Saturday, March 10, 2007

The D.C. Ruling

If you spend any time at all on the gunny side of the Internet, you have no doubt seen the giddy and somewhat flabbergasted reaction to the recent Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruling that the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees an individual right -- and that the 30 year-old gun control law in Washington, DC is unConstitutional.

The reaction and spin from the gun-banners, however, has been nothing short of awe-inspiring.

I have never -- in my life -- seen so much hand-wringing and attacks of the vapours.

If anyone ever doubted that the gun-banners rely upon emotion rather than reason, the reactions of the gun-banners ought to lay that question to rest.

These days, however, the canned emotional out-burst that is the -- forgive me the pun -- heavy artillery of the gun-banners has lost its punch.

In the last twenty years every time a concealed handgun law passes, there's the Brady Bunch squalling about "Blood in the streets!"

Hasn't happened yet. No state that passed a CCW law has seen "blood in the streets!"

Now that a court has come to its senses and struck down an unConsitutional gun control law, what's the first thing I find coming from the hoplophobes?

"There's going to be blood in the streets of our Nation's Capitol!!!"

Oh, please.

First off, "blood in the streets" is exactly what 30 years of the strictest gun control in the Nation has gotten you. No American city or state has stricter gun control than DC. And, yet, Washington DC remains one of the most dangerous cities in America.

Secondly, little Sarah One-Note screamed about "blood in the streets!" when Texas passed it's CHL law.

No blood.

She screamed about "blood in the streets!" when Missouri passed it's CCW law.

No blood.

Louisiana CCW? "Blood in the streets!"

No blood.

Kansas? "BLOOD!!!!"

Nope.

So, since screaming that there's gonna be blood in the streets has been wrong every time -- why the hell would you think it's going to be different this time?

The answer is, of course, they don't. They're just hoping that if they shriek, "DOOM AND GLOOM!" often enough, and loud enough, they'll scare somebody into believing their bushwa.

Seems to have worked a treat in the past, too.

*sigh*

To be honest, I think a large part of the frantic panic being exhibited by the gun grabbers is probably due to the fact that they're seeing the future of their movement -- and it isn't bright.

One can hope that's the case, anyway.

LawDog

16 comments:

Overload in Colorado said...

"Louisiana CCW? "Blood in the streets!"

No blood."

Well, except for New Orleans, where I belive is the #1 murder city in the USA, passing D.C.

Overload in CO

Stephen Renico said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Stephen Renico said...

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." - Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis

Says something about the antigun zealots, I think.

Randy said...

If it were just the ban that was struck down, it would be wonderful. It was MUCH more than that.

I waded through the entire ruling, and it also struck down the requirement that guns must be kept unloaded and locked. In doing so, they positively affirmed the premise that the right to self defense was a part of the 2nd amendment.

I'm not sure where it will go from here. I expect that the anti's may discourage DC from appealing it, as it potentially could spread to a much larger area if the ruling is upheld.

the pistolero said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
the pistolero said...

Well, except for New Orleans, where I belive is the #1 murder city in the USA, passing D.C.

Very little of which I would wager, if any, has to do with legalized concealed carry.
I seem to recall there being not-so-wise-cracks from the anti-gunners about "Bleeding Kansas" as their CCW law was being debated as well, proving the antis' senses of humor are about as dull as their so-called logic.

Sailorcurt said...

I don't understand.

I read the entire ruling.

Basically, judges ruled that guns cannot be banned from the home and cannot be required to be disabled in the home.

They did not address carry in public places, they did not address concealed carry, they specifically said that "reasonable" regulations are fine.

So what is the beef of the Bradys...I mean, they say all the time that they aren't trying to take our guns or prevent sporting or self-defensive use of guns, that they only want reasonable restrictions. That's what the court supported. They should be behind this 100% shouldn't they?

[/snark]

BobG said...

It also did not address licensing and registration; both of which can be used to virtually prohibit firearm ownership except to the elite few.

SpeakerTweaker said...

Here, here, Dawg.

Now that that has been said, I will now whore myself (forgive the expression) about the Net.

Got myself a nice, shiny-new blog that I've linked to You on. Stop on by and have a look around!

Take it easy, sir.



Texas9 on THR

Matt G said...

LawDog, you admirably restrained yourself from getting off on this tangent, so I'll address it:

Not only has there not been blood in the streets since the CHL/CCW laws have been passed in various states across the nation to allow for the carry of handguns, but violent crime has gone down.

This isn't some propaganda that I'm cooking up-- it's a matter of the D.O.J.'s Uniform Crime Report statistics. Since 1994, violent crime has dropped.

Now, the reason for it? Lots of things. We went through a period of prosperity, which always drops crime. (That little recession post 9/11 was just that-- little. Our money went up across the board.) The HCI/Brady Bunch will tell you that it was the Violent Crime Bill Of 1994 that banned assault rifles, combined with the earlier NICS check requirement.

Funny though-- the Assault Weapons Ban has sunsetted for well over a year now, yet I'm not having to watch my step to keep from slipping in the blood in the streets. Hunh. Go figure.

Simultaneous occurences aren't necessarilly correlated. And correlation doesn't equate to causality.

Do I water down my own notations by pointing that out? Sure. But if we ignore that fact, then we're ignoring the truth.

OldeForce said...

As I understand it, the dissenting judge said that the 2nd Amendment applies only to militias and - I loved this - the Constitution doesn't apply to D.C., as D.C. isn't a state. If that's a fact, ma'am, then get down off the bench as you don't even have the right to vote! [And he walks out of the room, muttering to himself.]

Henry said...

Wow, that is a *HUGE* step in the right direction!!

Anonymous said...

Thinking of that disenting judge reminded me of the anti lawyers... they were saying handguns hadn't been conceived of at the time of the Revolution and writing of the Constitution of 1791. We all know that's not right.

mustanger98 on THR

Kaerius said...

Earliest revolver 1680 in london, flintlock revolver in 1818, the first revolver as we think of them in 1835.

In 1791 they had muzzle-loaders.

markm said...

"they were saying handguns hadn't been conceived of at the time of the Revolution and writing of the Constitution of 1791. We all know that's not right."

So do the two judges in the majority. They cited a militia act from the 1790's that required anyone who wanted to serve as a cavalryman rather than infantry to show up with a couple of large-caliber pistols and a saber. And they identified semi-auto pistols like the Glock as a modern equivalent of those muzzle-loading horse pistols, and therefore "militia weapons". (This also means that they actually read Miller, which the gunbanners like to misquote as the Supreme Court endorsing the "collective right" BS. What the Miller decision actually said was that there was an individual right to keep and bear arms suitable for militia use, but Miller hadn't presented evidence that a sawed-off shotgun qualified. It could have been a win if Miller's lawyer had been able to make it to the hearing...)

Of course, Miller also makes it clear why the Supreme Court has been avoiding the issue ever since 1939. By 1940, any court that followed the same logic would have had to recognize submachine guns as militia weapons (that is, individual military), and therefore exempt from at least the huge $200 NFA fee...

Anonymous said...

"They cited a militia act from the 1790's that required anyone who wanted to serve as a cavalryman rather than infantry to show up with a couple of large-caliber pistols and a saber. And they identified semi-auto pistols like the Glock as a modern equivalent of those muzzle-loading horse pistols, and therefore "militia weapons"."

markm, I'm agreeing with all of your post, but wanted to point out one thing about the part I have quoted here... just that it seems very few folks realize the John M. Browning and the U.S. Ordnance Dept designed the M1911 with horse soldiers in mind. The original M1911 had not only a lanyard from the weapon to the wearer, but also between the weapon and one magazine. In more modern times, most 1911 shooters don't think of it in cavalry terms, and so neither do the Glock fans. But then, most folks won't think of it because the U.S. Cavalry's last charge was in April 1942, just outside Manila... 26th Cav. Regiment slowed down a Japanese advance. That was right before the men ran out of meat and the horses ran out of feed, so the quartermaster slaughtered the horses to feed the men. After that, the 26th Regiment was afoot as guerilla fighters with the Philipino resistance.

mustanger98