Lessons From D.C.'s Legal Fights Over Guns
http://thekojonnamdishow.org/shows/2013-01-28/lessons-dcs-legal-fights-over-guns
As President Barack Obama pushes new gun measures nationwide, he need look no further than Washington for some of the toughest gun laws in the U.S. But in 2008, the Supreme Court struck down D.C.'s handgun ban, and a recent appeals court decision raises questions about its ban on carrying concealed weapons. Kojo talks to plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case and an author of the gun laws about what lessons the country can learn from the District.
Guests
Gillian St. Lawrence
Georgetown real estate investor; Co-Plaintiff in Heller v. District of Columbia
Tom Palmer
Senior Fellow and director of Cato University at the Cato Institute; Co-Plaintiff in Heller v. District of Columbia
Phil Mendelson
Chairman, D.C. Council (D)
Keith Alexander
DC Crime and Court Reporter, The Washington Post
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Are these people living in the 17th century? Is it so complicated to just ban ALL firearms except for hunting (with extensive screening) and police officers?
What are the stats of people with guns preventing crime or defending themselves from crime effectively?
Go after the weapon dealers and clandestine weapon market.
Are these people living in the 17th century? Is it so complicated to just ban ALL firearms except for hunting (with extensive screening) and police officers?
What are the stats of people with guns preventing crime or defending themselves from crime effectively?
Go after the weapon dealers and clandestine weapon market.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/give-guns-credit-for-stopping-let...
January 27, 2013
Washington Post/Letters to the Editor
Saving a Life with a Gun
That prosecutors would even consider bringing gun charges against the Northwest D.C. resident who saved an 11-year-old’s life by shooting one of three pit bulls that were brutally mauling the child speaks volumes about the mindless absurdity of the city’s gun laws, to say nothing of the zealous anti-gun sentiment that more broadly permeates officials’ thinking here [“Boy who was attacked by pit bulls has surgery,” Metro, Jan. 23].
Just as there is but one way to stop a violent human criminal with a gun, a vicious dog on the loose can be prevented from violently attacking people only by guns in the hands of brave, well-intentioned citizens.
If the good Samaritan who acted quickly in this case to save a child possessed his gun unlawfully, police and prosecutors should by all means confiscate it. But contemplating further charges against him is as unconscionable as it is ridiculous.
Darren McKinney, Washington
Gillian St. Lawrence referenced that the Commonwealth of VA may need to consider armed guards in our children's schools.
1) Fairfax County Public Schools already have them in the form of Fairfax County Resource Officers from the FCPD. That did not stop a 7th grader at a FCPS middle school from taking his gun to school many times. Had he pulled that out in the classroom, the Resource Officer would not have been able to prevent shooting deaths unless he coincidentally had been right there in the room...which is unlikely.
2) There are armed security personnel at our universities and that didn't stop the VA Tech shooter.
3) The likelihood of any school district attorney anywhere in the country allowing fully assembled and ready to shoot guns in the classrooms (as some have proposed to allow teachers to have guns) is slim to none due to the excessive liability exposure that would place on the school districts.
There should not be a BAN on guns in our country, but we do have to look at sensible options to protect people. We cannot become a police state so that everyone can have a gun. That is neither reasonable, nor what our Founding Fathers intended.
Please remember that, while we are afforded the right to own guns, the 2nd Amendment clearly states the words "well-regulated." It also refers states that the well-regulated militia was to protect the citizens from a tyrannical government. That seems to get lost in the discussions when people talk about defending themselves in their own homes from burglars (not the government) and when they claim that there should be armed guards in our schools (entities of government).
There are very reasonable ways to allow people to own guns and still be protect the citizens at large. No one has even touched on the subject of the violent nature of the citizens of this country and how that plays into all this. Other countries, such as Canada, allow citizens to own guns, and yet they don't have the staggering number of gun deaths that we do.
For a unbiased, facts only review of REAL gun statistics (without the rhetoric or histrionics), please take a look at Just Facts on the web ( http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp ). There are some eye opening statistics (including those that will back up the ineffectiveness of the DC gun ban).
We need a much more tempered and rational discussion on US gun laws that leaves out the fear mongering that is going on on both sides of the debate. You had an opportunity to have that hear. I think your guests are missing the mark.
Council Chairman Mendelson is filibustering. But here's a question for him: How many more tax dollars is D.C. prepared to squander on additional losing court battles to defend the city's patently unconstitutional gun law?
the phrase "necessary, but not sufficient" comes to mind
it won't necessarily be enough, but that doesn't mean it isn't necessary to get to the desired output.
If we went by the last caller, who said something to the effect of "we don't know that these measures would be enough to stop anything, so why do it?", well then we'd never do anything, because each action, on its own, wouldn't be enough.
Thank you for this discussion Kojo and your several on the subject of armed citizenry. Some thoughts:
The statement that people will not enter a house illegally when there is a gun in the home just brings up the practical issue of how will that person know at the window when they are prying it open that there is a gun in the house?
The statement that all who pass background checks are the right people to go armed in our civilization and that the fellow has shot his gun what was it 6 times in a year, well the math is 6 bullets time what 5,000 gun carriers in the district adds up to a lot of bullets flying around.
There is the issue of beyond background checks is relatives and guests with "issues", alcohol, stress and emotional situations. Its clear women are victims of known relatives or associates from gun death. If women had guns doubtfully she could get it armed in a highly emotional and threatening situation.
Having worked 4 years in Afghanistan--no armed guards was the rule, especially in the rural areas. Guns attract guns. Having guns make people un alert and un careful. We were much more careful about communication and preparation.
My conservative brothers in Idaho, thankfully have a gun vault for their family heirlooms. A good thing, considering our wide association with many people--who might or might not clear a gun check.
I am a short older woman who has traveled the world as have my dimenutive daughter we are in the mountains of Montana for extended camping/hikes (she is a field biologist) and it was not bears or wolves we were concerned about but drunk and unwize gun toters.
Sigh, thanks for continuing the conversation.
Less is more.
To the co-plaintiffs in the Heller case:
I'm sorry that you feel so scared in your everyday life that you need to arm yourself. I've lived in DC for 30 years and haven't felt the need to own a gun to protect myself. More people with more guns makes us all more unsafe. I expect that someday, the Heller decision will be overturned as the country realizes that we are living with an unacceptable level of gun violence. (Remember that the Heller case was only a 5-4 decision). Maybe overturning the decision won't happen in my lifetime, but in the meantime, you will have contributed to many more tragedies caused with guns. This is your legacy. You are so concerned about your rights, but what about my right to live without fear that anyone I encounter may be angry or deranged and armed?
By the way, you need to check your "facts." According to the Violence Policy Center, many people with concealed weapons permits have committed violent crimes and states with the highest gun ownership rates have the highest rates of violent crime committed with guns
(http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm).