D.C. Officials Weigh Keeping Semiautomatic Pistols Illegal After Blanket Handgun Ban is Struck Down

The court ruled that a blanket ban on handguns is unconstitutional, but D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty and other Washington officials want to keep in place a prohibition on semiautomatic handguns — those in which a bullet clip is inserted into the gun’s grip.

What part of handgun are they not understanding? They seem to be confused by the fact that they have redefined a semiautomatic as an “machine gun”.

Current city law defines a “machine gun” to mean “any firearm which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to shoot: a) Automatically, more than one shot by a single function of the trigger; b) Semiautomatically, more than 12 shots without manual reloading.”

Makes me curious what I could redefine… How about money as “any pretty rock I find in my yard”? How many rocks would it take to buy myself a new “machine gun”?

h/t Instapundit.com – Make sure to follow his link to “Because, you know, revolvers don’t shoot quickly.”

The ruling is in! In a 5-4 ruling, the DC gun ban has been struck down. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, had several interesting things to say.

“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

“…the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.”

I was happy to see that the historically traditional definition of “militia” was reiterated quite early in syllabus of the document. Both Majority and Minority opinions seem to be using this same definition as far as I can tell.

“…comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.”

It’s nice to see that clarified. It seemed quite obvious to me that the writers of the Bill of Rights would have used that definition of militia, but you often see it confused with a more modern interpretation in modern political discourse.

Th legal language is, at times, difficult to follow, but impressive none the less. The legal history and documentation presented on both sides of the argument are fascinating to read. I’m looking forward to finishing it.

SCOTUSblog has the opinion in it’s entirety.

D.C.’s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court

The nine justices, none of whom has ever ruled directly on the amendment’s meaning, will consider a part of the Bill of Rights that has existed without a definitive interpretation for more than 200 years.

I’ve always been fascinated by people’s various views on the second amendment, and in particular people’s views on the DC gun ban.

Art. II . 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.

Maybe my viewpoint was defined because as a child, and an avid reader of history, I understood the concept of militia before I learned of the Second Amendment. I have always understood the word militia to mean essentially every able-bodied person. So I’ve always understood it to be an individual right. It seems to me to be counter intuitive to read it otherwise.

Militia – Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

2. the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

I’ve heard the “it’s a group right” take on the subject a couple of times, but I’ve never understood that interpretation. The First and Fourth Amendments apply to individuals, so why wouldn’t the Second?

There’s also the “it’s a military right” viewpoint, but that one’s always sounded a little weak to me too. Why would the government define a “right” for itself to give it’s soldiers weapons? Governments don’t have rights, people have rights. The purpose of the Bill of Rights in all other contexts was essentially to define what rights “people” had. This protected people, individual people, from the government. Why would the Second Amendment be different?

The case is complicated by the District’s secondary argument that the Second Amendment is not implicated by legislation that applies only to the District of Columbia. – washingtonpost.com

This is one of my favorite arguments, just for plain audacity. They essentially admit an individual right, but state that it doesn’t apply to the District of Columbia… City of New York, Chicago, whoever. So the “people” have a fundamental right, but the District, State, City, or County can take it away? How’s that work? If the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to the citizens of DC, does the First Amendment? It’s my understanding that the US Constitution, and the Bill or Rights, applies to all citizens. I look forward to seeing these issues debated in the news, and in the courts.

Here’s something to think about. The Gun Free Zone Bill.

A. Any person, organization or entity, or any agency of government that creates a gun-free zone shall be liable for damages resulting from criminal conduct that occurs against an individual in such gun-free zone, if a reasonable person would believe that possession of a firearm could have helped the individual defend against such conduct…

I’ll be giving this some thought. At first glance I’d have to agree with the concept. I’ve always thought that posted gun-free zones were a bad idea. I have no problem with a lack of guns, but by defining an area or business as gun-free, you’re defining a safe target for someone who is interested in committing crime. Who in their right mind would put a sign on their house that said “This home safe to burglarize, even if we’re home!” That’s essentially what a gun-free zone does.

A hat-tip to Instapundit.com.

Did you see the story in mid August about the Iraqi woman who claimed here house was shot by American troops? Her photo was all over the web for a few days, holding two nice shiny cartridges to prove her case. Two nice, shiny, unfired cartridges… Since the news editors didn’t catch this obvious error, the dissident frogman has posted an informative video for all the news agencies to use in the future.

It’s nice to see your own thoughts mirrored by someone else. When they say it much better than you ever could, it’s even better.

One of the real tragedies of the situation at Virginia Tech is that misguided administrators created a gun free zone where someone like this crazed individual could prey on other students, staff and faculty who were powerless to defend themselves.

That said, availability of guns or lack of concealed weapons isn’t the primary cause of the events at Virginia Tech. – By Sheriff Jim Alderden – Bull’s Eye Briefing

h/t Joe’s Crabby Shack: Little Known Fact: No. 2

In light of yesterday’s events at Virginia Tech, a reader named Ed reminded me of a post I wrote last September called To carry, or not to. I thought his comment of “Wow, how Ironic is this in late April of 2007???” was particularly appropriate. Last September Virginia Tech was reeling from the rampage of William Morva. Students wanted the campus ban on legal concealed carry revoked. They didn’t want anything others didn’t have, they just wanted holders of concealed carry permits to be able to carry on campus. I doubt this would have made much difference on yesterday’s events, but it makes you think. Has removing all legal firearms from our society made criminals with firearms more dangerous?

I’m sure Ed would agree that the reason this push to legalize concealed carry in our Universities was stopped was particularly ironic.

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. “I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.” – Roanoke.com

Update: Michelle Malkin’s Wanted: A culture of self-defense says it better than I can.

Other Posts:
Virginia Tech Shooting
Virginia Tech Shooting – Update
More on Virginia Tech Shooting
Virginia Tech Shooting – The big question
Guns and Virginia Tech

Trackposted to Perri Nelson’s Website, Rightlinx, Faultline USA, Adam’s Blog, Maggie’s Notebook, basil’s blog, Pirate’s Cove, Leaning Straight Up, Dumb Ox Daily News, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Now a story near and dear to my heart. The Second Amendment. Apparently the DC Court of Appeals has decided that it actually says what it says it does. Brilliant!

Of course everybody is talking about it.

This looks to me like the DC Court of Appeals has essentially struck down the entire DC gun ban with this decision. – Cold Fury

In dissent Judge Karen Henderson, a Reagan appointee, countered that the Second Amendment did not properly apply to the case, as prior caselaw, statute, and the Constitution itself recognized that the District of Columbia is not a state subject to the jurisdiction of the Bill. – JURIST

If the ban is indeed lifted, I plan to exercise my constitutional right to own a gun in the District of Columbia. I can’t wait to buy my first piece! – La Shawn Barber

I have no doubt that this is going to the US Supreme Court. This is actually a very high risk gamble. IF the gun ban is struck down, it will have major implications. If not, no gun regulation will be deemed “unreasonable.” – John Lott

We almost had to create a special category named “Fan-Freaking-TASTIC” especially for this post, since “Good News” doesn’t really do it justice. – Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler

Others on the topic:

• Argghhh! The Home Of Two Of Jonah’s Military Guys..
• Right Wing Nation
• Sister Toldjah
• Cam Edwards
• and many, many more.

I’ve held New Orleans in contempt since they started confiscating weapons rather than trying to stop looters, but apparently it’s now legal.

Now here is some quality reporting. The second quote is attributed someone other than the reporter, but that’s the best quote they could get?

The first amendment provides the right to bear arms, but should every household have a gun?

First Amendment, Second Amendment… whichever. Is that the new math? You’d think a reporter of all people would be at least marginally familiar with the First Amendment.

Cherry Tree resident Robert Gray said, “If everyone owned a gun, then it would definitely a deterrent someone think twice.”

h/t Cam Edwards – Time To Play “Fire The Reporter”

Guns buyback has no effect on murder rate – National – smh.com.au

“Homicide patterns (firearm and non-firearm) were not influenced by the NFA, the conclusion being that the gun buyback and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia,” the study says.

“I have been collecting data since 1996 … The decision was we would wait for a decade and then evaluate,” she said.

The findings were clear, she said: “The policy has made no difference. There was a trend of declining deaths that has continued.”

Half a billion dollars and no statistical improvement in the homicide rate. Apparently, criminals don’t believe in complying with gun control laws. I have to admit, that doesn’t come as a huge surprise to me. I predict that this lesson will be entirely lost on American politicians.

h/t Instapundit.com -

I was reading the Southwest Virginia Blog this morning and saw an interesting post by Amy Kovac about students at Virginia Tech trying to get permission to carry licensed firearms on campus. Ms. Kovac seems to be of the opinion that she’s safer if nobody around her is carrying a gun. The premise of her post seems to be that it’s better to let the police handle violent criminals. This is a fantastic idea, but criminals don’t always feel the need to cooperate in this sort of situation. Interestingly enough, criminals like to commit crimes when they think the police will not be present. In her post, Ms. Kovac linked to the comment section of one of her previous posts where a retired police officer disagreed with her. His well written comment is worth reading in its entirety, but here is my favorite part:

The Roanoke Times: Campus Watch: Safer with a six-shooter?

Should college students be armed? Let’s try a little thought experiment. You are sitting in your American Government class at Ivy Covered U. One hundred yards away down the hallway, a loon with a gun is approaching, intent on shooting your professor, and likely, anyone else about. With which of these statements do you agree?

(1) I would want to be armed myself, or have other capable people around me be armed to protect my life and the lives of others.

(2) I want everyone but the crazed gunman to be disarmed. All those people with guns are dangerous!

These are, you see, your only options in a deadly force situation, and that is why we carry handguns. Not to attack people, but because they are useful in saving lives in close range, deadly force encounters. Of course, if you’d wholeheartedly choose the second option, you’re pretty much hopeless in terms of logic and reasoning.

Mike, gets it right. The question isn’t about no guns or everyone having guns. Right to carry is about giving law abiding citizens the right to defend themselves when there are no other options.

What kind of President will Hillary Clinton make? I realize this is a disturbing thought, but we must consider it as Senator Clinton remains the odds-on favorite to win the Democratic nomination for President in 2008. The way I figure it, with the Clintons, past is prologue.

The only big surprise here is that someone is actually writing about this. I think Mrs. Clinton would make a horrible President on several levels, but this is a major one. I have no doubt that the government under Mrs. Clinton’s leadership would be attacking the gun industry in court within months of her taking office. The Bill of Rights exists for a reason. You can’t attack part of it without attacking all of it. If they can cripple the Second Amendment, why not the first?

Derek Powazek has an interesting viepoint on firearms in a post today. Just a Thought: Booma

Guns are loud, instant, and mean. There’s a shockwave of sound that goes in all directions you can feel in your stomach. There’s a muzzle-flash and a powerful recoil that took me by surprise. And the bullet hitting the target is instant.

I’ve often thought that if everyone would take a few rudimentary lessons with firearms they’d have a different perspective on them. Not life altering changes maybe, but at least they’d have some understanding of what they were instead of the usual stereotypes. If you’re going to hate something, at least know enough about it to hate it for the right reasons. I learned to shoot at age five and that shaped my opinions of firearms. They’re a tool, nothing more. A firearm can be used well or poorly, but it’s just a tool. Go ahead, go take lessons, you might learns something.

In a bizarre Second Amendment case the City of New Orleans has tried to have an NRA suit thrown out for “lack of jurisdiction”. Apparently they believe that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply in New Orleans or Louisiana. Cam Edwards is on the case.

Cam Edwards – Victory in New Orleans

The lawsuit against the city of New Orleans for its illegal confiscation of firearms is moving forward.

Judge refuses New Orleans’ request to dismiss NRA lawsuit.

The city asked the judge to dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction, saying “the states, and by extension their political subdivisions, are free to proscribe the possession of firearms.”

The court rejected the motion, ruling the city did nothing to back up “the brazen assertion” that the second amendment did not apply.

I see that Michelle Malkin is already on it too. – A Streetcar Named Beretta

A good fisking by Done Kates of a poorly written NY Times Castle Doctrine piece. The examples the Times uses are quite poor, and not at all representative of the effects of the Castle Doctrine.

Among the highly misleading things in this article is that the ordinary reader will probably never realize that the retreat rule has always been the minority rule in the U.S. So instead of a horrible earthshaking change taking place, all that is happening is that the legislatures of at most 15 states have adopted what was already the rule in most states.

(I say “at most 15 states” because it is quite possible that some of those states never had the retreat rule and only adopted the FL statute because they liked other aspects of it…

h/t to Instapundit.com -

I found this on one of my Internet walk-abouts. It actually exists in several places and isn’t attributed to anyone as far as I can tell, so I won’t link to the commercial site I first found it on.

Defenders Creed
I accept and understand that human predators exist. Criminal or terrorist, they take advantage of our civilized society to prey upon the weak. They represent evil and must be confronted and defeated.

I believe that self-defense is a moral imperative, and that illegitimate force and illegal violence must be met with righteous indignation and superior violence.

I will not rely on others for the security of myself, my family and my community.

I proudly proclaim that I run with a like-minded pack. I do not amble through life with the mind-numbed herd.

I will train with my chosen weapons, maintain them and carry them in a condition of readiness at all times.

I will be mentally prepared and physically equipped to effectively respond to an attack or emergency.

I will constantly test myself against realistic standards to discover my strengths and weaknesses. I will turn weakness into strength.

I will seek to learn new skills and techniques, and then teach what I have learned to other members of the pack.

Be it with firearm or blade, empty hand or blunt object, I will hit my enemies hard, fast and true.

I will live a quiet and unobtrusive life, but I will develop and retain the capacity for swift and decisive violence.

I recognize that I am the modern equivalent of the traditional Minuteman, and that I may be called to service at any time against heavily armed enemies. I will respond effectively.

I accept that I am a pariah among some of my countrymen, and a quaint anachronism to others. I will not hold their ignorance against them.

I will win, or die trying.

I swear this creed before God, my family and my fellow citizens.

Author Unknown
Emphasis mine

Reminds me a bad commercial. “You have the right to keep and bear arms… Unless we say otherwise.” Exactly how do you define Right again?

ChannelOklahoma.com – News – Authority To Confiscate Guns During Emergencies Considered

OKLAHOMA CITY — An Oklahoma legislator said he hopes to make some changes to a new law that makes it illegal for authorities to confiscate weapons during a state of emergency.

“During states of emergency, I think police need total control. They don’t need to worry who has guns and who doesn’t. If the governor calls for Oklahomans to relinquish their guns, the public needs to do so,” Shelton said.

You have to love this letter to the New York State Senate from a retired police lieutenant with 30 years on the job.

The Dread Pundit Bluto: Gun Control: A View From the Front Lines

It all boils down to this:

If the NYS Assembly is really interested in reducing violent crime, then why not adopt Federal prosecution guidelines and rules of evidence for state prosecutions?

The truth is the Democratic-controlled Assembly is not interested in reducing crime; only in reducing honest, law-abiding citizens’ access to firearms for legitimate self-defense, sport and pleasure.

Brilliant. I particularly liked: “Criminals do not care what these laws are. That’s why we call them criminals.” Why is it so difficult to get people to see this. As if a criminal with plans to run amok is going to reconsider when faced with the thought of breaking another law. “Wow, I’d better not break that law, I’ll get my wrist slapped twice for that!” Morons.

H/T The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler

This was interesting if you are one of those who has a carry permit and exercises your Second Amendment rights.

Because it is legal in most states to carry a handgun if properly licensed, a report that an individual possesses a handgun, without any additional information suggesting criminal activity, might not create reasonable suspicion that a crime is being or will be committed. 1 Where simply carrying a handgun is not in itself illegal and does not constitute probable cause to arrest, 2 it follows that carrying a handgun, in and of itself, does not furnish reasonable suspicion justifying a Terry stop. The same applies to persons in motor vehicles. An investigatory stop is only justified when the police have “a reasonable suspicion, based on specific, articulable facts and reasonable inferences there from,” that the subject “had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime.”

The whole article is worth reading. Quite well researched and written I thought. Not surprising from the source. (John M. Collins, Esq., General Counsel, Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association)

H/T GeekWithtA.45