And justice for all (D.C. flouts the Second Amendment)

The Washington Times ^ | Oct 4, 2004 | By Deborah Simmons

[neverdem]

In 1976, Washington, D.C. instituted the strictest handgun ban in the nation. On Wednesday, the House voted 250-171 to repeal that ban. The prevailing side included 52 Democrats, and 22 Republicans cast no votes. Last week's vote, however, was not about congressional intervention, the young blood being spilled on the streets or even the gun lobby, as opponents of the D.C. Personnel Protection Act would have you believe.

Whether people will exercise the right to own a handgun is not at issue either. I even disagree with House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who said repealing the ban means "homes of this city will be safer when its law-abiding citizens are on an equal footing with its violent criminals." That simply isn't true.

Repealing the city's handgun law means two things: Law-abiding D.C. citizens will be franchised with the Second Amendment right to bear arms; and D.C. citizens will be able to better defend themselves, their families and their property.

It's the right thing to do at the right time. As the District's motto says, "Justitia Omnibus," or justice for all.

I stand with opponents when they say House Bill 3193 and its counterpart in the Senate, S. 1414, do not fully strip residents' gun rights. The D.C. laws do indeed permit the ownership of rifles and shotguns. I also would agree with them that that legislation violates state's rights — except the legislation is not being applied to a state. The capital is not a state; it is a federal district whose legislative and fiscal affairs rest with Congress.

D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, Mayor Tony Williams and Chuck Ramsey, the police chief, need to face those and other facts. One is that if Republicans had been the congressional majority in 1976, as they...

[neverdem]

Gun photo raises legal, cultural questions (New Hampshire High School Album Controversy, Manchester Union Leader says their articles can't be used)

The Effect of Nondiscretionary Concealed Weapon Carrying Laws on Homicide.(Kellerman must be pulling his hair out)

LWWOnline  |  LOGIN  |  eALERTS  |  REGISTER  |

Home

Search

Current Issue

Archive

March 2004, 56:3 > The Effect of Nondiscretionary...

< Previous  |   Next >

ARTICLE LINKS:
Fulltext  |  PDF (219 K)

The Effect of Nondiscretionary Concealed Weapon Carrying Laws on Homicide.
Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection & Critical Care. 56(3):676-681, March 2004.
Hepburn, Lisa PhD, MPH; Miller, Matthew MD, ScD, MPH; Azrael, Deborah PhD, MS; Hemenway, David PhD

Abstract:
Background: Historically, the carrying of concealed firearms has been either substantially restricted or prohibited outright. Over the past two decades, laws making it easier for civilians to obtain permits allowing them to carry concealed weapons legally have proliferated throughout the United States. This study investigates the effect of such changes in state laws on state homicide rates.

Methods: Pooled cross-sectional time-series data (1979-1998) for 50 states and Poisson regression methods were used to estimate the effect of changes in state laws on homicide rates.

Results: No statistically significant association exists between changes in concealed weapon laws and state homicide rates. This finding is consistent across all models.

Conclusions: The current findings are consistent with those of other published studies indicating that nondiscretionary concealed weapon laws are not associated with significant increases or decreases in homicide.

(C) 2004 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

---

Copyright © 2004, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.
Published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Copyright/Disclaimer Notice • Privacy Policy

folsom
Release 2.4.0

[neverdem]

BANG

[TexasTransplant]

More like a BOOM!

[TwoWolves]

From the article about the NH boy who wants a picture of himself with a skeet gun to be printed in the yearbook:

“And even where free speech is involved, student speech, that’s got to yield when it clashes with those values,”

Ah. But a pornographer's freedom of speech is never restricted by the community's values.

Hm...

[Eastbound]

"One is that if Republicans had been the congressional majority in 1976, as they have been for the last decade, the handgun ban would never have made its way to the Ford White House."

True. What congres creates, congress rules.

However, as the article states, if the Second Amendment is going to be incorporated in the District of Columbia, this will forever secure the people's weapons rights, never again to be tinkered with by either party.

(Except, of course, by qualifying that right, as do many states. 'Right to bear arms shall not be infringed.' --- except on Sunday, or shall not be construed to approve the carrying of concealed weapons, or shall not be construed to mean short barrel shotguns, etc., or shall not be construed to mean the approval of buying a machine gun without a federal tax stamp, etc.)

[Eastbound]

"One is that if Republicans had been the congressional majority in 1976, as they have been for the last decade, the handgun ban would never have made its way to the Ford White House."

True. What congres creates, congress rules.

However, as the article states, if the Second Amendment is going to be incorporated in the District of Columbia, this will forever secure the people's weapons rights, never again to be tinkered with by either party.

(Except, of course, by qualifying that right, as do many states. 'Right to bear arms shall not be infringed.' --- except on Sunday, or shall not be construed to approve the carrying of concealed weapons, or shall not be construed to mean short barrel shotguns, etc., or shall not be construed to mean the approval of buying a machine gun without a federal tax stamp, etc.)

[noodler]

Just can't follow all the bs now.What i see is that citizens should have had the legal right to own a firearm in D.C. long ago for self protection and possibly protection of the families.It's a tough nut now.The societal continuation in the direction of violence by lack of values has brought many cities to a state in which the correct right no longer applies.What i mean is that there is still time where something correct can be dropped upon a populace not ready for change and all misfortune will be lain across the incumbant.Perhaps i'm wrong but it's worth considering why a potentially explosive decision is arriving in a lap at this time.

[Antarcticn]

How rare -- half of the congress undid one of its injustices. Now, it's no longer unequal malice toward law-abiding citizens. Quick righteous DC-ers, buy your handguns before they repeal the repeal!

Hopefully, the article's author is not in congress. Alaska got it right. Bleeding hearts don't stop violent crimes. An armed populace does.

[noodler]

Okay look,I been around long enough to see what's been going on in DC.Those Jewish gangland Nuns have robbed and raped and either killed or driven out so many citizens, veterans,doctors,it's too many to remember.Each obituary,Each and every lost promise to this world or heritage is another piece of acid to my heart.I must sit with this and mince words.The producers of the status we find ourselves having to address are the responsible.They sit in many earthly mansions and set us one against another and make more promises in the silk shirt.Every man is created equal and people don't need their talents to be wasted with violence.But heck,you all know this but in different ways.

[BikerTrash]

If you want to carry a firearm the only requirement is that you must have a firearm to carry.

Does this apply only to residents? Thanks in advance.

[neverdem]

Does this apply only to residents? Thanks in advance.

I remember reading that when Alaska went Vermont style, i.e. virtually no gun laws, they kept on the books their concealed carry laws in order that their citizens and folks from the lower 48 would enjoy reciprocal concealed carry privileges.

[neverdem]

In case I didn't make myself clear, states from the lower 48 had to have their own concealed carry laws for regular citizens for reciprocity between other states and Alaska.

[Travis McGee]

bttt

[Old Professer]

Then the rate must be driven by motive and/or opportunity.

[Vision]

The D.C. laws(old laws) do indeed permit the ownership of rifles and shotguns.

I used to sell guns in Maryland, and I was sure DC residents couldn't even keep these in their homes. I had customers who kept their shotguns at the homes of their out-of-city relatives.

[Dead Corpse]

More like a BOOM!

Try this one...

KA-BUMP!!!

[BikerTrash]

I see...I think. Thanks.

Not too interested in concealed carry, however. I much lean toward open carry.

[neverdem]

Then the rate must be driven by motive and/or opportunity.

Which rate?

[Old Professer]

Homicide rate cited in article.