Otter, now that’s an answer - thank you! (Sorry, you’re on your own with Ms. Otter - I’m still busy working on that listening/understanding principle in my own house! )

Perhaps in large part our views may be divergent only due to the words we are using. For instance, I disagree with your position that D.C. “simply made a sweeping pronouncement against all firearms in the city.” That statement is an oversimplification of D.C.’s ban and is not an accurate statement of what the legislation did. The ban has been in existence for over 30 years. Rather than being “sweeping” (and completely contrary to the way your earlier partial cite of the legislation would make it appear) the ban contains numerous exceptions including exceptions for gun ownership by those holding valid registration for the firearm and specific exemptions for law enforcement officers, agents of the District or US, members of the armed forces, National Guard or reserves, and those with a dealer’s license. That hardly seems “sweeping” to me. (Here’s where you can read the law in its entirety instead of a selective portion: http://dcguncase.com/blog/dc-gun-laws/ ) There was an additional requirement that registrants keep their firearms unloaded and disassembled or trigger-locked when inside residences within city limits. To me, that is more troubling.

Additionally, I never argued that “a rise in handgun violence in D.C. now means the law is no longer ‘capricious, unreasonable, and unsupported....’” I wouldn’t argue that because that’s not how the law evolved. Rather, my argument was that the ban was implemented because of a rise in handgun violence and deaths which existed at the time of the drafting of the law. In the opinion of the drafters the law was justified at the time it was instituted - it didn’t become justified at some later time. You are correct that gun deaths have risen since institution of the ban, so I would agree that the effectiveness of the ban is certainly up for debate.

You argue that the Constitution is the standard for such legislation and the constitution says it is “against the law.” What precisely do you think the Constitution says is against the law? Certainly not limitations on gun ownership. Even the Court’s recent decision does not say that; indeed it specifically says otherwise. You argue that D.C. “made it very easy for Scalia -- they made no attempt to find reasonable accommodation within the confines of the second amendment. The exceptions they listed primarily dealt with group affiliation with law enforcement - denying the "individual" right as we discussed.” Again, I disagree. D.C.’s legislation did not deny individuals the right to own all guns. In fact the legislation very specifically delineated the only firearms prohibited were sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, short-barreled rifles, or pistols not validly registered prior to September 24, 1976.

Because words are my living, I am extremely picky about how they are used. I take issue with your use of the word arbitrary - not only in the legal sense applicable here, but also in the sense the word is understood by the common person. You argue D.C.’s law was arbitrary under your definition of arbitrary: “decided by governmental authority rather than law or statute.” Otter, that is not the definition of arbitrary. I defy you to cite me an example of any law or statute that is NOT decided by governmental authority. That is precisely what law is! D.C.’s gun law went through the exact same legislative process as any other enacted law. Enactment by a governmental body does not make something arbitrary. You say, “When the D.C. government ignores the law of the land and decides for itself whether or not to apply the U.S. Constitution in its jurisdiction, it is acting arbitrarily by the very literal definition of the word.” Again, that is NOT the literal definition of arbitrary. Please look up the word arbitrary to find the legitimate definition - it means to act with no rational basis. D.C.’s law was rational - it had good intent and was tied to a specific purpose. It was many things - but arbitrary was not one of them.

That being said, I believe D.C.’s legislation was unconstitutional, but not because it was arbitrary. Rather it was not narrowly drawn. It was too far-reaching. That is one of the factors which will insure that a law does not pass the strict scrutiny test. You note the instances I cited where compelling public interests outweighed individual rights were restrictions usually regarding specific groups of people (mentally ill, felons) or particular times. That is precisely what narrowly drawn requires. A statute cannot be over-reaching and survive constitutional muster. The Supreme Court said D.C.’s ban was over-reaching. That isn’t arbitrary, but it is unconstitutional.

In appellate law there is a rule that a correct decision, even if arrived at for the wrong reasons, will stand. I believe the Court got the decision in this case correct. However, I am not convinced they got there for the right reasons. The decision will stand, but what worries me is that because of the way in which the Court arrived at the decision, there is now room for a great deal more restriction of individual rights than we have previously seen. While I don’t really care so much about how this decision affects gun laws, because of the fact that under our legal system principles from one area of law are applicable in other areas, I am concerned that this decision opens the door for greater restriction of individual rights in other areas. For that reason I find it very dangerous.

Otter, I have thoroughly enjoyed our discussion and want to say thank you for your patience with me and your approach to the issue. Discussions like this are really beneficial for me in that they help me sort out the issues and solidify my opinions. To anybody else that finds these diatribes annoying, I sincerely apologize.

(Otter, I have a major sex case trial in two months - wanna play devil’s advocate? - ‘cause you’re really good at it! )

Don't apologize your 'diatribes' are much more interesting than the silicone babes vibrating from the assault rifles. :-)

I saw this post today on Instapundit.com blog:

TOM MAGUIRE: "The same folks who can read the Constitution and Bill of Rights and find an unassailable right to abortion and gay marriage can't find a right to possession of a firearm."

I wonder what it means?

It seems to mean that people's reading and cognitive skills are somehow affected by their political philosophy. Interesting subject for a doctoral dissertation (like we need another doctoral dissertation)!!

*sigh* lets face it... screw all the chit chat about amendments, laws, etc.... Only thing is... people KILL.. period. it makes no freakn difference if you have a rifle, hand gun, butter knife or your damn hands.. there are evil people everywhere.. now... as far as I'm concerened... let me keep my damn guns... and leave me alone....

Spurs, I'm with you.

I agree with that as well, dcg - sad but true. Taking guns away will not stop violence. There are other, better ways to do that. Until we are willing to invest the time and energy in those efforts, I am in favor of some limitations on automatic assault weapons that have no purpose other than killing a lot of people all at once. Outside of those weapons I say people should have what they want in terms of firearm possession.

KC, I do believe you nailed it! Nothing wrong with your reading skills!

True dcg but don't you think that reducing the easy access to any kind of gun would reduce the ease with which Americans can kill with a gun? I think when you have kids being shot on their way to school, while eating a hamburger at McDonald's or on a freeway in LA anything you can do to reduce the chance is worth it. Although I haven't done a study I would think you would find that the percentage of murders done with a gun is less when there is gun control.
If the American Constitution is a living document(can be amended and has a formula to do so), is it not time considering the present day society in America that it be brought up to date? What is the process for the American people to ask their government to alter the second amendment if their government hasn't to courage to address it on it's own? With all the checks and balances built into the American political system do you really think you still need guns to protect yourself from a tyranical government as was intended by the second amendemnt?

At least one example may answer you questions, NC. This is from the link http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2008/06/28/4636/


Question: Did the murder rate really triple under the Washington, DC, gun ban?


Answer: Yes. The murder rate was 26.8 homicides per 100,000 people in 1976, when the ban became law. That would be its lowest rate for the next 30 years. It peaked at 80.6 homicides per 100,000 people in 1991.

Question: What’s the highest the murder rate has been in gun happy West Virginia in that time?

Answer: 6.9 homicides per 100,000 people.

Question: So why did Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post write: “The practical benefits of effective gun control are obvious: If there are fewer guns, there are fewer shootings and fewer funerals. As everyone knows, in the District of Columbia — and in just about every city in the nation, big or small — there are far too many funerals. The handgun is the weapon of choice in keeping the U.S. homicide rate at a level that the rest of the civilized world finds incomprehensible and appalling.”

Answer: Ignorance.

Question: So why did Colbert King of the Washington Post write: “If D.C. street thugs are pleased by anything, it’s probably the fact that five of the justices — a slim majority, but that’s all it takes to win — have come around to seeing things their way.”

Answer: Ignorance.

Question: So why did E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post write: “In knocking down the District’s 32-year-old ban on handgun possession, the conservatives on the Supreme Court have again shown their willingness to abandon precedent in order to do whatever is necessary to further the agenda of the contemporary political right.”

Answer: Ignorance. These are not ignorant men, they just do not know the facts about DC’s murders. The murders are not committed by the lawful exercise of one’s right to keep and bear arms but rather by a city policy that disarms the people and leaves them vulnerable to the very thugs that King complained about.

UPDATE: I must clarify: Murderers commit the murders — not guns, not policy. Thugs. The policy aids and abets the murderers. Abettors can be held are as guilty as the perp in certain cases.

The rate peaked at 80/100 000 in 91. What happened from 91 to the present? The article doesn't state the current murder rate. If it 'peaked' in 91 then one can assume it has come down from that point over the last 15 years. Could one not use the same article then to show that gun control was starting to work and in turn the murder rate was dropping or were there other factors not discussed in the article? I would think that banning guns in one city in a country full of guns legal and illegal should not be used as an example of the outcome of a national ban on guns. I'm sure the city was not purged of guns and people entering the city were not screened for guns that they may 'import' from other cities and states. My thought on the percentage of murders was in reference to countries who have gun control, not DC. I should have qualified that. I wonder if that data exists anywhere.