Independent Women's Forum - Research Areas > Gun Control

D.C. Gun Case Update

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:37:00 EDT

A transcript from yesterday's oral arguments in District of Columbia v Heller is available here.

I also recommend checking out Jacob Sullum's commentary over at Reason's Hit and Run blog. Sullum focuses on a particularly contentious part of D.C.'s gun ban: that all firearms must be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device." As you can imagine, that makes self-defense more than a little difficult.

D.C. Gun Case Primer

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:39:00 EDT

Today the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller, aka the case over D.C.'s controversial gun ban. Here's all the info you'll need to get caught up on the details of this important case:

-Over at the Wall Street Journal, Professor Randy Barnett gives a good overview of what's at stake.

-John Lott (of More Guns, Less Crime fame) has an article on National Review Online about the significance of the case.

-All of the case filings are available here.

-Reason Senior Editor Brian Doherty gives a good video overview of the case over at Reason TV.

-And, since I like graphs, here are the homicide rates in D.C. vs. other major cities since the gun ban was passed.

The Right to Ban Arms?

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:36:00 EST

In her latest Charlotte's web column, Charlotte Hays talks about the D.C. gun ban and the upcoming Supreme Court case. As Charlotte points out, bans do a great job of keeping guns out of law-abiding citizens' hands. But what about criminals?

The problem with banning guns is that such bans affect only law-abiding citizens. Your average criminal isn't going to think, "Drat, I can't get a gun now." He isn't going to think this because he has never limited himself to legal routes to gun ownership in the first place. The gun ban is irrelevant to him, except that he might be safer trespassing on the property of others-a definite plus, when you come to think about it.

"Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns," writes Robert A. Levy, co-counsel for the plaintiffs in the case that is now before the Supreme Court. Levy noted the situation of Shelly Parker, one of the plaintiffs, who lived in a high-crime neighborhood in Washington. A crime fighter, Ms. Parker was taunted and threatened by drug dealers but she nevertheless organized block meetings to enlist others in the fight against crime.

Trying to get into her house, a dealer yelled, "I'll kill you. I live on this block too!" "For obvious reasons," Levy writes, "Shelly Parker would like to possess a functional handgun within her home for self-defense; but she feared arrest and prosecution because of the District's unconstitutional gun ban." Let me go out on a limb and posit that the gun dealers in Mrs. Parker's neighborhood weren't nearly so scrupulous.

Read her column here.

The Right to Ban Arms?

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:26:00 EST

Although the U.S. Supreme Court, which has agreed to hear a case about banning guns in the District of Columbia, will be forced to rule on the lofty matter of the Second Amendment, I think in humbler terms: Is a gun ban good for the regular citizen?

The case the Supreme Court will hear grew out of a 1976 ban on guns that is one of the most extensive in the country, in essence prohibiting citizens from owning a functioning firearm. It was upheld in one court challenge but in March the Court of Appeals for The District of Columbia overturned it. Mayor Adrian Fenty subsequently decided to appeal to the Supreme Court. The fate of gun ownership around the country will be affected by what the Court decides.

I don't like guns. Coming from a part of the country where men (and sporting women, too) do bear arms, mostly to kill turkeys, deer, duck, and other innocent creatures, I've heard about terrible hunting accidents all my life. It is therefore not entirely with pleasure that I find myself arguing that having a gun in the house can promote safety.

The problem with banning guns is that such bans affect only law-abiding citizens. Your average criminal isn't going to think, "Drat, I can't get a gun now." He isn't going to think this because he has never limited himself to legal routes to gun ownership in the first place. The gun ban is irrelevant to him, except that he might be safer trespassing on the property of others-a definite plus, when you come to think about it.

"Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns," writes Robert A. Levy, co-counsel for the plaintiffs in the case that is now before the Supreme Court. Levy noted the situation of Shelly Parker, one of the plaintiffs, who lived in a high-crime neighborhood in Washington. A crime fighter, Ms. Parker was taunted and threatened by drug dealers but she nevertheless organized block meetings to enlist others in the fight against crime.

Trying to get into her house, a dealer yelled, "I'll kill you. I live on this block, too!" "For obvious reasons," Levy writes, "Shelly Parker would like to possess a functional handgun within her home for self-defense; but she feared arrest and prosecution because of the District's unconstitutional gun ban." Let me go out on a limb and posit that the gun dealers in Mrs. Parker's neighborhood weren't nearly so scrupulous.

Proponents of banning guns claim that such laws will reduce crime (they can't just say they hate guns and hunters, can they?). But, according to statistics presented by John Lott, author of the book "More Guns, Less Crime," in Congressional testimony two years ago, the District of Columbia has seen a rise in crime since the ban went into effect. The homicide rate was declining in late 1976, before the ban, from 37 to 27 in 100,000. In the next five years, it rose to 35. "While crime rates have fluctuated over time, the murder rate after 1976 has only once fallen below what it was in 1976," Lott said.

Former Manhattan Assistant District Attorney David B. Kopel, now practicing law in Colorado, argues in a Cato Institute paper that gun bans are elitist. "Gun control," he wrote, "is based on the faulty notion that ordinary American citizens are too clumsy and ill-tempered to be trusted with weapons. Only through the blatant abrogation of explicit constitutional rights is gun control even possible. It must be enforced with such violations of individual rights as intrusive search and seizure. It most severely victimizes those who most need weapons for self-defense, such as blacks and women."

When the Supreme Court decides the issue, it is the wording of the Second Amendment that they will consider. It reads: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Does this give individuals the right to protect themselves with arms, or is a narrow reading in order?

I realize that the Court has to rule on the law. While I certainly hope they find that law-abiding citizens have the right to bear arms, I don't think of it that way. Here's the question for me: Who would you prefer to own a gun: crime-fighting Mrs. Parker or the drug dealers among whom she has lived?

PBS' To the Contrary: Gun control and the 2008 elections; Educational baby toys; Don Imus' return

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:38:00 EDT

...

Virginia Tech...

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 19:33:00 EDT

We're all sadden and shocked--and horrified--about the slayings at Virginia Tech.

Our hearts go out to the victims and their families and to the whole university.

As this is a developing story, you'll probably have more information when you read this than we do right now.

The suddenness and horror of the killings have stunned us all. Unfortunately, John Nichols of the Nation wasn't stunned into silence. He starts an insta-column on the tragedy by quoting the shocked reaction of the university's president:

"'The university is shocked and indeed horrified,' explained Steger, after it became clear that what had happened on his campus Monday was worse the carnage at Columbine High School in 1999 or at the University of Texas in 1966.

"The trouble with shock and horror is that it does not often translate into contemplation, let alone serious reflection on the state of a nation in which such an incident can occur -- and, more troublingly, in which no one can suggest that the killings were unimaginable."

Nichols apparently doesn't need much time for contemplation or "serious reflection." Without missing a beat, he continues:

"The first question, appropriately, is: Why did this happen?
"The second question, equally appropriately, is: What should we do about it?
"There is is a simple answer to Question No. 1: America is a violent country.
"Unfortunately, simple answers lead to simplistic responses. If America can do nothing about its violent streak, the NRA will argue, it is silly to place limits on gun ownership. Better to arm everyone, the argument goes. ...'Or better to allow the 'concealed carry' of weapons. Or, well, you get the point -- anything to avoid taking a piece out of the profits of the corporations that manufacture and sell deadly weapons.'"

A confession of sorts

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Fri, 26 May 2006 14:13:00 EDT

"My name is Allison, and I'm addicted to fashion magazines."

"Hi, Allison."

Well, not really, but I do like the celebrity gossip. I just can't help myself. My roommate is similarly afflicted. I'm pretty sure my sorority sisters really are addicted.

But every now and then (when the magazines decide to tackle politics) I get annoyed. I also get annoyed when they put in pictures of twins wearing matching outfits, but I digress.

The June 2006 issue of Marie Claire breaks both of the AK rules of fashion magazines, featuring illogical politics and a photo essay of twins in matching outfits. The issue features an investigation of how long it takes to get a gun vs. how long it takes to get a restraining order. Turns out you can get a gun more quickly, and I think that's great (when's the last time you scared off an assailant by waving a government issued piece of paper?) But Marie Claire doesn't share my thought process. Marie Claire is outraged. Marie Claire blames guns. I'm not sure what for, but Marie Claire blames guns! But the problem isn't that the reporter could get a gun in a timely fashion. That's a good thing. The problem is that government bureaucracy made it difficult for the woman to get a restraining order. So, why isn't Marie Claire complaining about that?

The article goes on to compare several other items that don't even relate to each other. Is it easier to get details for making a bomb or details for making a Big Mac? Is it easier to get Heroin or emergency contraception? Is it faster to eat a banana or an orange? OK, I made that last one up, but it makes about as much sense as the rest of the article.

The common link in all the comparisons is that the product or service with the most government regulation and bureaucracy is the slowest to get. But Marie Claire doesn't mention government bureaucracy. The article instead chooses to hate on whatever you can get faster.

The issue also names Eve Ensler's V-Day as the second best charity. Thank you, but I prefer charities that don't objectify women to raise their funds.

IWF Applauds Move to Repeal Gun Ban in DC

Fri, 20 May 2005 00:00:00 EDT

Contact: Christie Hobbs
Phone: (202) 349-5889

WASHINGTON, DC -- The Independent Women's Forum today applauds legislation introduced Thursday by U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison which would repeal the District of Columbia's arcane ban on gun ownership. Currently, it is a felony to own a handgun if you are a resident of DC.

"As a single woman living alone in DC, I am incensed that I can't own a gun to protect myself," said Louise Filkins, IWF's communications director. "Women are particularly vulnerable to crime and denying them the right to own a gun is clearly anti-woman. This gun ban has been in effect almost 30 years, yet the District still continues to have one of the highest crime rates in the nation."

DC Mayor Anthony Williams and DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton have vowed to defeat the legislation calling the legislation a "rude insult" to residents.

"I find it a rude insult that Williams and Norton don't trust law-abiding citizens to own a gun," Filkins added. "They have failed to protect the citizens of DC from crime and therefore we should be allowed to protect ourselves. It's time Congress and the District of Columbia restore our right to bear arms, which is guaranteed to us by the U.S. Constitution."