LAST FRIDAY, the D.C. Circuit Appeals Court ruled that the District of Columbia's decades-old law banning the possession of firearms was unconstitutional. Perhaps more importantly, the court struck down the historic and foolish argument from anti-gun critics that the Second Amendment restricts gun ownership to citizens who are part of a militia. This ruling is a victory for anyone who supports the Constitution, and is a well-deserved rebuke for manipulative legislators and interest groups seeking to twist its meaning.
According to the Washington Post, in June 1976 the then recently established District of Columbia passed a bill "restricting city residents from acquiring handguns" and requiring that all firearms of any nature "be kept unloaded and disassembled." Though guns that were registered prior to the law taking effect were grandfathered in, Washington Post columnist and Cato Institute fellow Robert Levy pointed out that they could not even "be carried from room to room in a home without a license, which is never granted." Ironically, one could not even remove the offensive weapon from the District without violating the law.
Interestingly, this abomination was not overturned as a result of the activities of a pro-gun rights group such as the National Rifle Association, but instead through the efforts of a few civic-minded citizens. These citizens, the plaintiffs who sued the District of Columbia, lived in or near high-crime areas and only wanted to be able to protect themselves -- something made impossible under existing statutes. For instance, shotguns or rifles, which can be owned legally in the District of Columbia, have to be either disassembled or have a trigger lock. Though any parent with small children would hopefully do this anyway, it is wrong to enforce such a requirement, especially for example on a single person who has the weapon for defense. No criminal would wait while his victim reassembles her gun or removes the cumbersome lock.
Fortunately the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, overturning the ban and reaffirming in the ruling "that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms" as opposed to limiting the right to a group such as a militia. Read the constitution and the court's reasoning should be obvious: The Second Amendment states that "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." It does not say that the right to bear arms shall be limited to militiamen; it says that the right to have firearms shall not be infringed. Claimants who say that the Second Amendment limits the possession of firearms to people who are part of the militia are merely grasping for straws, and their second grade teachers should be ashamed for having failed to properly teach them how to read.
Sadly, Mayor Adrian Fenty (D-D.C.) and other D.C. lawmakers have promised to fight this ruling. Apparently Fenty rejects the Constitution and the premise of judicial review, saying according to the Washington Post that he is "personally deeply disappointed and frankly outraged by this decision." Yet he and many anti-gun advocates must realize they do not trump constitutional law however justified they claim to be.
In order to better understand why Fenty's outrage is misplaced, one must first see why his position is inherently flawed. Fenty claimed according to the Washington Post that the court's decision "flies in the face of laws that have helped decrease gun violence in the District of Columbia." Yet in an article the next day, the Post reported that despite current laws "guns are used in more than 80 percent of the city's homicides, and police are struggling to get them out of the hands of criminals." How effective can these gun laws have been in reducing crime if guns are still frequently used by criminals?
It may seem logical at first that laws banning or limiting the possession of firearms will reduce gun-related crime, but this belief is misleading and simple-minded. Criminals are not going to be bound by regulations concerning the possession and use of firearms -- after all, they are criminals. Instead, the regulations prevent law-abiding citizens from being able to protect themselves in case of a robbery or break-in. Moreover, prosecuting these citizens for violating gun regulations wastes resources and time better spent combating real crime.
Removing the unconstitutional D.C. firearms regulations will not lead to an increase in gun battles on the streets of the nation's capitol. Criminals who already flaunt the law will not wake up and find their crimes easier to commit. Quite the opposite, criminals might wake up and wonder if the next person they decide to attack might just shoot back. Removing the unlawful and impractical regulations might just save a few lives.
Allan Cruickshanks' column appears on Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at acruickshanks@cavalierdaily.com
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 4 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
