2008-06-26: Supreme Court (Heller v District of Columbia)

[DaveK]

Last nights net dealt exclusively with the Supreme Court's decision in the Heller v District of Columbia case. As most people know, The District of Columbia imposed a ban on firearms many, many years ago. Not surprisingly, DC has enjoyed the distinction of having one of the nations very highest murder and crime rates. Unfortunately, gun control advocates have missed or ignored this very important connection.

The issues confronted by the Court included the question of whether the second amendment confirmed an individual right to keep and bear handguns and, if so, was the DC ban a violation of the second amendment. The Court affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right having nothing to do with the military. They also recognized that handguns are the preferred means of self defense, especially in the home, and that laws banning possession of same were unconstitutional. The court affirmed that we have a right to self defense and that handguns are an acceptable means of doing so. This was a good day for Americans and in particular American gunowners. Anyone interested in reading all 165 pages of the decision, post your request here and we will make it available.

We had 34 check-ins and the net lasted for approximately 1 hour and 15 minutes.

[cruiserlarry]

Last nights net dealt exclusively with the Supreme Court's decision in the Heller v District of Columbia case. As most people know, The District of Columbia imposed a ban on firearms many, many years ago. Not surprisingly, DC has enjoyed the distinction of having one of the nations very highest murder and crime rates. Unfortunately, gun control advocates have missed or ignored this very important connection.

The issues confronted by the Court included the question of whether the second amendment confirmed an individual right to keep and bear handguns and, if so, was the DC ban a violation of the second amendment. The Court affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right having nothing to do with the military. They also recognized that handguns are the preferred means of self defense, especially in the home, and that laws banning possession of same were unconstitutional. The court affirmed that we have a right to self defense and that handguns are an acceptable means of doing so. This was a good day for Americans and in particular American gunowners. Anyone interested in reading all 165 pages of the decision, post your request here and we will make it available.

We had 34 check-ins and the net lasted for approximately 1 hour and 15 minutes.

Well, I tried very, very hard to ignore that statement and avoid responding, because my issue is not with this decision, but rather in the reasoning used to support it.

No one "missed the connection" - there is no connection. As a lawyer, I am surprised you would come up with a correlation that has no basis in fact - it only works as a poor argument to refute other poor arguments. To say that because law-abiding DCers were not legally able to own firearms to defend themselves is the reason for the high crime rate in that area is ridiculous, ignoring all social and economic issues that have plagued the DC area for 50 years or more. The majority of those murdered were not upstanding citizens left without firearms - they were criminals and gang members, using unregistered weapons, killing each other. This crime rate, as we will see if nothing is done to address the actual causality of the problem, will be unaffected by this court decision. While this is a good day for American gun owners, is completely unrelated to the crime rate in DC and other slum areas of this country. So there will be many more legal gun owners in DC feeling "safer" at home, but their homes are not in the war zones where the majority of these murders have, and will continue, to take place.

So, this may or may not be a good day for all Americans, IMO. Those for and those against gun control will not have changed the way they present their arguments, as demonstrated here. A moot point, as the major cause of most violent crime in this country (and anywhere in the world) is based on socio-economic issues that still need to be addressed, and are not based on who legally owns the guns. Until these more urgent matters are addressed, we will continue to think we need to "defend ourselves", despite the fact most of us, living in more isolated communities, will never need to...

Hold all the flaming, I know I'm in the minority here....

[DaveK]

Oh, the flaming is coming! Dinner first!

[cruiserlarry]

Sure, mention food, my weak spot...

[DaveK]

As much as it pains me to disagree with a fellow board member, a man has to do what a man has to do.

While the truth may be hard to swallow, it remains the truth no matter how hard you try to ignore it or conceal it. The “connection” exists and proof of it lies in every city where restrictive gun laws exist (see proof below*). Yes it’s true, that as an attorney I clearly see this connection, but frankly Larry, one does not need a law degree, or any degree, to see it. One must work overtime to ignore and then misconstrue the fact that the greatest crime and murder rates exist in cities where they have the most restrictive gun laws. The time has come to acknowledge that criminals are much less likely to ply their trade when they don’t know who is armed. The only thing that happens when you disarm the LAW ABIDING public is that you have created a softer, easier, and better target for the criminals among us. In point of fact, you have declared open season on the unarmed. And just in case it has also escaped your eagle eyes, criminals really don’t obey the law and turn in their guns. Nor do they wait 15 days for a background check so that they can legally obtain firearms. While it may “feel” good to pass these restrictive gun laws, in reality, matters are actually worse.

If you are implying that high crime and murders rates exist because of “socio-economic” factors, I fear that I must vehemently disagree. I categorically reject any notion that suggests that people who are in this so called “socio-economic” class you speak of, have a greater tendency to commit crime or that they are less law abiding. Such notion reeks of prejudice. No socio-economic class maintains a monopoly on morals, ethics or a history of abiding by the law. Criminals, who break the law, are responsible for their acts and it is not a defense to say that their acts are justified or excusable because they come from this “socio-economic” class you have created.

One of the most basic and fundamental rights that we possess is the right to self defense by the use of arms (guns). Justice Scalia, in the majority opinion, cited, with approval, the words of Justice William Blackstone, the most preeminent authority on English Law for the founding generation. Blackstone said that the use of arms constituted “the natural right of resistance and self preservation”. While it may have also been missed by many, the importance of the Heller case arises from the courts re-affirmation that we, as Americans , have the right to self defense by the use of HANDGUNS! One of the many beautiful aspects of this decision is that now you have a choice. For those who do not wish to take advantage of the right to self defense, they may do so. For those who believe that the police will always be there to protect them, they have the right to such reliance. But for those who wish to secure the safety of their families and themselves, they now have been given back the rights that were taken away by jurisdictions like DC.

I share your concern that many conditions in cities like DC are deplorable. Unfortunately, you have misunderstood the purpose and importance of the Heller decision. It is not the Supreme Court’s duty, under the Constitution, to solve crime or solve “socio-economic” issues. Their job, as you well know, is to interpret the Constitution. While it is appropriate to be concerned with the “slum areas of this country”, it is wrong to criticize this court for doing nothing. Apples have been mixed with oranges.

Lastly, it is the height of naivete to believe that the elimination of “the slum areas of this country”, would eliminate the need for self defense. At no time in the recorded history of mankind have all of societies ills been solved and there has never been a time when there was not a need for self defense. Such a utopia exists only in the mind of dreamers.

*For proof, consider the following. Please note this is but a minute fraction of PROOF which exists.

1. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England's inner cities (where there is a virtual ban on handguns) increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.

2. New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46 percent and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.

3. In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures and its murder rate, then a low 2.4 per 100,000 per year, tripled to 7.2 by 1977.

4. In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent.

5. See: Firearms and Crime, by Daniel D. Polsby (Professor of Law at Northwestern University and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute).

[traveltoad]

IMO it doesn't matter if one truely needs to defends oneself, it is our right to own an operational firearm for our own defense. This right is bigger than and predates the United States of America.

[Cnynrat]

To me, the greater imperative served by maintaining the individual right to bear arms is so that the people always hold sufficient power to fight back against tyranny by the government. In this time so far removed from the founding of our country we often forget that this principle was foremost in the minds of the framers when they drafted the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The first move by virtually any tyrannical government is to remove the right of citizens to bear arms, assuming such rights remain. Below are a selection of quotes from the framers that address this specific issue (bold text my emphasis):


"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
--- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).


"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."
--- Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 1788


"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
--- Thomas Jefferson


"O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?"
--- Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 1788


"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--- James Madison, The Federalist Number 46


I realize from the perspective of our current situation as world leader (yes, still) and with our generally comfortable standard of living, this notion may seem like an anachronism to many. But over an historical time scale, there is no guarantee that governments based on human liberty will prevail. We sometimes forget that at only 230 some odd years old this great country can still be thought of as an experiment when measured against the whole of recorded human history.

[DaveK]

Dave, N6DCF:

Excellent review.

[cruiserlarry]

I am pro death penalty, and I am not anti-gun. However, had the correlation between gun ownership and crime reduction been as obvious as those think-tank generated statistics make it appear, this decision would have been unanimous, not a close 5-4 vote. After all, these are, theoretically, the most qualified constitutional scholars of our country pondering this issue.

My point was not whether or not this was an appropriate decision. I just wanted to make sure folks remain aware that merely making sure the general population is armed will not rid us of crime unless we deal with underlying causes. To believe that all violent crime is stimulated by a lack of firearms in the home is ignorant, IMO.

My congratulations to all in DC who feel safer because they can now legally have a firearm at the ready in their home.
I, for one, don't think much has changed for the better - but in the unlikely event, real statistics demonstrate a huge drop in violent crime directly attributable to this decision, I'll be glad to stand corrected.

We still have bigger issues to deal with if we truly want to feel safe, IMO.

[cruiserlarry]

To me, the greater imperative served by maintaining the individual right to bear arms is so that the people always hold sufficient power to fight back against tyranny by the government. In this time so far removed from the founding of our country we often forget that this principle was foremost in the minds of the framers when they drafted the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The first move by virtually any tyrannical government is to remove the right of citizens to bear arms, assuming such rights remain.

I don't know what tyrannical government we should be fearing, with the exception of the current administration.

The first step in controlling a population, historically speaking, is to induce fear. Then the citizenry is asked to voluntarily give up certain "small" rights, such as freedom from unlawful search and seizure, freedom of speech, freedom to individual privacy, and finally (although not historically), the freedom to own and bear arms. You have but to look at most third world coountries and the Middle East to see heavily armed citizens still controlled by their goverments.

The first three reductions of our civil rights have been successfully accomplished over just the last 7 years.
Wiretapping ? no problem. Incarceration without proper representation ? Sure. Disagree and you are unpatriotic ? Seems fair. Check your shoes, body cavities or any thing else before you get on the plane? Yes, of course.

Of the 3 documented "terrorist attacks" within the US borders in the last 200+ years, one-third of them was the result of an armed American. But we have been told to be very afraid, and we have voluntarily allowed our government to "protect" us from ourselves. The false sense of security we will all have by being armed and afraid will allow us to kill each other long before we'll ever need to defend ourselves against an organized invasion by another country.

We need to put the same energy, as we demonstrate in our fervor to stay armed, into demanding the restoration of all our guaranteed civil rights. To think the founding fathers were more concerned about gun rights than our other rights is to ignore 90% of the bill of rights and the constitution. Remember, those who would allow you to bear arms are the same folks gradually eroding away your other freedoms in the name of "protection" - and I'll wager they are better armed than we are...

I know I'm alone here - that's OK. I'll still defend our right to bear arms, and hopefully, everyone else will find it worthwhile to defend our right to free speech, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and freedom of privacy.
Well, we've got the guns - now it's time to get the rest of our personal liberties back...