Guns and the Constitution in the District

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

I am grateful to the Cato Institute and to the six District residents who fought for the right of law-abiding citizens to own handguns for protection against the predations of criminals ["D.C.'s Ban on Handguns in Homes Is Thrown Out," front page, March 10].

The editorial "Dangerous Ruling" [March 10] called this struggle to preserve the fundamental right of self-defense an "unconscionable campaign" and said that "more guns mean only more violence." The editorial made several emotionally charged assertions, and it disregarded the following critical facts associated with the issue of gun control:

· The Second Amendment says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Every time the word "people" is used in the Bill of Rights it refers to an individual right. The assertion that the Second Amendment was not intended to apply to individuals is unsupportable by either linguistic logic or historical analysis.

· States that have liberalized their handgun-ownership laws have experienced a drop in violent crime, and in most cases that drop has been precipitous.

· The jurisdictions with the strictest gun control laws in the country have the highest rates of violent crime.

Taken individually, each of these facts is convincing. In the aggregate they constitute an overwhelming argument in support of the March 9 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

As a law-abiding citizen concerned about my family's safety, I will be very happy when the District's irrational gun control laws meet their timely end.

ROBERT H. BRAUNOHLER

Washington

·

The federal appeals court ruling on the District's gun law violated the Supreme Court's landmark 1939 constitutional interpretation and, in the process, common sense.

Neither the political and intellectual assumptions of our Founding Fathers when the Bill of Rights was adopted nor English precedent supports the idea that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of an individual to possess a gun. If allowed to stand, this ruling will surely result in more violence and more deaths in the nation's capital, and it may lead to the destruction of gun-control laws nationwide.

All residents should vigorously support the efforts of District Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) to successfully appeal this ruling.

LOIS G. SCHWOERER

Washington

·

After years of trying to overturn our gun laws, extreme gun rights activists have finally achieved a breakthrough. In ignoring Supreme Court precedent, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit used arguments and citations that were strikingly familiar to anyone who has ever sat through a National Rifle Association-sponsored seminar on the Second Amendment.

Because of illegal trafficking -- 97 percent of the guns linked to crimes in the District come from outside the city -- it is already easy for District children to get their hands on guns. Why in the world would we want to make it easier? The truth is, the gun lobby wants us to ignore such trafficking so it can blame the violence on our city's gun laws. This conveniently takes the focus off the NRA's repeated efforts on Capitol Hill to weaken the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and to protect corrupt gun dealers.

Mayor Adrian Fenty has not been fooled. He stands with more than 150 of his colleagues in the Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition, which emphatically rejects the NRA's insane notion that more guns are the answer to the problem of violent crime in cities.

This is a decisive moment for District residents. For years, the gun lobby has exploited our lack of voting representation in Congress and trampled on the principle of home rule. We must make them understand -- beyond any doubt -- that we love our children more than they will ever love their guns.

LADD EVERITT

Communications Director

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

Washington

·

The state of Vermont has essentially no gun control and has few shootings, whereas the District has strict gun control restrictions and a lot of shootings.

What is the point of gun control laws if they cannot be enforced? Why are the "bad" people in Washington (a minority) able to have weapons and engage in drive-by shootings while the "good" citizens (the majority) cannot defend themselves even with mace?

EDWARD KELTY

Bethesda