Washington Post Gets It Half Right

 

In an online editorial today, the Washington Post championed a change in gun control laws through the Supreme Court. Sometime next year The Court will hear McDonald v Chicago, in which Chicago residents challenged the constitutionality of that city’s broad and strict gun laws.

The editorial gives a good historical recap of how various Circuit Courts have grappled with this question, some citing precedents that go back to the 19^th Century. Obviously, constitutional law has changed since then. Back in those days something we take for granted like the 4^th Amendment’s warrant requirement for a search and seizure didn’t apply to the states.

In the recent Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the 2^nd Amendment applied to anyone on federal land. This struck down as unconstitutional the District of Columbia’s draconian gun laws. The Washington Post argues that it wouldn’t be logical to allow a 2^nd Amendment right for the people who live in DC while denying that right to those of us who live off federal land.

Where the Washington Post is wrong is in its argument that large cities should be allowed to have stricter gun control laws than in rural areas. The Post claims that because urban areas are densely populated stricter gun control is needed for public safety. But the opposite is true. It is from these densely populated areas that we get most of our violent crime. One reason crime is lower in rural areas is because criminals know many of these residents own firearms. If the same can become true for urban areas, crime will go down because the risk will outweigh the benefit.