D.C. Gun Law Under Fire - by CATO Inst. SCOTUS here we come.

Fox News ^ | Friday, November 29, 2002 | Fox News' Steve Centanni contributed to this report.

[dhuffman@awod.com]

WASHINGTON

[dhuffman@awod.com]

Hopefully a turning of the worm

[Maelstrom]

"This idea that more guns equals less crime is flat out wrong. The truth is more guns equals more crime and it's as obvious as the nose on my face," said Matthew Nosanchuk of the Violence Policy Center.

The irony is that this guy's "nose" is in his last name.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Mr. Nose overlooks the obvious.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Supporters of the D.C. laws, however, say the vast majority of gun violence is not the result of people defending themselves, but comes from criminals committing homicide.

Statements like this lock my brain. He is presenting evidence against his own position and seems totally unaware of it. Can we give him a great big, "well, DUH!!" How do you argue with such people? I guess you don't, you just govern dispite them.

[Pistolshot]

The truth is more guns equals more crime and it's as obvious as the nose on my face," said Matthew Nosanchuk of the Violence Policy Center.

How can he even SEE his nose?

[Dutchy]

Saw this story on FoxNews last night. CATO to assist individuals in filing class action civil lawsuit, against D.C., claiming infringement of 2nd Amendment rights. Please bump to our 2ND Amendment friends...

[Chancellor Palpatine]

No, no, no, no, no, no. Leave them be, and don't file the suit. I can easily see SCOTUS saying the opposite, which will energize gun grabbers in many cities and states.

[no-s]

Don't be chicken.We would need to know, the line must be clearly drawn.

[Dutch Boy]

One of the left's worst fears is a real test of private gun ownership on crime. If an area like DC lifts its gun ban and the crime rate plumments the gun grabbers are doomed. This will show their "helping" has actually harmed. Nothing like putting the fear of lead poisoning through the hearts and minds of a thug.

Time after time the crime rate seems to drop after a little old lady, that was packing heat, drops a thug. Home invasion waves basically stop after a guy blasts an intruder in the face with a 12ga. Thugs that take a dirt nap, at the hands of an armed citizen, seem to do more at reducing crime than all the 911 calls added together.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Unnecessary strife.

At this point, many local officials are afraid to touch it. You do litigation, and you will embolden a lot of crap, and gun owners will not come out on the good end.

As usual, the Libertarians screw something up.

[IronJack]

"This idea that more guns equals less crime is flat out wrong. The truth is more guns equals more crime and it's as obvious as the nose on my face,"

John Lott, who studied the notion applying tools more credible than the nose on his face, found just the opposite. On it surface, it would appear counterintuitive, but intuition seldom makes good public policy.

Once again, we have a liberal content to restrict those rights he doesn't approve, based on nothing more than emotionalism.

[joesnuffy]

Do it now or wait until the dems are back in power...then see what happens without a clear decision from the Supremes

[bvw]

The Second Amendment provides an individual right for a person to bare arms ..." said Bob Levy, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at CATO.

End the tyranny of oppressive laws that ban short sleeve shirts!

[Citizen of the United States]

If the Supreme Court (or any other duly-constituted judicial apparatus, for that matter) were to rule that the Washington, D.C. statutes were anything but flagrantly un-constitutional and ipso facto null and void, it would underscore the validity of President Bush's criticism of the American education system: It would be incontrovertible evidence of judicial illiteracy.

The Constitution for the United States specifically states in the Second Article of Amendment that "[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."

Unlike the First Article of Amendment, which specifically restricts the Congress's powers, the Second Article states peremptorily that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It allows no qualifiers, no specific exceptions of any kind whatsoever to that prohibition.

Article VI of the Constitution specifically states that "[t]his Constitution [...] shall be the supreme Law of the Land [...] any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary Notwithstanding."

Although, strictly speaking, the District of Columbia is not a State, it is established under the Constitution, and clearly cannot contradict the Constitution, without nullifying its own legal basis. The District of Columbia is as subject to the Constitution as any State of the Union, if not moreso.

The statute prohibiting the possession of firearms is patently, empirically, and in all other ways un-constitutional.

Mr Nosanchuk's riposte -- viz., that "more guns" equal "more crime," or whatever asinine form of the proposition he made -- is, while debateable in and of itself, entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Even if Mr Nosanchuk were correct, the fact would remain that the Constitution explicitly forbids the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. In other words, his argument does not address the actual point: He is guilty of the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi, the fallacy of the irrelevant conclusion.

Merely because Mr Nosanchuk objects to the Constitution's terms does not ipso facto mean they are superseded. Unfortunately for Mr Nosanchuk, the fact is that his position is constitutionally untenable, regardless of whether or not he is correct. And, as President John Adams once noted, facts are stubborn things.

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

The truth is more guns equals more crime

More guns in the hands of criminals does equal more crime. However, more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens equals less crime. The liberals have figured out that they have the ability to restrict gun ownership for citizens, but have no idea how to prevent criminals from getting guns. So, as with almost everything the libs try to do, the law of unintended consequences indicates that every time a law-abiding citizen has his gun confiscated by the left, crime will increase. Every time crime increases, the libs will call for even stronger gun control measures. It's the same type of spiral that they created with the welfare system. The great thing about being on the left is that results don't matter, so you don't have to bother learning from your mistakes.

[Citizen of the United States]

One is reminded of the classic aphorism: "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws shall have guns."

[Fee]

The best movie that illustrates the effectiveness of the 2nd Admendment is "The Long Riders". It is about Jesse James and his gang who decided to rob a bank in Minnesota. A town full of Swedish immigrants/farmers whom the gang ridicule as "blockheads" (apparently many of the Swedes had square shaped faces and were farmers thus the derogatory remark). The only problem for the gang was most of the men in the town were gunowners and Civil War vets. The first citizen they shot during the robbery resulted in the gang being shot to pieces as they tried riding down main street.

[Cacique]

We shall see. Reapublicans pay lip service to gun rights at election time and then vote restrictions once elected.

[copycat]

The argument that "criminals don't obey gun laws" is an easy one to comprehend, and resonates.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

You nailed it.