Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Only 'Revolvers and Derringers' Allowed in D.C.?
Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty claims "semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal" in D.C. despite yesterday's Supreme Court decision overturning the city's handgun ban and "safe storage" requirements. The Violence Policy Center likewise argues that "the Court's ruling for the most part will only affect revolvers and derringers." It notes that D.C. bans "machine guns," which it idiosyncratically defines to include not only guns that fire "more than 1 shot by a single function of the trigger" but also guns that fire just once per trigger pull and can fire "more than 12 shots without manual reloading." Even if Fenty is correct that the latter provision remains intact, there are plenty of semiautomatic handguns with ammunition capacities of 12 or fewer rounds. These, for example, or these.
A "news analysis" in today's New York Times also sows confusion about the legal status of semiautomatic guns, saying "six states, Puerto Rico and at least 14 municipalities ban assault weapons and semiautomatic weapons." A ban on "semiautomatic weapons" would permit possession only of revolvers and single-shot pistols, rifles, and shotguns. Neither Puerto Rico nor any state has such a law. Puerto Rico bans "semi-automatic long-barrelled weapon[s]," and according to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence seven states ban "assault weapons," an arbitrarily defined category of firearms invented by gun control activists and distinguished mainly by a scary, militaristic appearance.
As its source for the erroneous statement about gun bans, the Times cites Justice Stephen Breyer's dissenting opinion in D.C. v. Heller, where he says "at least six States and Puerto Rico impose general bans on certain types of weapons, in particular assault weapons or semiautomatic weapons," and "at least 14 municipalities do the same." This is a much vaguer statement than what the Times reported. It would encompass bans on handguns, inexpensive handguns ("Saturday night specials"), and machine guns as well as so-called assault weapons. The states cited by Breyer—California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York—have "assault weapon" bans, not blanket bans on semiautomatic guns. I don't know whether any of those 14 municipalities has a complete ban on semiautomatic firearms, but it's certainly not true that all of them do, as the Times reported. Breyer's list includes several cities that ban handguns but allow possession of semiautomatic long guns.
Right after inaccurately paraphrasing Breyer, the Times adds: "But Justice [Antonin] Scalia wrote [in the majority opinion] that the Second Amendment's protections apply only to weapons in common use, like rifles and pistols." The but makes no sense, because the weapons banned by the laws Breyer cited are "rifles and pistols." When it comes to figuring out which guns are "unusual and dangerous weapons" of the sort Scalia says may be prohibited without violating the Second Amendment, I hope the courts do a better job of drawing meaningful distinctions.
Franklin Harris|6.27.08 @ 12:37PM|#
Scalia wrote [in the majority opinion] that the Second Amendment's protections apply only to weapons in common use, like rifles and pistols.
Slightly off topic, but this is more shoddy reasoning from Scalia,
whose judicial philosophy seems to be, "How to I make Rush Limbaugh
say nice things about me."
It's circular reasoning to say the Second Amendment protects only
ownership of firearms in common use. The existing restrictions on
guns help determine what is in common use.
ed|6.27.08 @ 12:40PM|#
I'd like to know how Adrian Fenty managed to stumble off the short bus and into the D.C. mayor's diggs. Marion Barry is Aristotle by comparison. What a city.
Episiarch|6.27.08 @ 12:41PM|#
Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty claims "semiautomatic handguns
generally remain illegal" in D.C. despite yesterday's Supreme Court
decision
It is astounding to me how desperate these people are to keep
law-abiding people from having guns. Are they just power-hungry
scumbags as I assume, or do they truly believe that crime will
somehow explode if people can defend themselves?
Also, his reasoning is 100% grade-A bullshit.
Salvius|6.27.08 @ 12:41PM|#
I'm completely convinced that the overwhelming majority of people who use the term "semiautomatic" have no goddamn idea what it actually means. I think for most of them, it is actually synonymous with "automatic".
dhex|6.27.08 @ 12:42PM|#
[quote]or do they truly believe that crime will somehow explode
if people can defend themselves?[/quote]
well, in places like chicago and nyc, where the cops and the people
most likely to benefit from legal handgun ownership do not have
what we might call a "good relationship" i think the fear is more
about cries of "remember sean bell" than "this is a stickup!"
Paul|6.27.08 @ 12:46PM|#
A "news analysis" in today's New York Times also sows confusion about the legal status of semiautomatic guns, saying "six states, Puerto Rico and at least 14 municipalities ban assault
Shyeah, you should have heard NPR's 'story' on it yesterday.
|6.27.08 @ 12:46PM|#
I'll have you know- President Lincoln was killed (in
Washington!) with a single shot muzzle-loading "derringer."
I'm back in business, bro!
Paul|6.27.08 @ 12:47PM|#
"How to I make Rush Limbaugh say nice things about
me."
Scalia was pissing off liberals when Rush Limbaugh was merely a
glint in the milkman's eyes.
|6.27.08 @ 12:48PM|#
A ban on "semiautomatic weapons" would permit possession
only of revolvers and single-shot pistols, rifles, and
shotguns.
Not even that. Any double-action revolver is "semi-automatic" under
the common definition of "every time you pull the trigger it goes
bang until it runs out of ammo".
In a revolver, the cylinder revolves and puts a fresh round under
the hammer every time the trigger is pulled. In a single-action
revolver, you have to pull the hammer back manually. In a
double-action, the hammer is recocked by the trigger pull.
While there are certainly mechanical differences between a double
action revolver and a semi-auto pistol, many definitions of
semi-auto actually describe both.
|6.27.08 @ 12:49PM|#
Technically if you ban all "semiautomatic weapons", that really includes double action (or double action only) revolvers too. I know that they are not typically referred to as semiautomatic, but they do fire a round each time the trigger is pulled (without reloading in between shots).
Paul|6.27.08 @ 12:49PM|#
Y'know, I came to my own zen conclusion about gun control many years ago: Pass all the laws you want, fuckers, I'm owning firearms.
Episiarch|6.27.08 @ 12:50PM|#
i think the fear is more about cries of "remember sean bell"
than "this is a stickup!"
But, as always, anyone angry enough to drill a cop for that reason
can get a gun anyway. The cops and mayor have to know this.
I am pretty much convinced that the cops and politicians love the
fact that they can have guns and the peasants cannot, and they are
terrified of losing this powerful status symbol.
Russ 2000|6.27.08 @ 1:00PM|#
the Times cites Justice Stephen Breyer's dissenting opinion
in D.C. v. Heller, where he says "at least six States and Puerto
Rico impose general bans on certain types of weapons, in particular
assault weapons or semiautomatic weapons,"
Let me get this straight. Breyer is saying the Second Amendment is
not an individual right because six states say so?
This guy should be removed from the bench for malpractice if that's
what he was getting at.
Mister DNA|6.27.08 @ 1:01PM|#
oops... damn blockquote tags... First sentence should have been blockquoted
|6.27.08 @ 1:01PM|#
I've come to realize that anti-gunners see all "gun violence" as
negative, even when it's an 80 year old women shooing a career
felon who's trying to beat her to death. They'd rather that women
be beaten to death than a criminal get shot (even non-lethally).
They believe shooting someone for any reason whatsoever is the
highest crime imaginable - worse than rape or murder.
They have an irrational fear fetish for guns.
|6.27.08 @ 1:02PM|#
They should ban stainless steel and nickel plated handguns as well. There's nothing in the Second Amendment protecting that.
|6.27.08 @ 1:03PM|#
When it comes to figuring out which guns are "unusual and dangerous weapons" of the sort Scalia says may be prohibited without violating the Second Amendment, I hope the courts do a better job of drawing meaningful distinctions.
Bwahahahahahahha!
*wipes tear from eye*
Sullum you old joker; that was the funniest thing I have read all
week.
When the SCOTUS found that Miller's "sawed off shotgun" was not a
valuable piece of militia hardware that hope got tossed out of the
window.
Mister DNA|6.27.08 @ 1:03PM|#
guess the Calico M-950 is right out then.
That one might slip through the cracks based on its name. I mean,
how dangerous can a gun be, if it's named after a cute breed of
cat?
Coming soon: The Cocker Spaniel chain gun...
Guy Montag|6.27.08 @ 1:05PM|#
I submit that "unusual and dangerous weapons" should be defined as: guns without triggers, anything 9mm, shotguns with barrels longer that 14" (unless it is for squirrels or geese) and blingie finishes like chrome or nickle or gold.
lunchstealer|6.27.08 @ 1:05PM|#
A ban on "semiautomatic weapons" would permit possession
only of revolvers and single-shot pistols, rifles, and
shotguns.
Well, it would also allow pump shotguns and lever-action rifles.
Which, if I recall my John Wayne correctly, can shoot pretty damn
fast.
But yeah, handguns would all be revolvers or single-shotters.
No Name Guy|6.27.08 @ 1:06PM|#
Epi-
These people really, honestly believe crime will magically
disappear if they ban handguns. I wonder if they would support
banning due process, trial by jury, prohibitions against
unreasonable search and seizure, etc, if that meant crime would go
down? Its always fun to ask a liberal that question.
Not that gun laws lower crime, it doesn't, but just sayin' even if
it did thats not a great argument.
Guy Montag|6.27.08 @ 1:07PM|#
They should ban stainless steel and nickel plated handguns
as well. There's nothing in the Second Amendment protecting
that.
Beat me to it and that is an "ugly gun" ban that I can support.
|6.27.08 @ 1:08PM|#
heh2k,
I think is more just part and parcel of their state-worship. If
your house is broken into, the omni-benevolent police will use
their magical violence-monopoly powers to sweep in and take care of
it.
Combine that with their nasty habit of blaming crime on everything
except the people who actually commit it (poverty, culture,
education, mental retardation, racism) and you have a formula where
the "criminal" in a home defense shooting is the person who was
just trying to get a good night's sleep.
|6.27.08 @ 1:09PM|#
Salvius, I think you're right.
I think a lot of people believe "automatic" means it will keep
firing as long as you hold the trigger, "single shot" meansd one
bullet-one pull, and "semi-automatic" means something in between,
like the three-shot setting on the M-16s used in the military.
Episiarch|6.27.08 @ 1:10PM|#
These people really, honestly believe crime will magically
disappear if they ban handguns.
I don't buy it. Britain banned handguns, as did DC and Chicago
(essentially). Crime went up.
They have to know it's bullshit, which means it can only be a power
thing.
No Name Guy|6.27.08 @ 1:10PM|#
Its also weird that liberals, who are generally not trusting of the police (because of racial profiling, police brutality, militarization etc) all of a sudden become their biggest defenders when it comes to gun control.
Guy Montag|6.27.08 @ 1:10PM|#
Well, it would also allow pump shotguns and lever-action
rifles. Which, if I recall my John Wayne correctly, can shoot
pretty damn fast.
That is what I used to use for Skeet, but that range no longer
allows barrels under 23" :( So now I have to use the SAIGA-12
semi-auto, which has a 19" barrel, but with the choke looks close
enough to 23".
Was shooting in the 20s with the pump, when I was in practice.
Other Matt|6.27.08 @ 1:10PM|#
It's circular reasoning to say the Second Amendment protects
only ownership of firearms in common use. The existing restrictions
on guns help determine what is in common use.
A statement which, in and of itself, is circular and shows the
danger, as anything banned will be, by definition, not in common
use any more.
Not to be pedantic and dogmatic and all that, but Maryland only
bans assault pistols. Assault weapons, while
grammatically nonsensical, are name spec'd in the law but allowed
under a seven day wait (which never seems to really be seven days
under democratic administrations), three legal size page in
triplicate background check, and written recommendations from seven
dwarfs.
Ok, perhaps not that last part, but an AR-15 you can still buy, and
if it says "Colt Match Target" on it you can buy it over the
counter because that's an exclusion. They put those and handguns,
of any type, under "regulated firearms", but only "assault pistols"
are banned.
No Name Guy|6.27.08 @ 1:11PM|#
"I don't buy it. Britain banned handguns, as did DC and Chicago
(essentially). Crime went up."
They will tell you that the REAL problem is that the rest of the
country is too permissive. I.e., if they banned guns EVERYWHERE
then the gun ban would work.
Thats what I'm always told. Every time.
"The REAL problem with DCs guns is Virginia law!"
No Name Guy|6.27.08 @ 1:12PM|#
They will tell you Britain has less "gun violence". Even though gun violence includes things like self defense and suicide...
|6.27.08 @ 1:13PM|#
I don't buy it. Britain banned handguns, as did DC and
Chicago (essentially). Crime went up.
And after "the largest tax increase in American history" in 1993,
the economy improved. Did that change your opinion about tax cuts
effect on the economy?
It is possible for people to simply be mistaken, you know, and even
subject to confirmation bias, without reading absurdly dark motives
into their actions.
|6.27.08 @ 1:15PM|#
Its also weird that liberals, who are generally not trusting of the police (because of racial profiling, police brutality, militarization etc) all of a sudden become their biggest defenders when it comes to gun control.
It's the "right people" problem. If the "right people" were the
police, then they could have unlimited power because they would
never abuse it.
How hard is it to grasp human nature?
|6.27.08 @ 1:15PM|#
No Name Guy,
Even if all domestic sale were abolished, as in Britain, the
weapons would still be imported through the drug trade networks. As
cocaine is illegal everywhere it also available everywhere. The
truth is that the black market is simply more powerful than the law
(heck, it even existed in the Soviet Union).
Even Britain, an island nation could not stem the flow of
weapons when it made a ban so total it almost derailed the Olympic
shooting team.
Guy Montag|6.27.08 @ 1:16PM|#
I don't buy it. Britain banned handguns, as did DC and
Chicago (essentially). Crime went up.
Yea, but the Leftists keep lieing about it and say it went down,
then blame any evidence of it going up on surrounding areas.
Rember the limo-Leftie lobbyist chick I mentioned who used to haul
her parent's recycleables from Genneseo NY to Reston, VA in her
Crown Vic? She swore that DC gun violence was because of VA and MD,
mostly VA and we needed to ban guns everyplace.
Anybody who follows this stuff has probably heard similar nonsense
from people on TV, in real life and in print. Wild guess is that
MSNBC will have 5 hours of it after 1600 today.
No Name Guy|6.27.08 @ 1:16PM|#
Most gun control proponents fetishize guns. Guns are not tools,
but evil, EVIL objects that the mere presence of turns a normal
person into an aggressive maniac.
Its like saying a guy carrying around matches will become a crazed
arsonist.
To be fair, the more extreme gun nuts fetishize guns in the other
direction.
Its just a tool, people. Its like matches, a knife, or a blow
torch.
Naga Sadow|6.27.08 @ 1:16PM|#
HA!!!! Everyone laughed at me when I started packing some Derringer heat but who's laughing now!!!
Episiarch|6.27.08 @ 1:19PM|#
They will tell you Britain has less "gun violence". Even
though gun violence includes things like self defense and
suicide...
Except that "gun violence" in Britain has increased.
Anti-gun people fetishize guns about 1000 times more than the
craziest gun-nut, as they practically attribute evil sentience to
hunks of metal. It's very creepy watching one of these people
around a gun; they're like a squirrel coming near a
rattlesnake.
Guy Montag|6.27.08 @ 1:19PM|#
Again I believe some are ignoring the racism factor too, with where these stupid laws are concentrated.
|6.27.08 @ 1:20PM|#
NNG,
I think that even more common than fetishizing guns in fetishizing
people. Passionate proponents on both sides of this issue seem to
view the issue primarily as a proxy in a war against those bad, bad
people.
Look at some of the crap on this thread. Gun control advocates want
to see women beaten to death. Cops who are concerned about "guns on
the street" really just want to lord their power over the
"peasants." And, GUY MONTAG.
It's about the people.
No Name Guy|6.27.08 @ 1:20PM|#
Montag, especially because the most stringent laws are
minority-majority major cities, while the white suburbs and
countryside have more permissive gun laws.
So the effect is, basically, to disarm black people.
|6.27.08 @ 1:21PM|#
Joe, the best way to analyze that question is to consider the
data on the aggregate effect of gun laws over the entire country.
Those results are fairly decisive indicating either no effect or
statistically significant positive correlation between gun law and
gun crime. That is, it is fairly statistically reliable that gun
laws increase gun crime.
The mechanism is also quite intuitive. Criminals committing crimes
such as robbery murder and hard drug dealing generally have already
passed the threshold of being psychologically willing to break the
law. Breaking a gun law is a very low marginal addition to their
general lawbreaking. Law abiding citizens, however, have a much
lower threshold and for them breaking a gun law is a very large
marginal addition to their perceived danger from the law.
Thus the criminals just don't care, because they are already
criminals anyways, and the law abiding citizens who do care if they
break the law give up their guns. Thus at the end of the day the
criminals have increased their combat advantage.
And this is why law abiding folk are the most vulnerable in gun
control cities such as Chicago, DC, NYC ect... where people can't
walk in the public parks for fear of rape and death.
No Name Guy|6.27.08 @ 1:22PM|#
Joe, 95% of gun control advocates aren't evil, they're just either sorely mistaken and really want to lower crime, or never grew up with guns, never held one, and thus fear them as something foreign and dangerous.
|6.27.08 @ 1:23PM|#
When a majority-minority city passes a municipal law, guess what
the majority of the people voting for that law are?
C'mon, that doesn't come close to making sense. When Westchester
County starts passing gun laws that only apply to the Bronx, then
we can talk, but when majority-minority cities pass these laws to
apply to themselves, that argument doesn't hold water.
No Name Guy|6.27.08 @ 1:23PM|#
The same thing happens with drugs, btw. Instead of hunks of metal, its chemical compounds that gain an evil sentience.
Guy Montag|6.27.08 @ 1:23PM|#
NNG,
Yep. Coincidence? I like what Penn Gillette has to say about
coincidences.
No Name Guy|6.27.08 @ 1:24PM|#
Joe I was speaking more of intent than effect.
The INTENT may not be to disarm law-abiding minorities, but thats
the effect.
Episiarch the Pedant|6.27.08 @ 1:25PM|#
The Bronx isn't in Westchester County, joe. It's in (and is) Bronx County.
|6.27.08 @ 1:26PM|#
Mick,
The correlation between gun laws and gun crime begins before the
laws are passed. Gun laws are generally passed in places
experiencing high crime, shortly after it begins to rise.
And, FYI, NYC is the safest large city in America, fare moreso than
gun-friendly cities like Houston and New Orelans. So is San
Francisco. There isn't really any correlation there, either.
Guy Montag|6.27.08 @ 1:27PM|#
NNG,
I am siding with intent being a major factor. Just like the folks
of Georgetown keeping METRO from making a rail stop near their
neighborhood.
Michael Ejercito|6.27.08 @ 1:27PM|#
I wonder if the Secret Service and the DC Metropolitan Police use revolvers and derringers when in DC.
No Name Guy|6.27.08 @ 1:28PM|#
I don't care WHAT effect it has on crime. Personally I think gun
control has zero effect one way or the other, but thats beside the
point.
We have an individual right to bear arms. Period.
Wanting to ban them because it might lower crime is like trying to
repeal the First Amendment so the Klan can't hold rallies.
Guy Montag|6.27.08 @ 1:29PM|#
I wonder if the Secret Service and the DC Metropolitan
Police use revolvers and derringers when in DC.
If they are they are either the largest derringers I have ever
seen, or revolvers desguised as semi-autos :)
|6.27.08 @ 1:29PM|#
NNG,
No Name Guy | June 27, 2008, 1:22pm | #
Joe, 95% of gun control advocates aren't evil, they're just either
sorely mistaken and really want to lower crime, or never grew up
with guns, never held one, and thus fear them as something foreign
and dangerous.
Exactly. This shit about "rather see old ladies beaten to death in
the street" is the gun enthusiasts' "You want to sell crack to
children." It feels good, but it's completely intellectually
dishonest.
The Bronx isn't in Westchester County, joe. It's in (and is)
Bronx County. Which is probably why I used it as an example of
one municipality passing a law that applies to another, while I was
making an argument about cities passing laws that apply to
themselves.
Guy Montag|6.27.08 @ 1:31PM|#
Guessing that if you buy an extended magazine, over 12 rounds, for an autoloading pistol that comes stock with a 10 round magazine, you automagically win the DC machine gun ban award?
Nigel Watt|6.27.08 @ 1:32PM|#
Houston and New Orelans
Houston and New Orleans both have leftover issues from
Katrina.
Houston's up-and-coming right now, though, so hopefully those will
be subsumed soon.
|6.27.08 @ 1:33PM|#
I don't care WHAT effect it has on crime.
That's nice. And also really clear, and doesn't need to keep being
repeated. Gotcha.
Gun controllers, whatever you might like to hear to the contrary,
do care about the effect it has on crime. They support gun laws
because they think it will lower crime. That's why there are a lot
fewer of them these days - lower crime means less motivation to do
things about crime.
Episiarch the Pedant|6.27.08 @ 1:33PM|#
Which is probably why I used it as an example of one
municipality passing a law that applies to another, while I was
making an argument about cities passing laws that apply to
themselves.
Hmm, it sounded like you meant to say something to the effect of
"NYC passing laws that apply only to Queens". You'll need to be
more clear in the future, and gain a better understanding of New
York county structure and government.
|6.27.08 @ 1:34PM|#
Houston and New Orleans both have leftover issues from
Katrina.
True, but they were shooting galleries for two decades prior,
too.
|6.27.08 @ 1:36PM|#
I guess I could have written that more clearly, Ep.
My point was that "municipal gun laws are a consequence of racism,
because they are more common in cities with lots of minorities"
doesn't make sense, because it is those minority-majority
populations that vote for them, and for politicians that support
them.
But since I didn't actually make the error you read into my
statement, I don't actually have to gain a better understanding of
New York government. Thanks.
ed|6.27.08 @ 1:39PM|#
This debate will end at about the same time everyone agrees on
religion.
Round and round and round they go.
Episiarch the Pedant|6.27.08 @ 1:39PM|#
But how will you know what borough Kings County Hospital is in without studying this stuff?
Guy Montag|6.27.08 @ 1:40PM|#
NNG,
You did hear what happened on the day that the California
legeslature was voting to make very strict State-wide gun
restrictions in the 1960s, didn't you?
After the Black Panthers staged a legal, peaceful, demonstration in
the Capitol and the measure was then passed by a great
majority.
So much for the "not racist" angle of the Left.
|6.27.08 @ 1:44PM|#
But how will you know what borough Kings County Hospital is
in without studying this stuff?
I can't argue with that. And I'm joe!
|6.27.08 @ 1:46PM|#
They support gun laws because they think it will lower
crime.
And they go to church on Sunday, because they think, "if I don't, a
big red guy with horns and a tail will GIT
ME!!!
Guy Montag|6.27.08 @ 1:46PM|#
Oh, the peaceful demonstration was a legal display of legal shotguns that the Panthers heald overhead as they marched through the chambers of the legislature.
|6.27.08 @ 2:04PM|#
"I'd like to know how Adrian Fenty managed to stumble off the
short bus..."
I think he took the T2, and that's one long route, especially in
winter. Every 2-1/2 hours on Sunday, way back when.
|6.27.08 @ 2:18PM|#
When a majority-minority city passes a municipal law, guess
what the majority of the people voting for that law are?
Umm, City Councilman?
There isn't really any correlation there, either.
So, if there is, at best, no correlation between gun ownership and
gun crime/violent crime, there is no reason for restrictive gun
control laws, yes?
The correlation between gun laws and gun crime begins before
the laws are passed. Gun laws are generally passed in places
experiencing high crime, shortly after it begins to
rise.
The real question is more longitudinal. Did those new laws result
in reduced crime? If so, lets see the data. If not, then there is
no reason to keep them, or pass new ones, yes?
Guy Montag|6.27.08 @ 2:21PM|#
The Ancient Astronauts built the great pyramids without guns and
a link can be made to global warming, so they probably do need to
be banned.
Along with that evil Easter "Bunny" creature.
|6.27.08 @ 2:26PM|#
I think a lot of people believe "automatic" means it will keep firing as long as you hold the trigger, "single shot" meansd one bullet-one pull, and "semi-automatic" means something in between, like the three-shot setting on the M-16s used in the military.
Indeed.
"The semi-automatic weapons' menacing looks, coupled with
the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus
semi-automatic assault weapons - anything that looks like a machine
gun is assumed to be a machine gun - can only increase that chance
of public support for restrictions on these
weapons."
- Josh Sugarmann, 1988, Violence Policy Center
Guy Montag|6.27.08 @ 2:28PM|#
mediageek,
Same thing happens with State Department security guards being
called "paramilitary mercinaries" because, of course, they carry
automatic rifles and drive SUVs.
|6.27.08 @ 2:31PM|#
RC,
Umm, City Councilman? Nice dodge.
So, if there is, at best, no correlation between gun ownership
and gun crime/violent crime, there is no reason for restrictive gun
control laws, yes? That's my take. The broad "more guns in
circulation leads to more crime" thesis doesn't seem to hold
up.
Nor, my point was, does the opposite. Repealing gun laws doesn't
seem to reduce crime. The same thing happens in reverse - when
crime starts falling, gun control laws lose support.
|6.27.08 @ 2:32PM|#
Incidentally, have any DC-area Reason members called over to the
Violence Policy Center to see if
they can get their Executive Director, Josh Sugarmann, to transfer
a gun for them?
After all, Josh holds one of the vanishingly few gun dealer
licenses in the DC area.
This can be verified by going to the ATF FFL EZ Check
website and entering the following:
1-54-XXX-XX-XX-00725
(The X's will be greyed out, so just enter the numbers.)
|6.27.08 @ 2:33PM|#
State. They're just the Security for State.
You know, State Security.
Imagine, someone thinking State Security carrying military hardware
could be a paramilitary organization.
Anyone speak German?
|6.27.08 @ 2:34PM|#
Incidentally, the VPC can be contacted by phone at (202) 822
8200
I'd be curious to know what Josh has in stock and what he charges
to do a transfer.
Guy Montag|6.27.08 @ 2:36PM|#
mediageek,
I think you should be saying DC proper residents. I can't use that
guy from VA (with the extra complication that my domocile is TN).
Same with MD folks. At least for a handgun.
Guy Montag|6.27.08 @ 2:40PM|#
Betcha Josh Sugarmann specializes in strawman sales.
Yes, I will be here all month folks!
|6.27.08 @ 2:41PM|#
Guy-
Surely you know some DC residents who would be interested in
knowing current prices and such.
Give ol' Josh a call and see what he says.
;)
Guy Montag|6.27.08 @ 2:43PM|#
mediageek,
I really don't hang on that side of the river much, unless it is a
reasonoid gathering.
What is stopping you from calling him? Your number in the wrong
databases already? ;)
|6.27.08 @ 2:46PM|#
misterDNA, you don't make fun of my gun (M-950) and I won't make fun of yours. Deal? And I'll have you know its name is taken from CALifornia Instrument COmpany and not a cute kitten.
|6.27.08 @ 2:47PM|#
What would P T Barnum say?
Given that the VPC receives the vast majority of their funding from
one source (The Joyce Foundation) they can't even generally find
enough suckers amongst the general public to stay afloat.
|6.27.08 @ 2:49PM|#
What is stopping you from calling him?
I'm nowhere near that side of the country. Though maybe I ought to
just to see if Kristen Rand calls me dirty names (HOT!)
Your number in the wrong databases already? ;)
Hey, if your name's not on a list somewhere, you're doing something
wrong.
Guy Montag|6.27.08 @ 2:49PM|#
The Josh Sugarmann mission sounds like a job for Dave Weigel. Ron has a residenc in DC, but I am not sure if he uses his VA address for everything or not. Radley is in VA too.
|6.27.08 @ 2:52PM|#
Gun Nut Fun Fact:
Calicos were used as the weapon of choice for the stormtroopers in
the movie "Spaceballs."
|6.27.08 @ 2:54PM|#
Especially since VPC Headquarters isn't zoned to be a commercial
business, let alone a gun store.
One wonders if there is any legal malfeasance there.
|6.27.08 @ 2:54PM|#
Is that what shot the Princess' hair?
Yes. Right before she disarms a stormtrooper and goes to town on
the rest of them to great comedic effect.
Guy Montag|6.27.08 @ 2:56PM|#
I might have picked the wrong staffer, since he was the main guy talking about candidate and Sen. Webb, but pretty much ignored the gun incident.
|6.27.08 @ 2:58PM|#
And, FYI, NYC is the safest large city in America, fare moreso than gun-friendly cities like Houston and New Orelans. So is San Francisco. There isn't really any correlation there, either.
joe, as someone who lives in downtown Houston I can tell you the
only dangerous are within walking distance of me is the
guns-prohibited Section 8 housing project at 1900 Runnels.
And NOLA is gun-friendly? This comes as news to the hundreds of its
citizens who had their guns illegally confiscated in the Katrina
aftermath, sued to get them back, won, and still haven't received
them.
NYC and San Fran are low-crime because they have in recent years
transformed themselves into Disneyland for trust-fund kids.
No
poor people = no crime. It has nothing to do with guns, only
economics.
M2|6.27.08 @ 3:03PM|#
"...San Fran are low-crime..."
Are you NUTS??? Do you read the San Francisco papers?
|6.27.08 @ 3:04PM|#
Kap,
As interesting as your personal anecdotes might be, the numbers
don't lie. Houston consistently ranked as one of the most dangerous
cities in American over the past two decades.
And NOLA is gun-friendly? In the sense of having very weak
or no gun control laws, yes, that's exactly what it had during the
years that it led the country in murder rate.
It has nothing to do with guns... I love it when people
repeat my point back to me as if they've refuted me.
|6.27.08 @ 3:07PM|#
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't there a substantial body of evidence to suggest that the more stringent the gun control reigme, the greater the incidence of murder, like D.C.?
Dan|6.27.08 @ 3:10PM|#
Most of the people writing or speaking about this - reporters,
judges, lawyers, mayors - have no idea what the similarities and
differences are between certain types of firearms. They don't
understand how the categories overlap - that pistols, rifles, and
shotguns can be semiautomatic, for instance.
And the DC definition of a "machine gun" is absurd. "Manual
reloading" generally means actually putting more ammunition into a
gun, rather than simply chambering a round. So, unless they have
some alternate definition of "manual reloading", a lever or pump
action rifle that has more than 12 rounds (chambered for .22 or a
pistol caliber) would be considered a "machine gun" under DC
law.
Nigel Watt|6.27.08 @ 3:12PM|#
Does Houston really have that much gun crime, joe? (As in, can you demonstrate it's out of line with the metropolitan population?) It's not something I hear about, certainly, nothing like Dallas.
Guy Montag|6.27.08 @ 3:16PM|#
Dan,
Not sure on that. Other Matt posted the particulars someplace
around here.
My Marlin-Glennfield .22 semi-auto rifle I got when I was a kid
holds 18 rounds. Never knew I was so 'core man!
Other Matt|6.27.08 @ 3:19PM|#
It has nothing to do with guns, only economics.
And study after study after study shows this, even fuckwitted joe
agrees, and yet his benevolent gun controllers keep knowingly lying
or going to laughable lengths to avoid direct statments (but given
Obama's aversion in general to such, I guess it's not
surprising).
It would make a thinking person perhaps not ascribe the same level
of benevolent concern to them.
It's really about power, and an attitude of "Sit down and shut up,
we know what's good for you" based on an intellectual smugness
which only adds insult to the injury of violating our individual
rights. It started as a racist/class effort to keep arms away from
blacks, then the irish, and generally continues to be the same. The
only modern caveat is that somehow there's the class distinction
with the legal gun owner being some tobacco chewing non showering
redneck who is cute in a disgusting kinda way but we'll let them
keep their hunting, I guess.
The simple solution is to make crime illegal, since obviously
making things illegal works, right?
Guy Montag|6.27.08 @ 3:22PM|#
The only modern caveat is that somehow there's the class
distinction with the legal gun owner being some tobacco chewing non
showering redneck who is cute in a disgusting kinda way but we'll
let them keep their hunting, I guess.
Um, I did shower today and I am even wearing a tie, thank you very
much!
|6.27.08 @ 3:23PM|#
Does Houston really have that much gun crime, joe?
Decide for yourself.
Note that El Paso, San Antonio, Austin, and Fort Worth rank in the
top 10 safest 500,000+ cities, with no difference in gun control
laws, culture, or ownership rate.
The differentiation between these cities and Houston is less
economic underclass.
I meant it has nothing to do with gun laws, joe, but I'm
sure you understood that.
As interesting as your personal anecdotes might be...
Lick 'em, joe.
Dan|6.27.08 @ 3:26PM|#
"My Marlin-Glennfield .22 semi-auto rifle I got when I was a kid
holds 18 rounds. Never knew I was so 'core man!"
That is certainly a "machine gun" under DC law. It's the lever
& pump action guns that are more ambiguous. But I would really
love it if DC considered a Henry rifle to be a machine gun.
Guy Montag|6.27.08 @ 3:33PM|#
Dan,
So, if I get those little shortie 12 GA shotgun shells and a
magazine extention for the Benelli Nova Pump then I can have TWO
machine guns!!!!!
If I can cobble together a 13 shell box magazine for the SAIGA-12 I
will have an 12 GA AK-47 style machine gun!
Oh man, DC, I love your crazy word manipulation!
|6.27.08 @ 4:00PM|#
Guy Montag and Dan-
Count me in as one who does not know much about guns, period. In my
opinion, this distinguishes me from all of my friends and
colleagues who are fellow vocal 2nd amendment supporters as they
know so much more about guns than I do. Ditto for many of the
posters here.
T|6.27.08 @ 4:17PM|#
Houston consistently ranked as one of the most dangerous
cities in American over the past two decades.
Where're you getting your numbers from? I'm looking at the FBI/DOJ
numbers and I ain't seeing it.
Link or GTFO.
Guy Montag|6.27.08 @ 4:25PM|#
T,
Are you actually bothering to argue with one of those Lefties who
just make stuff up to support their preconcieved notions?
T|6.27.08 @ 4:34PM|#
Are you actually bothering to argue with one of those
Lefties who just make stuff up to support their preconcieved
notions?
Well, if you're going to assert facts I'd at least like to see
them, especially when they don't accord with my personal
experience. The plural of anecdote isn't data, but assertion fails
at even being a datum.
|6.27.08 @ 4:52PM|#
(3) "Antique firearm" means:
(ii) Uses rim-fire or conventional ammunition which is no longer
manufactured in the United States and which is not readily
available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.
My great grandfather's Winchester
Model 1907 .351 self loader is legal. Only 5 and 10 round
magazines are available and the ammunition is hard to find,
therefore it's an antique.
|6.27.08 @ 5:17PM|#
Guessing that if you buy an extended magazine, over 12
rounds, for an autoloading pistol that comes stock with a 10 round
magazine, you automagically win the DC machine gun ban
award?
Actually, all you have to do is buy a pistol that can take a 12+
round mag, and you win the award.
Repealing gun laws doesn't seem to reduce crime.
Even if you grant this (and the experience with CCW may be
contrary) it does increase liberty. The burden in on those passing
restrictive laws, not those repealing them.
|6.27.08 @ 5:31PM|#
A ban on automatic and semi-automatic weapons, including hand guns, is allowable according to Scalia, since they didn't exist at the time the Constitution was written.
JGR|6.27.08 @ 6:42PM|#
Kwix wrote: "When the SCOTUS found that Miller's "sawed off
shotgun" was not a valuable piece of militia hardware that hope got
tossed out of the window."
Uh, actually, the Supremes never made such a finding. What they
said was that "no evidence had been offered," which left the door
wide open for the cases which will soon come along.
Rimfax|6.27.08 @ 6:43PM|#
Hey, Unspoken,
Not sure what your point was, but another group that is
statistically charged with violent crimes well above the average is
Southern-born whites.
DJ Voton|6.27.08 @ 8:48PM|#
Y'know, I came to my own zen conclusion about gun control
many years ago: Pass all the laws you want, fuckers, I'm owning
firearms.
Agreed, but a ban on guns would make it a lot harder to stock up on
ammo.
|6.28.08 @ 11:04PM|#
Agreed, but a ban on guns would make it a lot harder to
stock up on ammo.
They'd be giving the stuff away before the ban went into
effect.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245