Washington D.C. to Ban Handguns?

[Greenday]

Hah! I beat other people to this one!

Anyway, I'm sitting here with my parents, watching the news, and the little screen at the bottom said "Supreme Court to make decision on District of Columbia's attempt to ban handguns."

What the hell? What happened to the Second Amendment? I mean, come on. You just can't ban handguns in a town. This has to be a joke or something.

[AFPheonix]

I believe the ban has been in effect for quite some time now, but has only recently been struck down by a lower court. It was appealed and the Supreme court is now considering it for review.

I dunno....DC is kind of a rough town. I think I'd be ok with fewer concealable weapons around our nation's lawmakers.

[Boozy]

There's nothing in the second amendment that specifies what type of guns are and are not permissible. To my knowledge, it just says "arms".

The 1994 federal assault rifle ban is another example of this type of legislation.

[CancelMyService]

Also the actual District of Columbia is kind of different in matters like this, it's not a state and there are other things like representation in Congress that don't apply to DC proper.

What's funny is that DC is usually used by the pro-gun lobby as proof that gun control doesn't work, since the city seems to always be high in crime. Problem is, most of the guns used in DC crimes are bought legally in Virgina where the gun laws are way more lax.

[rahmota]

AFP: You are quite correct. The firearms ban in DC has been in effect for some time now and has been being fought in the court system for most of its existence. Its just now finally bubbled its way up to something with national attention.

Cancel: You are correct. The District of Columbia is not a state, territory or other protectorate of the United States. Legally from what I recall it falls more into like a military base or national park in that it is an administrative district of the United states government. So technically the citizens are not US citizens and do not have the same rights and protections as the rest of the country. Technically that is. At least I think thats how it worked from College Polsci. Everyone treats it like its a state for most common things anyhow so a person doesnt really stop and think about it unless something comes up to make a person do so.

And yes while the firearms may be purchased in Virginia where the laws are a bit more reasonable theya re still used in DC where the laws are highly toxic and unreasonable. What it does show is what happens when you strip a population of the ability to defend themselves and throw them to the wolves. If the citizens where better able to defend themselves then the violent crime rate would eventually go down. After a brief rise I guess until the bad guys got the message. Or enough of them died.

[CancelMyService]

I just thought it meant it's a bad idea to have a state with relatively lax gun laws bordering a place that has a ban on them. They might as well install neon road signs leading to VA proclaiming "BUY GUNS HERE, NO QUESTIONS ASKED".

Also, I don't know how any court can make a ruling on DC laws without some sort of clarification on what exactly DC *is*. A state? A territory? A national park with congresscritters instead of bears?

[protege]

I just thought it meant it's a bad idea to have a state with relatively lax gun laws bordering a place that has a ban on them. They might as well install neon road signs leading to VA proclaiming "BUY GUNS HERE, NO QUESTIONS ASKED".

Years ago, the legal drinking age in PA was and still is 21. However, just across the border then, in WV, it was lower...18 IIRC. What would happen, is that kids would head down there, and then (unfortunately) wreck on the ride home. (My grandmother lived just a few miles from the PA-WV border, and at one point, there was an accident nearly every damn weekend...usually it was some drunk idiot.) Since then, WV raised their age.

That just goes to show...that if someone wants something enough, they'll find an easier way to get it. Even so, I don't think a ban will bring the crime rate down. If anything, it'll increase it for a bit.

[rahmota]

Well to me banning something just has the effect of making people want it that much more. I mean bans have so successfully worked throuhgout history.

Banned alcohol during the 20s, led to the rise of the mob and rumrunners and bathtub gin.

Banned blue movies in many cities in the 50s. Led to the rise of home stag parties, movie houes outside of town etc...

Banned mary and her friends. That whole war on drugs thing. Hows that goin govt? Ready to give in the towel yet?

Banning firearms is not the answer to getting rid of crime or violence. Dealing with the criminals in a manner that helps them be motivated to not be criminals. Helping change society so that the motivation or situation that drives some people into crime is not there. Decriminalizing some thigns that are only a crime because they are an action that some people find immoral or indecent but are harmless otherwise.

Besides as this ban has shown all a firearms ban does is remove the ability of the law abiding citizen to defend themselves. Criminals will still have firearms. Still be able to get firearms as they usually don't go get them at the store anyhow.

As for the Ban itself. Since 1977 DC citizens have not been able to own or purchase handguns except those registered before 1977. All Ammunition as well as any other firearms must be resgistered. So not only do they make a perosn register their firearms they amke them register that they have ammunition for that firearm. yet DC is consistently ranked among the least safe cities in the country. Right now as of the latest data I have they are ranked 13th in the least safe cities. Homocides routinely stay near 200+ for a year. With 198 to date for 2007.

Most of the homocides occur in the poorer areas of DC away from the rich who it is said get favourable treatment from law enforcement authorities, and private security firms. Imagine that eh? the rich can afford to hide behond their bullet proof glass and hired thugs and let the poor blow each other away. Hmmm. Too cynical? Not cynical enough.

DC is a textbook example of the rich and powerful not caring about what happens to the poor and underpriviledged. How firearms bans do not prevent crime. How the american justice system is flawed and borderline failure. If any town needed an enema DC is it.

[CancelMyService]

Again, the firearm ban is not the reason for crime, being surrounded by states that have less restrictive gun laws is however a large part (not the whole reason).

Also, "the rich" in this context would mostly mean the elected leaders of the United States. I can kind of understand why they don't want people to be packing like the Old West within a stone's throw of the President's 'hood.

I do agree DC has been sorely in need of some rectal cleansing for a while. They've had some pretty questionable leadership (Marion Berry, what the F?) compounded with the designation of DC as a non-state has pretty much doomed the non government residents to a permanent state of disarray.

[rahmota]

being surrounded by states that have less restrictive gun laws is however a large part (not the whole reason

You are right that that is not the whole reason. Actually I would see that as a rather small and miniscule reason for why there is crime.

Also, "the rich" in this context would mostly mean the elected leaders of the United States.

Actually from what I've been reading a lot fo Defense Contractor honchos, Political Activists, lawyers other non-electred parasites who make their livelihood by or through dealings with the elcted officials are living in the DC. A lot of the actual elected officials spend most of their time outside the DC in various subdivisions and secured facilities. Also Dubya spends most of his time outside DC anyhow.
And as for the elected officials most of the major ones are protected by so many individuals in depth anymore that it would be an extremely good and dedicated criminal or extremely miracuously lucky one who gets close enough to them to do anything even remotely harmful to them.

But yeah DC needs to get its act together somehow. A very unpopular idea I know I have is just go on ahead and declare DC to be a military reservation and declare martial law. If you are goign to claim you have a war on crime or drugs or whatever dont pussy foot aroud it go ahead and do it.