The District's Gun Ban Goes to Court

Handgun prohibition is simply not effective to produce good and valuable effects in society. Handgun prohibitions such as those enacted by the City Council of the District of Columbia appear to be effective only at removing from law-abiding citizens the best means of protecting themselves, their loved ones and others from violent criminals. The District's 30-year social experiment with handgun prohibition has, if anything, illustrated this sad fact. Rather than becoming safer, our Nation's Capital has unfortunately become known as the 'murder capital' of the United States, one of the most violent cities in the country. In light of the District's gun prohibitions, there is little that the residents can realistically do but hope that they do not become victims themselves.

This case involves various statistics and differing analyses of those statistics. But, in the end, the reality is that the District is claiming that its gun laws -- the most restrictive gun prohibitions in the Nation -- have been effective in reducing violent crime when, among other things:

-- since the implementation of the 1977 ban, the District's murder rate has only once fallen below what it was in 1976;

-- since 1977, there have been only four years when the District's violent crime rate fell below the rate in 1976; and

-- in an incredible 15 years that the ban has been in place the District has ranked #1 or #2 in murders; in four of those years it was #4.

-- from the brief of the Claremont Institute and various criminologists, social scientists and scholars

--

A well-regulated militia -- whether ad hoc or as part of our organized military -- depends on recruits who have familiarity and training with firearms -- rifles, pistols and shotguns. Amici suggest that the Second Amendment ensures both the individual's right to possess firearms, subject to reasonable regulation, and the constitutional goal of collective defense readiness. Based on decades of military experience, amici have concluded that the District of Columbia's Gun Law directly interferes with various Acts of Congress aimed at enhancing the national defense by promoting martial training amongst the citizenry.

For over a century, Congress has authorized and funded programs to promote the marksmanship of young Americans so that they might make the transition from civilian to military life more effectively and at less cost to our national defense. This pre-military training has become an integral part of national defense aimed at preparing, as civilians, 'every ablebodied male [and female].' The D.C. Gun Law, by barring individuals from owning handguns and using other firearms at reasonable times and places, is inconsistent with these congressional mandates and, when enacted in 1976, impeded the Department of the Army's Civilian Marksmanship program.

-- from the brief of several retired military officers and the American Hunters and Shooters Association