Sunday, March 8, 2009

Handgun Ban Revoked


The Outcome
The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday June 26, 2008 that the DC handgun ban was a violation of its citizens right to bear arms according to the Second Amendment. It was a very close decision, 5-4, dropping the 31-year-long ban in DC. This was the first time federal appeals court ruled a gun law unconstitutional on the grounds of the Second Amendment.

What's Next? 
DC Mayor Andrian Fenty gave the DC police department 21 days to implement the process for registering handguns. It will be still illegal to carry handguns outside of the home, and pistols have to be registered with the police department. 



DC has been trying to work with the new ruling as well as continue to keep the city safe. In response to the ruling, DC made new emergency firearms legislation that will be in effect for 90 days while they work on permanent legislation. 

The legislation will allow handguns to be kept in the home if they are used only for self-defense and carry fewer than 12 rounds of ammunition.

Handguns, rifles and shotguns have to be kept unloaded and disassembled or equipped with trigger locks unless there is a "resonably perceived threat of immediate harm" in the home.

Reactions to the Ruling
The National Rifle Association is obviously pleased with the ruling and claim that this ruling helps give them support for going against other cities that have similar laws to DC's. 

On the other side of the issue the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence was disappointed with the decision but  glad that there are still provisions in place to keep the streets safer. 

The citizens of DC had mixed reactions to the outcome. 

Long-time DC resident Claire Lewis said, " I feel the handgun ban had been working for the residents of DC, it had been in place since the 70s. I felt safer at night with the ban in place." 

On the other side, DC resident Charles Johnson said, " People always find ways around the law and when they do I want to have protection. I'm happy that now I will be able to protect my family. "



What the Justices Think
Justices Stephen G. Breyer, John Paul Stevens, David H. Scouter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were in the minority. Breyer told the Washington Post the decision to revoke the DC handgun ban "threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States."  

The justices in the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. Scalia spoke on the behalf of the group to the Washington Post saying, "We hold that the Distict's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self defense." 


Related Links:



Supreme Court Challenges DC's Handgun Ban



DC Handgun Ban
Washington, which at one point had been called the "murder capital of the United States" because of peaked crime rate in the 90s, many feel needed the handgun ban to keep crime down. 
The ban against handgun ownership in DC was passed in 1976. It was put in place by local elected officials who thought it would better protect its citizens. The law requires resident to keep shotguns and rifles unloaded and disassembled or fitted with trigger locks.  
Some say that this law has done nothing in terms of reducing violence. People still find a way to possess guns legally through the district or illegally. 
The homicide rate in DC has declined since its peak in the 90s but it still ranks high on the national crime rate list. In 2006 the district had a total of 169 killings.

District of Columbia v. Heller
A Security guard is asking the courts to declare Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban an unconstitutional infringement of his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. His lawyer, says the constitution protects his right to keep a handgun at home for self defense. 
On the other side the lawyer for the District of Columbia says the Second Amendment protects a collective right to use only those guns needed to provide for the common defense as part of a state militia. The amendment does not protect a right to use guns for self defense at home. 


The Second Amendment 



"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. "




The Hearing
The Justices' met for more than an hour and a half , Tuesday March 18 2008, to discuss the meaning of the second amendment for the first time in 70 years. 
The trial brought out a slew of DC residents many of which waited in a line wrapped around the corner of the Supreme Court just to hear the arguments. Those who didn't get in rallied outside chanting and flailing signs. 



Related Links: