Washpost: two editorials re:Parker ruling

[K-Romulus]

More handwringing, just letting y'all know how its playing out around here.
Both of these editorials offer reader comments at the end.

First, from a regular WashPost columnist.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031301622.html

On Gun Control, the Kid in Us Can Cost Lives
By Courtland Milloy
Wednesday, March 14, 2007; B01

Perhaps it's my inner child, but a part of me secretly cheers the libertarian. Especially those wild and crazy guys at the Cato Institute. The Washington think tank thinks government ought not try to stop people from using whatever drugs they want -- cocaine, heroin, alcohol, cigarettes, you name it -- or from gambling or watching porn online.

And now it's won its argument to let you keep a handgun in your home in the District, one of the most violent cities in the nation.

It's as if Cato took its motto from the Isley Brothers' 1969 hit "It's Your Thing (Do What You Wanna Do)."

Right on, says my inner child; you can't tell me who to sock it to.

In shooting down the city's strict gun control law last week, a three-judge panel agreed with arguments by Cato that the Second Amendment gives us the right to own handguns and that we are not too clumsy and ill-tempered to handle them safely. The libertarian view is: Trust the people more than the government.

Thomas Jefferson once said: "Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1) Those who fear and distrust the people. . . . 2) Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe . . . depository of the public interest."

Catoites, and my inner child, fall into the latter category. But the adult knows better. Several studies have shown that a gun in the home is up to 22 times more likely to be used for suicide or to kill a family member than to fend off a burglar. Surely the Founding Fathers would not have given the right to bear arms to a homegrown militia that was more likely to shoot itself in the foot than stop a British invasion.

Of course, the kid promises never to throw another tantrum and to use his gun only to practice his spin-around quick draw, just in case al Qaeda comes knocking. The adult hopes he doesn't accidentally shoot the neighbor.

Robert A. Levy, a senior fellow at Cato and co-counsel for the plaintiffs in the gun ban case, wrote Monday in The Washington Post: "Anti-gun regulations don't address the deep-rooted causes of violent crime -- such as illegitimacy, unemployment, dysfunctional schools, and drug and alcohol abuse. The cures are complex and protracted. But that doesn't mean we have to become passive prey for criminal predators."

Yeah, listen to that! says the inner child. A poll by MTV in 2001 found that 1 in 25 kids surveyed carried a gun to school because they were afraid they'd have to defend themselves from someone else with a weapon.

But the adult knows where this can lead. As the Bush administration has demonstrated, self-defense can sometimes require "preemptive strikes" -- or murder, as it's called when scared school kids employ the tactic.

It's easy to understand why people would believe that having a gun in the home makes them safe. It's the stuff of television crime shows. The inner child eats it up, too. You hear the footsteps coming up the stairs. The wife is asleep next to you, the kids snoring in the next room. You ease from the bed even as you slide that Sig Sauer .40-caliber semiautomatic from under your pillow, do that quick-draw spin you've been practicing and hit the intruder right between the eyes. You're a hero, and everybody now knows to knock hard before coming into your house.

Except you're more likely to end up like Jennifer Guthrie, a 25-year-old who purchased a gun after someone tried to rob her while walking home in Columbus, Ohio, several years ago. The gun discharged while she was handling it, the bullet punctured her abdomen, and she died a week later. In the District, between 2001 and 2004, police reported 51 homicides attributed to domestic violence, the majority involving guns.

The federal government's National Crime Victimization Survey routinely estimates that each year 100,000 Americans use a firearm to defend themselves. But as David Hemenway of Harvard University's Injury Control Research Center asks, "Who knows what 'self-defense' means?" From interviews that he conducted from 1996 to 1999 involving about 4,500 respondents, Hemenway found that most acknowledged acts of self-defense were, in fact, "hostile gun displays" -- say, a husband pulling a gun on his wife to make her stop yelling at him.

The inner child notes that FBI statistics show that nearly 40 percent of U.S. households reportedly have at least one gun, and the kid figures that this must deter some burglars. But the adult knows that other burglars might be attracted by the prospect of finding a gun in the house and that many firearms end up on the streets after being stolen from someone's home.

Nevertheless, my inner child wants the illusion of power and security, and maybe a 40-ounce cold brew to go with that .44-caliber cold steel. The adult says no way.

E-mail:[email protected]

And a more serious editorial by a noted law professor:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031301508.html

A Well-Regulated Right to Bear Arms
By Erwin Chemerinsky
Wednesday, March 14, 2007; A15

In striking down the District of Columbia's handgun ban last week, a federal appeals court raised the crucial constitutional question: What should be the degree of judicial deference to government regulation of firearms? The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit interpreted the Second Amendment as bestowing on individuals a right to have guns. But even if this reasoning is accepted, and it is very much disputed, the Court of Appeals still should have upheld the law as being a reasonable way of achieving the government's legitimate goal of decreasing gun violence.

There is a major debate among scholars and judges involving two competing views of the Second Amendment. One approach, adopted by the Supreme Court in 1939 and by most federal courts of appeals, sees the Second Amendment as preventing Congress from regulating firearms in a manner that would keep states from adequately protecting themselves.

This "collective rights" approach rejects the idea that the Second Amendment bestows on individuals a right to have guns. The alternative view, adopted by the D.C. Circuit on Friday, sees the Second Amendment as creating a right for individuals to have firearms.

Each approach is consistent with the text of the Second Amendment, and each is supported by strong historical arguments about the original meaning of the provision. The Second Amendment says: "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." Those who take the collective rights approach focus on the initial language of the provision, while those who take the individual rights approach focus on the latter language.

Each side of the debate marshals impressive historical arguments about what "militia" and "keep and bear arms" meant in the late 18th century. In the past few years, two other federal courts of appeals exhaustively reviewed this history, and one determined that the Framers intended the individual rights approach, while the other read history as supporting the collective rights approach.

The assumption in this debate, and one that the D.C. Circuit followed Friday, is that gun control laws are unconstitutional if the individual rights approach is followed. This assumption, though, has no basis in constitutional law. No rights are absolute. Even the First Amendment, which is written in the seemingly absolute language that Congress shall make "no law" abridging freedom of speech or religion, allows government regulation.

Therefore, under the individual rights approach, there still is the question of what types of government regulations are appropriate.

For 70 years the Supreme Court has distinguished among constitutional claims in deciding how closely to scrutinize laws and how much to defer to legislatures. In instances where there is reason to distrust the government, such as for laws discriminating on the basis of race, "strict scrutiny" is used and the government can prevail only if its action is necessary to achieve a compelling purpose.

But where there is little reason to doubt the legislatures' choices, courts give great deference to the legislatures and uphold laws so long as they are reasonably related to a legitimate government purpose. For example, discrimination that is based on characteristics such as age, disability and sexual orientation need to meet only this more relaxed standard. Even rights enumerated in the Constitution, such as property rights, generally receive only this relaxed level of judicial review. For this reason, for 70 years, government regulation of the economy to protect employees and consumers has been upheld in the face of claims that it unduly restricts property rights.

In other words, even if the D.C. Circuit is right in holding that the Second Amendment creates individual rights, that does not answer the question as to the level of scrutiny to be used in evaluating gun control laws. I believe that there is a strong argument that the regulation of guns should be treated the same as other regulation of property under modern constitutional law: The regulation should be allowed so long as it is rationally related to achieving a legitimate government purpose.

Under this standard, there is no doubt that the D.C. gun law is constitutional. The city's government was pursuing the legitimate goal of decreasing gun violence, and its means were certainly reasonable.

The Supreme Court will probably review the D.C. Circuit decision. Whether the court takes the individual or the collective rights approach, it should uphold the D.C. law and make clear that courts will defer to legislatures in their regulation of firearms.

The writer is a professor of law and political science at Duke University.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The professor assumes a lot in his editorial. He assumes for example that the ruling in Miller was a collective rights argument; when the whole point of Parker is that Miller can be read either way.

I also like how he argues that it is perfectly acceptable to subject the fundamental rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights to a "rationally related to achieving a legitimate government purpose" test.

Luckily we have just the appropriate smiley for that editorial

 

[scurtis_34471]

Here is my response to the first article:

"Let's get one thing straight right off the top. There is no epidemic of gun violence in this country. All of the numbers I am about to share came from the FBI's 2005 crime statistics, which are available to anyone on their website. I trust the FBI's numbers more than I trust either Harvard's or the NRA's.

In an average year, there are about 14,000 murders in this country. About 68 percent of them are commited with guns, the majority of which are handguns. That means about 7,500 people are murdered with guns every year. There are 300 million people in this country. 7,500 people per year is hardly a holocost. When we look at other types of violent crimes, the percent of gun use drops dramatically. Only around 42% of robberies and 21 percent of aggravatd assaults involved guns. This hardly amounts to the kind of "warfare in our streets" bologna we keep hearing from the press. When you look at actual street crime, the numbers change even more. The vast majority or people who are murdered die at the hand of someone they know. Most murders involve family, friends, love triangles, etc. The majority of these killings would have happened whether guns were available or not. One of the highest murder rates of any city in the 20th century was Soviet Moscow. The people did not have guns, so they used hammers knives and other implements. Gun control does not stop domestic crime. This brings me back to street crime and gangs. In 2005, less than 800 people nationwide were killed in gang-related violence. That is only about 5% of all murders.

This is not made up. These are real numbers. Go check for yourself. Gun control as crime prevention is worse than useless. It is a lie perpetrated on the American people."

Here is the response I posted for the second article:

"I fail to see how a law that has done nothing to demonstrably reduce crime in the course of 30 years could be seen as "reasonable" when it also deprives citizens of self-defense in their homes."

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

scurtis, actually the FBIs numbers understate homicide because some jurisdictions fail to report at all and some refuse to provide supplemental data (or provide it only after it is too late). District of Columbia is a frequent offender in both categories.

The CDC mortality numbers are actually a better guide because they are based on hospital death certificates. The downside is because CDC doesn't usually know who shot who or whether it was justified, they classify all homicides (including justifiable) as homicide. They do have a separate category for "legal intervention" though (which for the same reasons can include murder if committed by an authority).

 

[Titan6]

So the professor says the rights of the government outweigh the rights of the people when it meets a government purpose?

That is not in my copy of the Constitution. Can someone please point it out? Perhaps the 37th ammendment?

As for the other guy; when his adult side is getting beat to death by thugs in his apartment his inner child will probably be looking for a form of expression like a .357.

 

[bumm]

I read the Milloy article before coming to this site, along with the fairly long string of comments from readers. I didn't see ONE that agreed with him!
Marty

 

[scurtis_34471]

Even if the FBI numbers are a bit understated, the sample is large enough that the general trend should still apply. In other words, the fact that handguns were used in roughly 51% of all murders in 2005 is probably not going to change much. Its also not going to change the fact that the overwhelming number of murders are crimes of passion or opportunity where the attacker and the victim know each other. Gang violence appears to be grossly overstated in the press. Even if some of the gang violence is under-reported or incorrectly categorized, its not going to bump the number from 5% to 30% or anything like that.

I am a data warehouse architect by trade and started my professional life as a report writer and then a data analyst. I've been digging into data for a living for almost 8 years. Its what I do. Bringing the CDC data into the equation may be helpful, but I think it would be difficult to correlate it with the FBI data, because the intent of the two data sets is so different. The FBI data is not perfect, but its probably the best data we have to suit the purpose of tracking crimes by weapon, demographic, location and suspected motive. In any event, the numbers used by the Antis make no sense at all when held up against actual law-enforcement statistics and I certainly take surveys by liberal institutes and universities with a grain of salt. I also think taking data from NRA studies is less credible than using neutral sources. We need to be careful not to perpetrate the same kinds of distortions we accuse the antis of.

 

[Librarian]

So the professor says the rights of the government outweigh the rights of the people when it meets a government purpose?

That is not in my copy of the Constitution. Can someone please point it out?

I suggest you'll find it here, in the preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

He didn't say "the rights of the government". More precisely, Chemerinsky said

The regulation should be allowed so long as it is rationally related to achieving a legitimate government purpose.

I think pretty much anyone who accepts government at all would agree that reducing the number of citizens murdered is "a legitimate government purpose" under "domestic Tranquility" or "the general Welfare"; where this instance collapses is effectiveness - it's been tried, does not work (and never had a possibility of working), and now the "legitimate government purpose" should be addressed by some means which is not unconstitutional.

 

[Outlaw Man]

Several studies have shown that a gun in the home is up to 22 times more likely to be used for suicide or to kill a family member than to fend off a burglar.

And people are 22 times more likely to put their foot in their mouth than actually say something that has a lasting, positive impact one society. We need to ban free speech.

I can probably stretch this to the other items in the Bill of Rights.



This kind of rationalization makes me sick.

 

[Sam Adams]

Courtland Milloy:

Thomas Jefferson once said: "Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1) Those who fear and distrust the people. . . . 2) Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe . . . depository of the public interest."

Catoites, and my inner child, fall into the latter category. But the adult knows better.

I am getting very tired of the elitist scum of this country insisting that we proles are unfit to make decisions for ourselves, that we are little better than children (and that little being related to our ability to earn money that they'll tax), and that only Mommy or Daddy Government can make hard choices for us. Milloy can go live in China if that's how he thinks things ought to be - after he buys himself a real name.


Erwin Chemerinsky:

...The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit interpreted the Second Amendment as bestowing on individuals a right to have guns.

Uh, on top of being an unabashed statist, Erwin apparently failed at reading comprehension. You see, Erwin, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting a pre-existing right of individuals to keep AND bear arms. There's a world of difference between the two, but I guess that would've actually required that you read and understood the Parker decision. Guess what, Erwin, this analysis would earn you an "F" in the most basic Con Law class in the worst law school in the country.

There is a major debate among scholars and judges involving two competing views of the Second Amendment. One approach, adopted by the Supreme Court in 1939 and by most federal courts of appeals, sees the Second Amendment as preventing Congress from regulating firearms in a manner that would keep states from adequately protecting themselves.

That is NOT what Miller said - and the D.C. Court of Appeals decision made that abundantly clear. Miller didn't conclude that the 2nd was a "collective right" (whatever that creature may be), but simply that:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense"

Justice McReynolds (who wrote the Miller opinion) never mentions that Miller was not a member of a state militia & therefore had no standing (which would have instantly disposed of the case AND confirmed the "collective right" theory). Rather he concluded that the weapon Miller had didn't benefit the militia, but he even left that open by mentioning that it was not within judicial notice (and the case was remanded back down to the District Court to find out, but this wasn't done because Miller died in the meantime and it was a pointless exercise). IOW, if there had been testimony that a short barreled shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" and that it was "part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense" then Miller would have won, the 2nd would be well-established as an individual right, and the NFA would now be at most some obscure piece of legal trivia. Today, an M4, M16 or M249 would surely qualify under such a standard.

Further, note the phrases "some reasonable relationship to the preservation...of a well regulated militia" and "or that its use could contribute to the common defense." These phrases strongly imply that even having a firearm that ISN'T "part of the ordinary military equipment" could "contribute to the common defense" (presumeably by familiarizing militia members with the operation of a firearm, or by actually being able to inflict casualties on a real or hypothetical enemy. A perfect example of that would be the M1 Garand, which isn't any longer "part of the ordinary military equipment" but which could certainly be used to train militia members and which could inflict casualties quite efficiently. I'd make the same argument for an M1A or M14, for the semi-auto AR-15 and all of its clones in all of their variations, full- or semi-auto AK-47s, any SKS, the M1 Carbine (full or semi), the FN FAL (full or semi), CETME, etc. IOW, anything capable of sending full- or semi-auto streams of 5.56mm or 7.62 mm shells downrange with reasonable accuracy and dependability under severe combat conditions.

Erwin, go back to Con Law 101 and learn how to read and interpret a case.

Here are some good sites to view for interpretations of the Miller case (interpretations that are FAR better reasoned and far more valid in their conclusions than Erwin's):

http://www.rkba.org/research/miller/Miller.html

http://publicola.mu.nu/archives/200...e_millers_tale_problems_with_us_v_miller.html

http://www.jpfo.org/miller.htm

 

[bumm]

For what it's worth...

Again, I went back and read the comments following Chemerinsky's article. In this case, he has several that agree with him at least partially. However, the vast majority disagree strongly.
Marty

 

[longeyes]

The real "inner child" is the one that obeys Big Daddy's orders and stays a helpless dependent.

These weakling-fascists will never get it.

 

[illspirit]

The federal government's National Crime Victimization Survey routinely estimates that each year 100,000 Americans use a firearm to defend themselves. But as David Hemenway of Harvard University's Injury Control Research Center asks, "Who knows what 'self-defense' means?" From interviews that he conducted from 1996 to 1999 involving about 4,500 respondents, Hemenway found that most acknowledged acts of self-defense were, in fact, "hostile gun displays" -- say, a husband pulling a gun on his wife to make her stop yelling at him.

So, umm, apparently the author is insinuating that brandishing a firearm in a domestic argument is considered a legitimate DGU?

I can't decide if this is projection or an ad hominem strawman. Or perhaps some combination of the two. The broken logic of it makes my brain cry either way.

 

[Librarian]

So, umm, apparently the author is insinuating that brandishing a firearm in a domestic argument is considered a legitimate DGU?

Other way around - Hemenway wants us to believe that most events classified as DGU are like brandishing during a domestic, that is, not defensive, not legitimate.

I've hit Hemenway's web page several times before; can't say I recall he published that data, but maybe.

 

[illspirit]

Other way around - Hemenway wants us to believe that most events classified as DGU are like brandishing during a domestic, that is, not defensive, not legitimate.

Oops, sorry, my last post was worded rather poorly. I meant to ask if the author was implying that gun owners and/or the DOJ researchers were the ones considering such crimes as DGUs.

 

[Juna]

Projectile vomit

Hemenway found that most acknowledged acts of self-defense were, in fact, "hostile gun displays" -- say, a husband pulling a gun on his wife to make her stop yelling at him.

Wouldn't, say, pulling a gun on a would-be rapist or murderer, which thereby causes said BG to stop the crime and flee or be caught, be a "hostile gun display"? This example he gives is the most ludicrous thing that would never have crossed my mind. To me a "hostile gun display" is a term describing using a firearm for self-defense without actually firing it.

The federal government's National Crime Victimization Survey routinely estimates that each year 100,000 Americans use a firearm to defend themselves.

I always wonder whether these numbers are gross underestimates that exclude situations like mine posted above (i.e. pulling a gun to deter or prevent a crime without firing it, or even saying, "I have a gun" to stop a crime).

I could go on forever refuting all the garbage in these articles, but this isn't the proper venue.... We should be posting these good replies as letters to the editor and posts on the Washington Post's web site. All of us here realize the idiocy in these articles. We don't need to be convinced. The ignorant American public who are receiving unchecked, unbalanced anti-gun propaganda like this need to hear from the logical, calm, and well-educated firearms owners of this nation (like THR members)!

 

[the pistolero]

"hostile gun displays"

Wow, how's that for spin? Just as with "assault weapon," they take the term and apply it to something completely legitimate to make it sound like something evil and deserving of eradication from society.

my inner child wants the illusion of power and security, and maybe a 40-ounce cold brew to go with that .44-caliber cold steel. The adult says no way.

Perhaps it's better that the blithering fool who wrote that abstains from owning a gun (if indeed he does), but who in the Sam Hill is he to assume that "the adult" in everyone else would make that decision as well? Wow. They don't call it the Washington Compost for nothing, do they?

 

[MechAg94]

Can anyone briefly explain the origin of the "22 times" number mentioned?

 

[Librarian]

Arthur Kellermann and Don Reay, "Protection or peril? An analysis of firearms related deaths in the home." (New Engl J Med 1986. 314: 1557-60.). See this guncite link.

The number '22' varies depending, apparently, on whim.

 

[Bubbles]

Can anyone briefly explain the origin of the "22 times" number mentioned?

Cite found on http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=home as:
Kellermann AL. "Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home." Journal of Trauma, 1998; 45(2):263-67.

IIRC one of the studies that debunked Kellerman found that he didn't consider whether the gun was lawfully or unlawfully owned, or whether it was owned by the homeowner or by the criminal who broke into the home intending to commit a violent crime. So, if you're a hoplophobe who was killed by someone with a gun who broke into your home, then you'd be included in Kellerman's little study as one of the "22 times more likely". Nice, huh?

 

[K-Romulus]

Another today from the new DC police chief

This one also has comments

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/14/AR2007031402186.html

Give Us Back Our Gun Law

By Cathy Lanier and Vincent Schiraldi
Thursday, March 15, 2007; A19

As lawyers in guarded courtrooms debate whether it is a good idea to preserve tough gun control in the District of Columbia, in the real world of the city's juvenile justice system, the jury is in. There is no single solution to the problems of youth crime, but strong gun control laws such as the one struck down last week by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit clearly make a difference.

The public needs to understand that young people get their hands on guns differently than adults do -- mainly by borrowing them from family members and friends or by buying them on the black market, according to a Justice Department study.

Back in 1995, the number of juveniles arrested for homicides in the District peaked at an alarming 14. Juvenile homicides peaked nationally about that time; in fact, between 1984 and 1994, homicides committed by juveniles increased threefold nationally. During that period, juvenile homicides involving handguns increased fourfold, while juvenile homicides in which handguns were not a factor remained unchanged.

Confronted with data such as these confirming the link between access to handguns and youth homicides, federal, state and local governments took action. In 1995, Congress made it a federal offense for juveniles to possess handguns. Jurisdictions around the country passed gun control ordinances and stepped up law enforcement efforts; Boston's Operation Night Light, for instance, made a priority of keeping guns out of the hands of children.

In 1995 the District already had one of the nation's toughest gun control laws, forbidding handgun possession in the home. This is the provision the appeals court recently overturned. But handguns still flowed easily into the District from neighboring states, fueling black-market sales and hampering the effectiveness of the city's in-home ban.

In 1995 and 1997 laws enacted in, respectively, Virginia and Maryland prohibited citizens from purchasing more than one gun per month, dramatically reducing illegal gun sales as supply was choked off. The number of handguns coming into the District from those states fell immediately after the laws were passed. Before Virginia passed its law, it was the No. 1 supplier of guns seized in crimes in the District. Once Virginia's law took effect, Maryland became the largest source of guns seized in D.C. crimes. In the year after Maryland passed its one-gun-a-month law, the number of Maryland guns seized in the District dropped from 20 to zero.

These bans on multiple gun sales in neighboring states choked off black-market sales, while the D.C. ban on guns in the home reduced the ability of youths to borrow guns from family and friends. The result? The number of juveniles charged with homicide in the District fell 86 percent from 1995 to 2006. In 1995, 14 of the 227 people charged with a homicide in the District, or 6 percent, were juveniles. Last year, only two out of 106 people (fewer than 2 percent) charged with homicides in the District were juveniles. Because easy access to cheap handguns disproportionately jeopardizes D.C. youths, laws that restrict such access disproportionately benefit youths.

No single factor can account for this substantial decline in homicides by D.C. juveniles. But to deny the impact of serious gun control laws and put guns back into children's homes would be misguided and dangerous. We hope the courts give us back an important tool to protect the safety of our youths and the residents of the District of Columbia.

Cathy Lanier is acting chief of the District's Metropolitan Police Department. Vincent Schiraldi is director of the District's Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services.

 

[Beatnik]

This is what wikipedia has to say about the preamble:

The Preamble neither grants any powers nor inhibits any actions; it only explains the rationale behind the Constitution.

If this is true, then how can we expect that a portion of the Constitution that doesn't specifically grant any powers (the preamble) negates another part of the Constitution that specifically inhibits actions (the 2nd Amendment)?

 

[Mainsail]

Surely the Founding Fathers would not have given the right to bear arms to a homegrown militia that was more likely to shoot itself in the foot than stop a British invasion.

They gave the right? I had a hard time taking him seriously after that misstatement. You cannot have an intelligent debate with someone who doesn’t know the facts about the position they are supporting. The founding fathers recognized that ‘rights’ were an inherent part of being human.

 

[MechAg94]

Thanks Librarian and Bubbles. I knew there was a problem with the number, but couldn't remember what.

These bans on multiple gun sales in neighboring states choked off black-market sales, while the D.C. ban on guns in the home reduced the ability of youths to borrow guns from family and friends. The result? The number of juveniles charged with homicide in the District fell 86 percent from 1995 to 2006. In 1995, 14 of the 227 people charged with a homicide in the District, or 6 percent, were juveniles. Last year, only two out of 106 people (fewer than 2 percent) charged with homicides in the District were juveniles. Because easy access to cheap handguns disproportionately jeopardizes D.C. youths, laws that restrict such access disproportionately benefit youths.

How exactly is he connecting the dots here? Notice he says "charged with homicide". He doesn't say juvenile involved shooting or something like that.

 

[romma]

I get it now! If we take all guns out of society, the murder rate will drop to zero? Or is it that all other forms of murder are deemed acceptable? Which one is it?