Questions?
Contact us today!Posted on 01/28/2005 11:32:34 AM PST by neverdem
With this exhortation for justice, Bill Barnes of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and Burke Strunsky of Ban Handgun Violence promote their thesis that banning guns in San Francisco will reduce homicide. We will examine some of their supporting arguments to determine the veracity of their claim. (1)
“Since 1939, the Supreme Court has found that the Second Amendment doesn't give an individual a Constitutional right to own a gun.” – SF Bay Guardian editorial
They refer to U.S. v. Miller, where two men were apprehended with a type of firearm restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934. (2) They appealed their indictment by claiming the Firearms Act “offends the inhibition of the Second Amendment” against government infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. The United States Supreme Court ruling focused only upon the gun’s “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.”
Referencing Constitutional law, the justices discussed the term militia, concluding:
“With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made.”
The Court also referred to the “debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators,” concluding:
“These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”
Since the military was not using short-barreled shotguns at the time, the court decided “we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”
The justices agreed with the Founders that the militia is the people, and that the government cannot abridge the right of the people to be armed, as that would render the militia ineffective. A reasonable deduction of the Miller decision is that the justices believed the Second Amendment may not enshrine a broad right to own non-military firearms.
“More than 20 years ago, the District of Columbia enacted a similar handgun ban and is on its way to a 20-year low of homicides.” – SF Bay Guardian editorial
The claim is based upon preliminary 2004 crime data, verified by a Washington Post article. (3)
In the last 10 years, the D.C. murder rate has dropped 37%, partially reversing a severe longer-term trend. Since the gun ban was enacted in 1976, the D.C. murder rate is up 65%, while the national rate dropped 35%.
Violent crime statistics from 1964 to 2003 show that while D.C. has consistently been more violent than the national average, it has become more deadly over time. The table below shows that while the overall violent crime rate has been relatively steady throughout the entire time period, D.C. homicide rates have been accelerating, now over eight times the national average. (4)
|
13-Year Increments |
DC/US Violent Crime Ratio |
DC/US Homicide Ratio |
|
1964-1976 (pre-ban) |
4.4 |
3.7 |
|
1977-1990 (post-ban) |
3.1 |
4.3 |
|
1991-2003 (post-ban) |
3.5 |
8.1 |
The 2004 numbers alone do not represent a significant downward trend; relying on one year’s data for making public policy decisions is perilous at best. The Post article agrees:
“Despite last year's reduction, the District remains one of the most deadly cities in the country.”
“The New England Journal of Medicine found that a handgun in the home makes it 43 times more likely that a friend, family member, or acquaintance will be killed than an intruder.” –– SF Bay Guardian editorial
This quote references a 1986 study which compared two cities with differing levels of gun ownership and firearm death rates. (5)
In a recent radio interview, when Peter Hamm of the Brady Campaign was asked to consider that the firearm-related death rate for minors in Texas, a CCW state, was less than California’s, a leader in state gun control laws, he called it a “statistical aberration.” (6) Therefore, according to Brady criteria, the paper quoted here, which compares only two metropolitan populations, is also a statistical aberration. Yet gun banners tout this paper as proof that handgun ownership increases homicide rates.
A Bureau of Justice Statistics report found that from 1993 through 2001, firearm violence declined 63%. (7) A Centers for Disease Control report found the firearm-related death rate declined 29% between 1990 and 2001. (8)
Over 31 million handguns were sold between 1986 and 1999. (9) If handgun owners were truly 43 times more likely to be involved in homicide, shouldn’t rates have increased, rather than declining 34% since 1986? (10)
This highlights the flaw of selecting two cities and one year’s data to base a statistical analysis upon, rather than using broader populations over a longer time frame.
Let’s look at two cities with long-standing, strict civilian disarmament which experienced significant drops in homicide rates in recent years.
What has changed in Washington, D.C. that might cause dropping homicide rate mentioned in the Washington Post article?
“D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey said police got results by making more arrests and seizing more guns, rigorously analyzing crime trends and joining other city agencies in focusing on 14 ‘hot spots.’”
“Aggressively attacking crime has had an impact on the streets.” – Chief Ramsey
From a CNN article covering New York City:
“Citywide, serious crime is expected to fall for the 13th straight year in 2004. The homicide tally so far this year – 547 – is down 4.4 percent from last year…”
Why is New York experiencing this downward trend in crime?
“Officials with the New York Police Department credit their success to a series of crime-fighting initiatives.” (11)
Due to gun control laws, there were few if any legal guns to round up in order to impact crime according to gun control dogma. Instead, the police began targeting criminals using more sophisticated methods, and murder rates declined significantly.
Since targeting criminals reduces homicide, it would be more just to enforce criminal law, instead of diverting police resources to tracking down and confiscating firearms from people who have no criminal intent.
How can the op/ed authors claim to represent justice when they hold innocent citizens guilty for the actions of criminals? When they wish to enact laws that have been proven to be dangerous to future generations of innocents?
The Brady Campaign wants the NRA, an organization comprised of four million American citizens, to leave San Francisco. Is this representative of democratic justice that fair-minded San Franciscans support, or is this more representative of tyranny?
(1) NRA out of S.F., Bill Barnes and Burke Strunsky, San Francisco Bay Guardian.
http://www.sfbg.com/39/15/x_oped.html
(2) U.S. Supreme Court, United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=174
(3) Killings In D.C. Fewest Since '86, Del Quentin Wilber and Jamie Stockwell, Washington Post, January 1, 2005.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39858-2004Dec31.html
(4) The three following data sources were used in the comparative discussion:
District of Columbia Crime Rates 1960-2000, The Disaster Center.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm
United States Crime Rates 1960-2000, The Disaster Center.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
FBI Uniform Crime Reports. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm
(5) Arthur L. Kellerman, Protection or Peril?: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home, 314 New Eng. J. Med. 1557-60 1986.
(6) NRA News, January 14, 2005.
(7) Weapon Use and Violent Crime, Craig Perkins, National Crime Victimization Survey 1993-2001, page 1, Bureau of Justice Statistics, September 2003.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/wuvc01.pdf
(8) Table 47 (page 1 of 3). , according to sex, race, Hispanic origin, and age: United States, selected years 1970–2001, Centers for Disease Control. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/tables/2003/03hus047.pdf
(9) Firearms Commerce in the United States 2001/2002. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.
http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/firearmscommerce/firearmscommerce.pdf
(10) FBI Index of Crime, 1983-2002. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/xl/02tbl01.xls
(11) Murder rate decline no comfort to mother of three slain sons, CNN.com Law Center, December 23, 2004. http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/23/murder.one.mother.ap/
About the Writer: Howard Nemerov is a Bay Area freelance writer who has a special interest in the preservation of the Second Amendment. Howard receives e-mail at hnemerov@netvista.net.
Copyright © 2005 ChronWatch. All rights reserved.
Questions? Contact us today!
Hear that islamic terrorists: You can take out San Francisco because they won't be able to fight back.
Let me understand this --first S.F. declared criminal behavior was now legal in San Fran--then they run a pogrom
against law abiding gun owners. What a queer response.
"...the Second Amendment imposes no limitation on California's [or any other state's] ability to enact legislation regulating or prohibiting the possession or use of firearms" and ...."does not confer an individual right to own or possess firearms." See Silviera for a discussion
they can't attempt to solve th eproblem of "Gangs" why that would discriminate against some fine upstanding mommies son; inhibit the drug trafficking; and reduce the need for
more cops and more money for cops--why attacking the problem of gangs in San Fran would be a disaster to more than just the trial lawyers.
This little exercise in futility may in the end be good for RKBA advocates and those who insist upon liberty. A lawsuit will no doubt ensue over this insanity that may once again wind up in the 9th Circuit who will no doubt uphold the ordinance, thus setting up yet another appeal to the US SC. While I don't really trust those distinguished gentlemen (and that buttwipe, Ruth Bader Ginsburg) this ban also involves a confiscation, a move so ludicrous that the SC might finally have to "do the right thing" and actually rule in line with the Constitution (for a change). It is more likely that the California Supreme Court will hear the appeal. Although those bastards upheld the West Hollywood "Saturday Night Special" ban, the San Francisco ban goes much much further; to the point of confiscation.
I'm not sure this was a correct interpretation. In the second amendments language "well regulated" was a qualifier for the militia, not the people.
It seems more likely the second amendment was saying, although the federal government has to have control of an army to secure our state, the citizens are protected from misuse of this army by their own right to have their own arms.
The context of the bill of rights was, after all, to ease the peoples fears that the new government might become a tyranny.
The California DOJ has a complete list of pistol buyers from around 1989 to the present. They can simply cross reference this list and go collect the guns of those who bought since 1989. That a$$wipe AG, Bill Lockyer, has been using this list to track down those who have come under a domestic violence restraining order in order to confiscate their firearms.
Prosecutors and police officers say it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist — that there is no case of someone being prosecuted for use of deadly force when they were protecting their home.
They said the same thing about gay marriage, and the Defense of Marriage Act.
The article should have mentioned that the District of Columbia has a changing demographic. The city is pushing the poorer people to the suburbs, and the crime rates are rising there as a result. The crime will not rise as swiftly because all of the bordering areas allow gun ownership, and Virginia is a concealed carry state (we do not need a permit for open carry).
I live across the bay but know 2 SF cops from my gym who say they have to fight city hall half the time for their ludicrous BS like they don't want cops to have M16's. They kind of shrug their shoulders and continue to do their job and let the pols argue among themselves
Well said !! Such a beautiful city and yet such a haven for White liberal trendiness and some things that are just so queer that they are really QUEER.
bump for later
Ask them for a date?
I grew up in a house with guns. I knew where they were and what would happen to me if I ever picked them up without permission. It wasn't death. It was the inability to sit down for a week!
Think it'd be an affirmative defense in court?
Yeah... me neither. Too bad the Constitution is on our side but the Law isn't....
Truth? Gun banners don’t need no stinkin’ truth!
Bolt action .22. I was 10. S&W .357 when I turned 18. I'm already looking at a couple different rifles for my daughter. She's only 18 months right now, but it pays to plan ahead. She already has a squirt gun. ;-)
That link was a good read.
The Mexican kids are taught at an early age that a weapon is their right of passage.
How many homicides were prosecuted as result of the AIDS vampires infecting people with HIV? Or is this not on the table because its considered assisted suicide?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.