What they do, go and ban the AK/
The shit wasn’t registered ANY-fuckin-way - Ice Cube
In the case of the Supreme Court’s hearing on the constitutionality of DC’s ban on handguns, I’m on the “pro-gun” side. Maybe I should parse it a little more carefully and say that I’m anti-ban. I don’t have a gun (yet), but it’s really not that major because I don’t live in the District, proper. I live right outside of DC. So this is only marginally about me.
Generally, I don’t think a ban on handguns is effective in preventing crime committed with handguns. It’s certainly not effective in a city-sized jurisdiction. For one thing, there are too many places where people can get guns for a ban to be effective. What literal difference does it make for DC to have a gun ban when Maryland and Virginia don’t? It’s not like there’s an invisible shield on the Potomac, Eastern, and Southern avenues that disintegrates firearms. If I had a gun before I got to DC, I’ll have one while I’m in DC. So on a very literal level, a ban fails on the basis of geography. I know a lot of people like to bring up the example of places in the world where guns are banned to use that as an example, but a big part of what makes their bans effective is that there are geographical barriers in place that prevent firearms from entering in the first place. DC doesn’t have that.
Another limitation – a big limitation – to any sort of a ban on handguns is that the people who commit crimes with handguns tend not to be the people to whom they are registered. Meaning that they already have the gun illegally. So then you’re in the position of banning something that is itself already illegal. Well, actually, that’s where we are now. We have a law that says something illegal is (more?) illegal. The only people who don’t buy guns in the District are the ones who are following the law. I know this is one of the main arguments pro-gun people trot out all the time, but it’s true. What’s more, research has demonstrated that it’s only a certain subset of the population that uses guns for criminal purposes. It’s not like there’s this whole cadre of normal, mild-mannered people who all of a sudden jump bad and turn into raving, murderous, lunatics as soon as they touch a pistol. Naw. For the most part, the people who kill people with guns were already engaged in some criminal enterprises. Now that’s not to say that they all would have been murderers – their access to guns is what drove them over that line – but the point is that given the fact that it’s geographically impossible to keep guns from them, the fact that they used a gun in the commission of a crime is secondary to the fact that they were committing a crime in the first place.
Having said all that, I do recognize that the use of guns in the commission of crimes is a plague on our society. I was about to say that it’s particularly severe in the inner city, but it’s true in the suburbs too. The only thing is, because I work in the inner-city and live in a fairly (but not very) hoodish suburb, the city is what’s most relevant to me. Moreover, because I’m a Black male and still numbered among the demographic that is most likely to die by gunfire, I take gun violence very seriously. At the same time, I recognize that the question of how to curb crimes committed with guns is complicated. There are no simple answers, and if there were, a blanket policy wouldn’t be one of them. Let alone a blanket policy that’s so full of holes it’s essentially untenable.
Entries (RSS)
DC’s ban on handguns begs two questions: 1) is there an individual right to ‘bear arms’, 2) does the District have ’states rights’?.
My take on the 2nd Amendment is the Federal gov’t’s authority to regulate gun/firearm ownership in any fashion is extremely limited. Most people seem to understand none of the powers granted to gov’t or subsequent restrictions on their use is absolute. Only the most ardent gun fetishist would bother arguing an unfettered individual right exists to carry and/or brandish (not just ‘own’) surface-to-air missiles, hand grenades, or fully automatic guns, as these are the types of weapons designed for warfare — which is a power vested in our nat’l goverment.
But individual states have the authority to regulate affairs within its borders unaddressed by the Constitution. Along with commerce, I suspect the regulation of arms — esp. handguns –falls somewhere in this area, given the evolution of state and local law enforcement agencies, and technology. Accordingly, I think an individual state can decide who can and can’t have guns just like they can decide who can and can’t conduct business, practice law, or marry.
Therefore, we’re talking about whether DC has the rights of a state. Technically, it doesn’t, and therefore its ban on handguns is unconstitutional. At the same time, Maryland, Virginia, and other states can erect regulations on handgun ownership consistent with the Constitution. The question remains, however, if the District’s legal status is sound, just, or practical law.
i think DC’s ban definitely fails on the unconstitutional side legally, and in addition to that, it fails as a matter of practicality.
Is your reasoning because the District isn’t recognized under law as a state? Would a similar ban in MD or VA be, IYO, unconstitutional? Why?
The measure of whether a law is practical isn’t based on the degree to which it deters an activity, but if the law itself can be enforced. In example, there are laws against murder, but murders continue to occur every day across the country. In these cases, the law fails as a deterrent, but the people can easily establish
‘harm’ (an infringement), and have the resources to prosecute. The enforcement of prohibitions on vice, by comparision, is inherently problematic as it’s much more difficult for the state to establish harm exists.
well, i think states have some rights in limiting the purchase of firearms, but i don’t know that it’s quite constitutional to deny all access. granted, i’m no legal expert, so i can’t parse the legal elements that finely.
on the practical tip, though, i agree with you that the most important thing is the degree to which the law can be enforced. and as it is, i don’t think a ban on handguns is really enforceable, except for the people who would try to abide by it in the first place.
You’re confusing enforcement with deterrence, again. The point of a ban on handguns would be deterrence, as the point of a speed limit sign is to deter driving beyond a certain rate of travel. Enforcement comes only after evidence the law has been violated. As you’ve mentioned, the law-abiding citizen would simply not buy a handgun, and/or dispose of those he currently owns to comply. The would-be lawbreaker risks a much more rigorous prosecution and penalty once caught using a gun in the commission of a crime.