Editorial: D.C. wants gun ban reinstated

A battle shaping up inside the Washington Beltway could settle one of the great questions

of our time. It doesn’t have anything to do with the war in Iraq and likely will be decided even before most people start seriously thinking about the next presidential election. And it will be decided in the Supreme Court, not the halls of Congress.

In March, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down Washington’s near-total ban on handgun ownership, ruling that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to own guns. Now, Washington, D.C., officials have petitioned the Supreme Court to consider overturning the appeals court.

Most federal courts over the years have adhered to the idea that the amendment’s reference to “a well-regulated militia,” refers to a collective, rather than an individual, right to own guns. Only one other federal court has acknowledged the right of individuals to own guns. The conflicting rulings practically guarantee the high court will take the case and likely will hand down a decision sometime next summer.

Washington has some good constitutional arguments on its side. But that doesn’t mean the district should restrict citizens’ right to self-defense.

The district’s petition reads, in part, “It is eminently reasonable to permit private ownership of other types of weapons, including shotguns and rifles, but ban the easily concealed and uniquely dangerous modern handgun. ... No other provision of the Bill of Rights even arguably requires a government to tolerate serious physical harm on anything like the scale of the devastation worked by handguns.”

Reading that, one might assume that district officials are comfortable with residents keeping long guns in their homes for protection. But one would be wrong. Part of the law that the appeals court struck down and the district wants reinstated requires rifles and shotguns to be stored either disassembled or with a trigger lock installed.

Another part of the petition states, “Whatever right the Second Amendment guarantees, it does not require the District to stand by while its citizens die.”

Perhaps not, but a freedom-leaning interpretation of the amendment would allow the citizens that the officials claim to be worried about to arm themselves for protection. If the high court reinstates the handgun ban, citizens will be at the mercy of armed predators who couldn’t care less if there’s a law against handguns. In fact, they’d prefer it, since it guarantees their victims will be unarmed.

Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty said at a news conference in support of the petition, “The only possible outcome of more handguns in the home is more violence.” That statement shows Fenty hasn’t thought this through.

Although one can make the simplistic and obvious argument that if there are no guns on the home, the likelihood of gun violence in that home are significantly reduced, there is an equally strong argument to be made for guns stopping violent crime in the home.

How does Fenty’s argument against handguns square with the fact that, under the old law, rifles and shotguns are allowed? Are they not dangerous?

Those who believe so-called safe storage laws such as the one Washington had make it more difficult for fire-arms to be used in domestic violence don’t know much about firearms or their storage. It takes only a minute or two to remove a trigger lock or reassemble and load a firearm. That’s not much time in a family argument, but it can be a lifetime if some thug is breaking into your home.

Allowing citizens the means to protect themselves and their loved ones is something government should support, and we hope the Supreme Court affirms the Second Amendment as an individual right to own firearms. Democratic governments trust their citizens; oppressive ones do not.