Repealing D.C.’s Gun Law
Newsweek:
July 30, 2007 - The District of Columbia has the most restrictive gun laws in the country. But that’s a distinction the nation’s capital will soon lose—if Robert Levy prevails. Levy was born in Washington, but left years ago; a resident of Naples, Fla., who made a fortune as an investment analyst, he is now a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. A critic of what he sees as unnecessary government regulation, he rounded up six D.C. plaintiffs who either owned firearms or wanted to, for self-protection, and helped bankroll their challenge to the city’s gun law—which makes it illegal to own or possess an unregistered handgun (D.C. stopped registering handguns back in 1978). The city permits registered “long” guns like shotguns and rifles, but they must be disassembled or disabled with trigger locks, and it’s illegal to use a firearm of any kind in self-defense—even in the owner’s home. The suit, which is being bankrolled by Levy, has been successful so far; in March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found the gun law unconstitutional. Earlier this month, D.C. officials announced plans to take the case (Parker v. District of Columbia) to the Supreme Court, in hopes of having the appeals court’s ruling overturned. If the high court agrees to hear Parker, it could finally settle one of the biggest arguments in constitutional law: whether the Second Amendment’s right to “keep and bear arms” is an individual right or was meant to apply only to members of a “well-regulated militia.” NEWSWEEK’s Daren Briscoe spoke with Levy about the suit’s prospects, and what drove him to bring it to court. Excerpts:
Why is the Second Amendment so important?
Originally it was important as a protection accorded to American citizens against a tyrannical government. But even before the Constitution was written, even before the U.S. government was formed, the right existed. It was a means of self-defense, and today the right to bear arms protects us against predators. It’s important to note that the Second Amendment doesn’t grant a right to bear arms. It says the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed,” meaning that it already existed.
NEWSWEEK: Why did you file this suit?
Robert Levy: First, because I’m a fervent believer in the Constitution, including the Second Amendment, and I read the Second Amendment as securing an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. In most jurisdictions, the courts have read the Second Amendment only to protect members of militias. In D.C., that issue has not been resolved. I saw an opportunity, with my two co-counsels, to vindicate Second Amendment rights and to establish a precedent that, if it reached the Supreme Court, would be applicable across the nation.
You don’t own any guns personally. Why not?
While I believe the Constitution secures my right to own guns, as a practical matter, I don’t sense the need to do so. I live in a safe area, a relatively affluent area, and crime isn’t a major issue where I live. I don’t have the same need for self-defense as the six plaintiffs in the Parker case.
How expansive is your view of what the Second Amendment protects? What if I want to walk around carrying a fully automatic machine gun?
The right to keep and bear arms, like all other rights, is not absolute. Under the First Amendment, we can’t incite other people to riot. Under the Fourth Amendment, reasonable searches are permitted. Well, in the case of the Second Amendment, there can be reasonable regulations. It’s quite clear that some weapons can be regulated, weapons of mass destruction, for instance. Some persons can be regulated against bearing arms, minors for instance. Some uses can be and are regulated. Uses of guns in crimes, for instance. The question is what constitutes reasonable regulation.
D.C.’s mayor, Adrian Fenty, says that the gun laws have saved countless lives by keeping guns out of the hands of those who would hurt themselves or others. What’s your response to that?
I’ve looked at the evidence. I’ve taught regression analysis and statistical inference, so I know a little bit about how to understand what it means, and the evidence is that gun laws do not help. Gun restrictions tend to increase violence. So, on both a constitutional basis and as a general matter, these gun restrictions have been counterproductive. The evidence is that more gun laws lead to increased crime and more guns lead to decreased crime.
You’re paying for this case out of your own pocket. How much has it cost you?
I have paid for the whole thing, but a good part of this case was put together on donated time on the part of the attorneys involved. My co-counsel Clark Neily and I are working on this pro bono, and our lead counsel, Alan Gura, is working at subsistence-level wages. But I’ve spent a sizable sum of money, a substantial five-figure number.
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
They need to repeal all the unreasonable shit. Gun laws don’t work. Period.
July 30th, 2007 at 2:12 pmThe gun laws in D.C have been one of those liberal attempts at feel good legislation that has taken guns away from people and left them at the mercy of criminals.
So what happens is crimals buy their guns out of state, bring them back to DC and use them on innocent citizens.
Conversely, anyone (But Carl Rowan) who uses a firearm to defend themselves can be put in jail for doing so.
It is a ridiculous law that has done NOTHING to reduce gun violence in DC. The law takes the right of citizens to defend themselves and gives that right instaed to the criminals.
Watch the Supremes kick the law back to the appelate court, and let the unconstitutionality verdict of the lower court stand.
About time.
July 30th, 2007 at 2:17 pmThere is NO legitimate controversy about the right the 2nd amendment protects being a personal right. If the Framers of The Constitution had meant that all firearms should be locked up in an armory run by the government, they not only would have SAID so, they would have DONE so.
But, they didn’t. The Minutemen who’d fought the war kept their guns at home. Do these educated idiots seriously think that men who’d just fought a ruinous war against an oppressive government would turn over the very weapons they’d used to free themselves — to government?
More to the point, if that is what they had meant, why did they immediately set about VIOLATING the Constitution they had just ratified?
The answer, of course, is that they were NOT violating it, because the 2nd is, inDEED, about the PERSONAL right to keep, and bear arms.
It’s what they meant, because it’s what they DID.
Just so you know, it IS legal for private citizens to own, posess, and fire fully-automatic weapons. The Federal Firearms Law passed in 1934, if memory serves, was intended to keep them out of criminals hands, not law-abiding citizens. Later laws capped the number of such weapons that citizens could own to those manufactured before a certain date. There are about 150,000 of them in circulation. Go to YouTube, and type in “machine gun granny” or just “machine gun” and variants.
Guess how many crimes have been committed with these legally owned machine guns in the last 70+ years.
July 30th, 2007 at 3:09 pmIf this one goes to the Supreme court, Sarah Brady is going to have to look for a new cause, the nauseating C*NT. I foresee the question finally being answered in the affirmative, once and for all. Ownership of firearms is an individual right!
July 30th, 2007 at 3:39 pmNone. Not a single crime was committed using a legally owned fully-automatic.
It’s high time these people stop doing what FEELS right and actually start doing what IS right. Just because it FEELS right doesn’t mean it is.
Liberals operate like overemotional wrecks. Always do everything according to feelings and not cold, hard facts.
July 30th, 2007 at 3:49 pmA real simple question that all these anti-gunners can never answer straight is.
A criminal is a person who breaks the law. Why wouldn’t that same criminal just break the law that says its illegal to have a gun?
The anti-gun argument is flawed at its foundation. Our prison’s are stuffed with people that used firearms in the commission of crimes against people who had no defense. Police don’t stop crime.. They clean up after it’s occurred.
How did the gun laws help the honest person in this situation?
July 30th, 2007 at 7:37 pmSome great comments here. I, honestly, love our guns. I enjoy using them for sport as well as sleeping with the comfort of knowing they are available ofr protection. I can’t be certain the gun debate will ever be settled. The fear of guns is based on people’s ignorance regarding them. If you’ve never shot a firearm, how can you honestly make a judgment?
Private citizens owning guns is the ONLY deturrent to violent criminals. It is the best way to shift the power in a situation in which you are powerless. In my state, like 39 others, we have legalized “conceal and carry” of firearms publicly on your person. These permit holders are required to take a course on firearm safety and proper use under the law and are required to pass a proficiency test to insure they can safely fire a gun. I personally do not carry, but I find comfort knowing there are some responsible citizens who do. In a crisis, those armed have the power to defend and equalize the seperation of control between the criminal and the innocent. In fact, since my state has voted this law into effect, violent crime is down. Also, I have heard of a city, Kennesaw, GA… they have passed a city ordinance REQUIRING each home to have a gun. That’s a little further than I would take it, but I bet no one in that town does a random B&E or pulls that horrific chit like in Connecticut with the Doctor Petit’s family.
Just a thought.
July 30th, 2007 at 8:23 pmits no wonder why DC has one of the worst crime rates in the country
July 31st, 2007 at 12:54 amThey need to repeal it enough said.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:01 amYeah, someone broke in here while I was here. I ran him right out of here with a rifle. He hasn’t been back since, for obvious reasons.
July 31st, 2007 at 2:10 amMuch like the Nation needs a military for protection from foreign attackers; the individual citizen needs a firearm to protect them from an individual attacker.
July 31st, 2007 at 7:16 amThe 2nd Amendment guarantees that individual right.
And another thing…
Beware of the folks who try to tell you that The Constitution is a “living, breathing document.”
Bullshit.
It was deliberately made to be quite difficult to amend precisely so that it couldn’t be changed in the living, breathing heat of the moment. The fact that it HAS been amended proves that it CAN be amended, which proves that it is NOT too difficult to amend. Just difficult enough.
The point of that last sentence is that these liberal judges, “Men in Black” — thank you, Mark, for your book — think it’s so hard to pass an amendment that they are just — Ohhhh! The Pain!! — FORCED to issue blatantly UNconstitutional rulings, because they know what’s best for us.
No, the reality is that it’s just too hard to get enough Americans to agree to amend the Constitution to say something crazy like “You can’t own, and use a gun.” Or, “your right to own your house and leave it to you family when you die is subordinate to the town government’s desire to increase tax revenue by taking your house and selling it to another private citizen who’s going to put up condos.”
Think that one would fly if it had to pass as an actual Constitutional amendment?
Well, a Federal Judge saved us all a lot of trouble, and fuss by just altering the wording of the Constitution for us, because — hey! — it’s a living, breathing document! He/she/they just decided that government’s Constitutional power to take your house for any legitimate, Constitutional public USE — you know, as in GOVERNMENT use, like a road, or school — ACTUALLY means government PURPOSE!
AND! that “purpose” can be nothing more than a desire to increase tax revenue by stealing your property, and selling it — Oh, they’ll give you what THEY say it’s worth, as is — to another private person who will build something that will generate more tax revenue (and campaign contributions, Carribean cruises, etc.) and profit to that other private person!
Think that’s what the Framers of our Constitution had in mind?
Well, that has already happened, and IS happening frequently.
“Use” got interpreted to mean “purpose,” and your right to own, and KEEP — that word sound familiar?? — your home simply got vaporized by some Federal judge.
Why do you think the Framers put that word “keep” in the 2nd? Hmmm?
They wrote into the Constitution the limited power of government to take your property for public USE, but those same guys wrote that you have the right to KEEP, and BEAR arms, and NOTHING about the government keeping them for you.
But, if Federal judges can get away with stealing your house, you very home, with the strokee of a pen, and a little laughing gas administered to that “living breathing” Constitution, what do you think your Right to Keep, and Bear Arms is worth?
It is worth noting that what we think of as our fundamental rights, freedom speech, religion, etc. are all listed in the First Amendment as phrases separated by commas. But, your right to Keep and Bear Arms, that one they put all by itself in its own amendment, literally, on the PAPER itself, right underneath those First Amendment Rights.
I don’t think that was accidental. I think they were saying that those First Rights aren’t worth a damn, without the INDIVIDUAL citizen’s Right to the means to protect, and defend them.
The Second Amendment right is below the First, because it is the very real Foundation of the First. Those guys had actually used their guns to gain their Freedom. Writing our Constitution was no intellectual exercise to them. They picked their words carefully, but they relied on US remembering that WORDS MEAN THINGS. Especially simple words like Keep, Bear, and Use.
July 31st, 2007 at 7:22 amBill-
July 31st, 2007 at 7:48 amYou are a true 2A Warrior!
Joe
Canada has strict gun control laws and it hasn’t prevented criminals from obtaining guns to use in driveby shootings, murders etc.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:06 pmThe second amendment isn’t about duck hunting, either. I have heard so many Republican politicians utter the words, “We aren’t out to take away your hunting guns.” And people clap and guffaw, and think this is grand.
What these people fail to realize is that what the Republican monster just stated is, you do not have the second amendment individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense. You only have that right based on what we say that right entails, and right now, we are telling you we only prefer that said implements be used for hunting, and any other purpose is nefarious, if not outright heinous.
This is the purpose to which Mr. Levy refers: The second amendment is an individual right.
Now, as to those above who say that the government may have a right to regulate, and they quote various words within the second amendment, they do leave out the tiny phrase within, “…shall not be infringed.” As I noted in my article to the SCOPE (www.scopeny.org) Newsletter, “Firing Lines,” of a few months back, the word infringed means things. Firstly, it means to encroach, which means to go beyond what is ORIGINAL, proper and customary; to make inroads. As noted, originally we had no firearms laws, not because people weren’t killing each other, but because it was neither proper, nor customary for the government to make such. Tennessee tried in the 1850’s to do just this, and the law was shot down by the Tennessee courts.
A second meaning of infringed is “to hinder.” Do laws which limit purchase to one gun a month, to waiting periods, to background checks which may take up to five business days, etc., hinder one in being able to get a firearm when needed? Why they most certainly do. So, as you can see, any such hinderance in forbidden by that tiny clause, “…shall not be infringed.”
As to who should have guns, our founders noted that all should be privy, and we know from historical fact that youths of 12 to 15 were involved in early wars and skirmishes. See the many works (historically detailed novels) of historian, and Ohio Professor, Allan W. Eckert for more on this.
Further, our founders noted that every armament to which the common solcier is privy is the “birthright” of the U.S. citizen. I dare say that many of our everyday soldiers in Iraq, and Afghanistan, today are carrying with them grenades, and during the early days of their mission, I am certain some had LAWS, and Stinger missiles to take out Saddam’s tanks, and any military aircraft which may have come their way. They certainly all have, or are able to be provided automatic weapons, grenade launchers, and the like. At the Orleans County (NY) Fair this past week I sat in the NYS Conservation Council log cabin trying to takl worhtless sh*thead gun owners into joining the group to fight for their second amendment rights. Some few did, but the majority of gun owner’s wanted nothing to do with the organization, or were too ignorant of what was going on, and/or too lazy to become involved. Shameful on their part. Their former forefathers must be turning in their graves. Anyway, the NG was their, a bunch of personable guys, one with his wife and sons along. Wonderful people, willing to help out, just unable to leave me one of those automatic weapons. Something about how they might get into trouble if they came up missing. Oh well. We at the SCOPE table assisted them in our desire to help our fellow soldiers (militia–the NG is not the militia, as their weaponry is provided by the federal government, and can at any time be taken by that government for its purposes) in the militia. The only problem was that they were part of the organized army of the federal republic, supposedly attached to the state from which they were originally signed. I have nothing against, and a great admiration for, these brave guys who saw tours in Iraq, and may soon be headed to Afghanistan.
What I do want known is that the weapons they carried are the birthright of every American. Tenche Coxe so stated.
August 1st, 2007 at 7:47 am