts have recognized a 'collective right', but this is a modern anomaly).

Mr. Elder, after observing this phenomenon, fired back with some statistics and observations of his own. He asks the follow-up and clarification questions that temper the scary statistic of 30,000 gun deaths per year:

The 30,000 number includes 17,000 suicides. But a person intent on suicide finds a way — gun or no gun...The hand-wringing New York Times editorial fails to ask the following questions: How many Americans use guns to defend themselves?

The number of deaths are not trivial, nor are they insignificant. But the question at hand is about the restriction and prohibition of a fundamental right in the name of the public good. In the instance of every other right, the left and the media take pride in not budging an inch (see the ACLU). Elder goes on to show us the research of Kopel, Kleck, and the Clinton-era DOJ National Institute of Justice on defensive firearms use that is so often overlooked by the media.

...2.5 million Americans use guns for defensive purposes each year. One in six of that number, or 400,000, believe someone would have been dead but for their ability to resort to their defensive use of firearms. Kleck points out that if only one-tenth of the people are right about saving a life, the number of people saved annually by guns would still be 40,000.

Elder also responds to the stern paternal warnings on the editorial pages that your new found right is more likely to injure you or your family members than to do any good:

"When a robbery victim does not defend himself," former assistant district attorney and firearms expert David Kopel writes, "the robber succeeds 88 percent of the time, and the victim is injured 25 percent of the time. When a victim resists with a gun, the robbery success rate falls to 30 percent, and the victim injury rate falls to 17 percent. No other response to a robbery — from drawing a knife to shouting for help to fleeing — produces such low rates of victim injury and robbery success."

Two weeks before the Heller decision, the SCOTUS ruled on giving habeas corpus rights to detainees at Gitmo. In his dissent, Justice Scalia said that the ruling will "almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed," and he was taken to task by the media for fear mongering in a case that erred on the side of individual rights. In the case of Heller, the dissenters relied on fear mongering and their desired outcome to vote against an individual right and they were lauded for their temperance and insight. It would be funny how fickle 'objective' journalism if it were not our rights that were on the chopping block.

So, will the introduction of 2nd amendment rights actually make DC a more dangerous place? Elder leaves us with the words of former DC mayor Marion Barry, who was once asked if the gun ban worked:

Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country.

ACLU Shoots Itself in the Foot with Heller Response

A little over a week ago I commented on the ACLU's then-current position on the 2nd amendment. This analysis pointed to the single page buried on their website where they address gun rights, or in this instance the lack thereof. I also posed a challenge - and a hope - that if the Heller case landed on the side of individual rights the ACLU would drop their current position and defend this right with equal rigor.

Since last week's historic 5-4 decision upholding an individual's right to keep and bear arms, the ACLU has been mostly silent. There is a short post on their blog that states their current and mostly unaltered view of the 2nd amendment:

The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller.

They go on to say that because of some unanswered questions about the text of the ruling and how it will affect current legislation, its meaning is obfuscated. Regardless of how broad or narrow the ruling is, the ACLU's failure to recognize and defend this right puts their entire mission in jeopardy. To selectively interpret sections of the Bill of Rights and allow them to be gutted at will, even by democratic majorities, clearly reveals them as a partisan establishment.

There is also a certain bit of irony that I want to point out. The ACLU blog's tag line is "Because Freedom Can't Blog Itself." I suppose they are correct. For this freedom, the blogging will need to be done by myself and other Constitutional rights advocates

note: It looks like some of my fellow 2nd bloggers have tackled this very same topic. Here it is on 'Of Arms and the Law', The Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web, and World Net Daily writes about how the ACLU blog is being hammered with repudiating comments.