D.C. v Heller and McDonald v Chicago need Supreme Court Clarification
D.C. v Heller and McDonald v Chicago were decided in favor of gun rights three and two years ago respectively. Those of us who cherish our 2nd Amendment Rights were jubilant that finally the Supreme Court cleared up the issue in our favor. But as FirearmsTruth reported back then, not all issues were clearly defined by The Court.
Delaware Online Writer Knows Law – Misreads History and Facts
In writing for the community view section of Delaware Online, lawyer Michael P. Kelly offers his thoughts on why we should “Control guns for the ‘common good’” but he offers several glaring mistakes.
He states, in reaction to Heller v. District of Columbia and McDonald v. City of City:
“Municipal attempts to curb gun violence by limiting access to guns, successful throughout Western Europe, appear to be over.”
Have these been successful in Europe? Really? Gun crime is on the rise in places such as Manchester, England.
It also seems that Mr. Kelly is trying to confuse law abiding citizens with criminals. He does make an interesting argument that the right to bear arms implied doing so to face state power. But that isn’t totally accurate. The Second Amendment reads, “The right to keep and bear arms,” before noting anything about a militia. Thus private citizens should have the right to protect themselves, not from state power, but from bad guys with guns.
And this is an issue that Mr. Kelly ignores completely. He talks about “constitutional” issues as a big picture. Do criminals bother with the constitution? Most criminals of the street thug variety, those who will buy illegal guns, and commit the acts of violence in Chicago and Washington, probably can’t spell “constitution.” So Mr. Kelly should look past the legal niceties, he’s too much of a lawyer to make his case.
NPR Editorial Offers Interesting But Misguided Arguments
We expect National Public Radio to be anti-gun. Unfortunately this is a fact of life, but we also know that the argument they like will be idealistic and misguided too. They didn’t let us down. In response to the SCOTUS ruling regarding McDonald vs. The City of Chicago, Ladd Everitt, Director of Communications of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, offers this take:
“Almost every gun used to shoot, injure and kill in Chicago comes from outside the city.”
Well, is that really a surprise? The city has had a gun ban for decades! So clearly they can’t buy guns in the city. But wait, is that statement even true? There is no proof that criminals aren’t buying and selling illegal guns within in city limits. The point is that law-abiding citizens couldn’t own guns. Our point there is that criminals ignored the law. They’ll continue to ignore the law, because that’s what makes a criminal a criminal.
But Everitt also offers the usual anti-gun line that the NRA is really about a free-for-all state when it comes to guns:
“The NRA continues to block any and all efforts to strengthen anti-trafficking laws at the federal and state level, to the detriment of public safety everywhere.”
Why do people believe the NRA doesn’t care about public safety? What about the public safety of Mr. McDonald. This is where the argument from the anti-gun types breaks down. Mr. McDonald sued to obtain the right to own a gun to protect his house, his wife and himself after repeated break ins. His owning a gun doesn’t endanger the public, it protects him from criminals. Plain and simple.
Miami Herald Misses Mark in Editorial
Another editorial that misses the point in the SCOTUS ruling. This time it is from The Miami Herald, which writes:
“Where is the line to be drawn between the right to own a gun and the public’s right to feel safe? The majority of justices at least acknowledged that laws to deny gun ownership to felons and people with mental illness and to keep places like schools and government buildings gun-free are reasonable.”
Where is the line? Clearly, the justices see the line! Most law-abiding gun owners agree that guns shouldn’t be in the hands of felons and those with mental illness. We can see this, so why the need to question where the line should be?
As with so many other editorials, the editors miss the point of the ruling in McDonald vs. The City of Chicago. Again, this was about the rights of an elderly man to defend his home with a handgun, something that was banned in Chicago. So we ask the editors of The Miami Herald, where do you draw the line when it comes to the rights for a man to own a gun and feel safe? You seem to think these are mutually exclusive when in fact to Mr. Otis McDonald there is no line.
Huff and Puff Plays Loose With the Facts
We don’t expect The Huffington Post to be unbiased on the issue of firearms, nor do we expect them to be completely factual on the issue either. They didn’t let us down. In responding to the Supreme Court ruling, Josh Sugarmann offers the commentary: “McDonald Gun Case: More Deaths, Unending Litigation.”
OK, so much for anything but an editorial. But we should add that Sugarmann is also executive director of the Violence Policy Center in Washington, D.C. so we shouldn’t expect anything but anti-gun rhetoric.He offers the usual anti-gun rant, and that’s fine. But he also plays loose with the facts, noting the situation in D.C.:
“And contrary to the claims of the gun lobby, America’s cities are not waiting expectantly to exercise this newfound right offered by the Court. According to DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier, in the two years since the 2008 Heller decision overturning DC’s handgun ban, only 900 firearms have been registered in the District that otherwise could not have been registered before the ruling. The citizens of DC have thus far rejected the wrong-headed notion that more guns make us safer.”
What Sugarmann fails to note is that D.C. requires gun owners to take training courses (which cost money), spend time on the firing range (more money) and spend at least four hours in a classroom for course on gun safety (even still more money). On top of that the city has a weapons registry program that requires everyone to go through multiple background checks and get fingerprinted. Imagine if the process to be fingerprinted was required for anything beyond guns?
Civil libertarians would be up in arms, and liberals would call it an invasion of privacy. But this is what D.C. requires. And… all of the above, as in New York City, costs money. Now in fairness, the D.C. fees are less than New York City fees, but it costs about $60 in fees for handguns and $48 in fees for rifles and shotguns. Now this doesn’t include the costs you’ll have to pay to a certified range instructor.
Whether or not you agree with this being necessary to obtain a gun is not the issue, but what is the issue is that Sugarmann never notes these requirements. Could this be why only 900 firearms have been registered? And finally, do you ever think criminals will ever bother? We don’t believe they would.
Chicago’s Daley Looks for New Gun Bans
Even as the Supreme Court hears the case of McDonald v. Chicago, the anti-gun zealot mayor is working over time in an effort to create a prohibition of guns. The Chicago Sun Times reported:
“Daley backed changes to state law that would require background checks for those buying a gun in a private sale, ban assault weapons, require that gun dealers be licensed and limit the number of handgun purchases to one per person per month. Those were all ideas that failed in previous legislative sessions.”
We’d like to ask Daley, or anyone in favor of limits, why they think this would work? Criminals clearly aren’t following the complete ban on handguns in Chicago, so if the Supreme Court overturns the ban, why would criminals suddenly listen to a new law on the limits of guns one can buy? This only hurts the law-abiding citizens.
On a positive note, the paper adds:
“The mayor also is asking the General Assembly to make it a Class 1 felony to knowingly sell a gun to a known gang member.”
Now that is a gun law that actually makes sense. So why should good men like Mr. McDonald have to be treated almost as bad as the gang members?
Guns and the Law Part I
Last week the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the landmark case McDonald v. Chicago. Mr. McDonald lives in the city of Chicago and wants to own a handgun for self and home protection. His neighborhood is one of the most violent in the city but Chicago’s draconian gun laws makes handgun ownership nearly impossible for the average citizen. When the Supreme Court ruled in DC v. Heller that the gun laws in the District of Columbia were too strict and denied citizens their 2nd Amendment Rights, Mr. McDonald filed a similar suit. Read more
