Well, this comes as a pleasant surprise: Appeals Court Overturns DC Gun Ban. Not only that, but it appears to have been overturned for at least some of the right reasons. Quoting from that Washington Post piece:
A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's long-standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.
In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent" on enrollment in a militia.
The ban on owning handguns went into effect in 1976.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also threw out the district's requirement that registered firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled and under trigger lock.
In 2004, a lower-court judge told six city residents that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who wanted the guns for protection.
"The district's definition of the militia is just too narrow," Judge Laurence Silberman wrote for the majority Friday. "There are too many instances of 'bear arms' indicating private use to conclude that the drafters intended only a military sense."
Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state.
I included that last sentence/paragraph just so those inclined to could laugh at Judge Henderson’s pickiness. Also, I expect that the case will be heard by the Robed Nazgul, unless the wimps dodge the issue yet again—but this ruling will make it much more difficult for them to do so.
I'm a reluctant gun
I'm a reluctant gun advocate, I really am.
But if it comes down to every one carrying versus armed FedGovs, StateGovs, and CityGovs keeping unarmed citizens under tight control, well, I want an equal playing field. Target range. Whatever.
Considering some of the abuses we've seen, not to mention the overuse of SWAT teams, I think I would be more likely to trust my local police if they knew my neighbors were armed and watching.
Heh
I know several individuals who fit that description too. Hard as it might be to believe, I used to be fairly strongly (and nonthinkingly, it must be admitted) anti-RKBA—until I actually handled a firearm and realized that a gun, properly used, would put me on at least equal footing with a would-be robber or rapist. That’s what changed me into an ardent 2nd Amendment supporter.
But that doesn’t mean that I think all individuals should own, or carry, firearms. It also doesn’t mean that I advocate firearms as the first, or even always the best line of defense to an initiation of force. I don’t think I would ever relish the thought of taking another’s life; but if someone is poised to harm me or one of my loved ones, I will use deadly force to stop that threat.
As you point out, firearms are also a great equalizer when it comes to reining in abusive minions of the state. That’s why they’re so keen to keep them out of the hands of their herds.
I choose not to carry, but
I choose not to carry, but the area I live in is rural enough that it really isn't an issue yet. If I was living in a larger city, I would think hard about it. Arizona is a concealed carry state and I would probably do that just for the social aspect.
Not sure I would do anything for me, but if it was somebody I cared about, well, I have been known to be nasty and that was without a gun. Would I take someone's life? Hard to say and it would really depend on the circumstances.
Quick question though because I think one of your statements could be taken the wrong way.
"But that doesn't mean that I think all individuals should own, or carry, firearms."
Do you mean you think people should have the choice whether to carry or that some people should be prevented from owning firearms? I'm not trying to entrap you or anything, I just want to understand where you are coming from.
Clarifying my comment
Thanks for asking about my overly general statement. What I meant by it is that it is a personal choice; and if someone genuinely thinks/feels that he cannot handle a firearm responsibly—whether for mental or physical reasons—then he shouldn’t get one. I’ve seen a few pro-gun individuals advocate “everybody” carrying—but if one is going to carry, then I think one has a responsibility to make sure he is willing and able to use it if necessary. Yes, a firearm may be a deterrent just by virtue of its presence, but what if it isn’t? To me, having an uncomfortable individual carrying is a possible setup for trouble.
Thanks, that's what I
Thanks, that's what I thought you meant, but I wanted to make sure.
DC Ruling
It's a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, it contains some bad seeds in it, too. While it affirms the right to keep and bear arms as an individual and pre-existing right it also allows for the restriction of rights. Specifically, it allows for firearms registration which can be linked to military service, state sponsored proficiency testing (again linked to a suitability for military service) and psychological testing for owners. These people give with one hand and make things worse with the other. All in all I am pleased with the verdict, tho.
Thanks for providing more
Thanks for providing more information on the ruling, Michael.
One thing I wonder about all this linkage to military and psychological “fitness”, though: given that drug use—even regular, prescription drug use of Schedule II drugs—disqualifies one from military service, does this mean that, in general terms, the Ritalin Generation has already, unknowingly, lost the right to keep and bear arms? Nowadays with prescription drug use tracked and databased, it isn’t as though one can use the infamous “I didn’t inhale” defense.
How Hard Could This Be?
"Not sure I would do anything for me, but if it was somebody I cared about, well, I have been known to be nasty and that was without a gun. Would I take someone's life? Hard to say and it would really depend on the circumstances."
I see this sort of thing all the time, and I am never, ever going to understand it. To my mind, it's a complete failure of conceptual integration, and it's like saying that one doesn't know whether or not one would take the initiative to start swimming if one fell into a river.
Me? I've got this sorted out.
Bloody woe unto the person who attempts to do me or my loved ones evil if I'm armed, because he's fucking dead, right there on the right-now spot.
*shrugs* I did say I was a
*shrugs*
I did say I was a reluctant gun advocate. Accepting what the 2nd Amendment says was the last "libertarian" position I faced, and in many ways it was the hardest. I had to give up a lot of my preconceptions about history.
I still maintain that it is conditional. Just as one example, if there is space enough and the armed person only had a knife and I had a gun, I'd probably try to blast their knee out. I'd also probably try to warn them off first. If push came to shove would I feel differently? I might, I have not had to face that yet.
This isn't the first discussion I've had on the subject, put "reluctant gun advocate" with the quotes into Google or Yahoo and you can find some of them. Even without the ones on my site, I've tried to make what I believe is the honorable argument.