Comments on: Shooooooot!!

By: MIB

MIB — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 18:37:11 +0000

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.

By: Avery

Avery — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 22:20:01 +0000

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.

By: MIB

MIB — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 22:03:11 +0000

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.

By: Avery

Avery — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 19:58:52 +0000

i think DC’s ban definitely fails on the unconstitutional side legally, and in addition to that, it fails as a matter of practicality.

By: MIB

MIB — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:05:07 +0000

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.