Girls, Guns, and The Problem with DC Firearm Laws

"Gun ownership goes up, crime goes down...that's how it works," explains Washington Times senior editor and recent gun owner Emily Miller.

After being the victim of a home invasion, Miller was determined to take advantage of the 2008 Supreme Court ruling striking down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban. Miller initially thought the process of purchasing a firearm "would just be a hassle for a couple of weeks," and decided to blog her experiences at washingtontimes.com. After four months, countless headaches, and hundreds of dollars in fees, Miller is now legally able to own her Sig Sauer P229 9mm, so long as she keeps it in her home. 

Miller joined Kennedy at Sharp Shooters in Lorton, VA to discuss DC's Byzantine gun laws, the surge in female gun ownership, and how she choose her firearm.

About 3 minutes.

Interview by Kennedy. Camera by Meredith Bragg and Joshua Swain; edited by Bragg.

Visit Reason.tv for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel  to receive automatic notification when new material goes live. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Tim||

    Kennedy is wearing clothes in that link, right? I am afraid to click.

  • sarcasmic||

    She lurched forward and came back into frame with one of the poor lady's eyeballs impaled on the tip of her nose.

  • John||

    I can't see it, but Emily Miller if I remember correctly is decidedly cute.

  • sarcasmic||

    The only Emily in my world is Ekins.

    *drool*

  • John||

    Google image Miller. She is quite fetching.

  • Tulpa the White||

    She seems a little bony. Are you feeling OK?

  • R C Dean||

    Wow. A Washington Post writer and an MMA ring girl. I am impress.

  • John||

    And a Sunday School Teacher just for that extra sexy "oh my God I can't believe she is doing that" feeling. Miller is pretty high end all things considered.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    That place has a decent indoor range. That's where I go when I need some range time.

  • Creepy Uncle||

    Can someone please provide an appropriate Metric link...

  • JW||

  • Creepy Uncle||

    Thanks!

  • John||

    How can she legally get it to a range if she is required to "keep it in her home"?

  • ||

    The Secret Service sends an armed escort consisting of 10 APCs and four SWAT teams to accompany the Libertard Racist Gun-Lover (the legal classification of gun owners in DC) to the range.

  • John||

    Seriously, I don't see how she could. And of course, how is she supposed to ever learn how to safely handle the weapon if she can't take it to the range? But these restrictions are all about safety and the childrenz right?

  • ||

    You're skipping along that path of deduction that assumes these fucktarded rules have any meaning beyond blind, asinine prohibitionism, and that they're thought out with the gun owner and what's convenient for them in mind.

    The government doesn't give a fuck, and it'll make the process as close to total prohibition as it can.

  • John||

    I know. I forgot the sarcasm tag. Yeah, these rules have nothing to do with safety. They are about harassing gun owners and making it as easy as possible for them to commit a crime and lose their right to own a gun.

  • Tulpa the White||

    If she's going to VA, doesn't the Peaceable Journey exception of FOPA apply?

    Even here in PA, if you don't have an LTCF you have to keep your gun unloaded and locked in an inaccessible part of the car when transporting it to the range, for repairs, etc. And you have to be able to prove you're transporting it for one of those reasons if you get pulled over. I wouldn't be surprised if DC has a similar law for everyone (even permit holders).

    Of course, an LTCF is easier to get than a magazine subscription, so it's not a big deal.

  • John||

    That is probably the answer. And while you are allowed that, that just means you can beat the crime but not the ride when the DC police arrest you for having a gun in your car.

  • ||

    Doesn't Kennedy have a first name?

  • Creepy Uncle||

    Kennedy?

  • ||

    can't tell if serious

  • Tonio||

    Neither can the rest of us, RPA. I'd say that in the hiearchy of douchebaggery that single-word names beats hyphenated last names and inital as first name every time.

  • John||

    I think having a suffix beyond Junior ranks up there pretty high. Anyone who calls themselves the III or the IVth deserves derision. The proper name for anyone calling themselves the IIIrd is "Junior Junior" as in Bob Smith Junior Junior.

  • Tonio||

    And it's not like all those kids with generational qualifiers had much of a choice in the matter. Which is why prep school boys called Biff often turn out to be Ruggles van Tarlick, III.

  • Ashlyn||

    I thought if you're Whomever III, we're supposed to call you Trey. I know a twenty-three year old whose father and grandfather gifted him with their name - Herman.

    I don't think he's ever letting go of the "Trey" nickname.

  • Tonio||

    Actually, John, the Sr/Jr/III suffixes thing isn't sposed to work that way for non-royalty.

    I name my son Tonio and he's Tonio, Jr. I start calling myself Tonio, Sr, to avoid confusion. The grandson is Tonio, III. When I die Jr. becomes Sr and trey (III) becomes Jr. So in practice you rarely got a IV, or if you did he only held onto that for a little while until Great Grandfather died.

    I have a feeling that computer record-keeping killed this custom.

  • John||

    I didn't realize that. But yeah, they keep the IIIrd their whole lives even thought they are not supposed to.

  • Jake W||

    No. When Sr. dies then Jr. is still Jr., Sr. is just dead.

  • R C Dean||

    Her blog postings on this need to be an exhibit to the briefs next time SCOTUS is asked to sign off on infringements to our RKBA.

  • ||

    SCotUS can't read the Constitution, Dean, interpreting the words "shall not be infringed" as allowing infringements, so why the fuck would they care? They'll push away any all-out ban, sure, but beyond that, I don't see them doing anything worthwhile.

  • John||

    Not all rights are created equal. Some rights, like the right to kill your unborn child, are sacred. Other rights, like political hate speech and owning a gun are icky.

  • R C Dean||

    Sadly, RPA, I agree. I thought the big landmark case was actually a pretty big disappointment. The majority signalled all over the place that they were willing to sign off on just about any stupid damn firearms law that wasn't, quite, an explicit all-out ban.

  • John||

    It goes back to the idea that the Supreme Court can treat some rights more equally than others. And it is infuriating. If it is an explicit right in the constitution, the test ought to be strict scrutiny end of subject. Thanks to terms like intermediate scrutiny, we get the rights our robed overlords decided to give us.

  • Tulpa the White||

    You have to admit that firearms are much more likely to be used in a manner threatening to public safety than speech. So it's reasonable that a lot more regulations are going to pass muster as a public safety concern.

    Not to say that every, or even most, regulations are constitutional, but there are many more cases of them being so than with speech restrictions.

  • John||

    I don't have to admit that at all. Speech can be used to defraud people, slander people, threaten people. Just because it doesn't directly kill people doesn't mean it can't be used illegally.

    And the fact that guns can just means that more regulations are likely to pass strict scrutiny for guns than for speech.

  • Tejicano||

    Nope. You have to prove that my guns are a threat to public safety. My rights trump your ignorance.

    Most of the laws regulating guns fail any sort of logical test - for instance banning pistol grips and bayonet lugs on semi-auto rifles. There is no factually based reason for most laws restricting guns. It is all emotion and hype which the average person ignorantly follows.

  • Tulpa the White||

    They had to to keep Tony Kennedy on board.

  • bagoh20||

    OMG! Kennedy blasting away with a handgun. I was simultaneously terrified and aroused.

  • sarcasmic||

    Candace Bailey blows stuff up.

    http://www.g4tv.com/videos/544.....at-ofasts/

    *drool*

  • John||

    The G4 casting couch really knows how to do nerd sexy. All of the women I have ever seen on that channel are drool worthy.

  • Being Waterboarded||

    My view: people that have not handled and used firearms have a real fear... they get an uncomfortable tingling in their belly when they see someone with a gun. They are afraid to touch them - like the gun could jump out and bite them. I have spoken to many Europeans that lambast our gun laws in the US as being to permittive, and they all convey this fear.

    "This is a world you'll never understand. And you always fear … what you don't understand" - Carmine Falcone

  • Harvard||

    A striking argument for Constitutional Carry then. Simply assume everyfuckingbody is packing, and act accordingly.

  • Jake W||

    If everyone was carrying a firearm at all times I would have no problem with there being absolutely zero airport security. The only thing I see as passable now are metal detectors, and terrorists don't worry me, hijackers for ransom etc. do.

  • Tejicano||

    I find it bizarre that years after both Heller (SCOTUS recognizing 2Am as an individual right…) and McDonald (…recognizing it applies to states) that we still have pretty much status quo in DC, CA, IL, MA, etc. It’s as if emancipation was proclaimed at the federal level but the former CSA states just sat back and said they would consider changing local laws when their courts got a case about it.

  • maillot de bain magasin||

    iller joined Kennedy at Sharp Shooters in Lorton, VA to discuss DC's Byzantine gun laws, the surge in female gun ownership, and how she choose her firearm.
    http://www.ceinturesfr.com/
    About 3 minutes.

    Interview by Kenne

  • Chaussures nike shox||

    Miller joined Kennedy at Sharp Shooters in Lorton, VA to discuss DC's Byzantine gun laws, the surge in female gun ownership, and how she choose her firearm.

    About 3 minutes.

  • pet winkel||

    Interview by Kennedy. Camera by Meredith Bragg and Joshua Swain; edited by Bragg.

  • leren riem||

    in Lorton, VA to discuss DC's Byzantine gun laws, the surge in female gun ownership, and how she choose her firearm.

  • some guy666||

    She picked a gun that was similar to the one that Bin Laden was killed with. Good ole America and its love for negative freedom.

  • S.Lynn||

    I LOVE LOVE LOVE my Sig 229 so much I bought a Sig 226. Congrats on a wonderful choice. Easy to shoot, easy to clean. Keep a record of your practice, ie. when, where, what gun and ammo type, how much just in case you need to show you are not a trigger-happy knee-jerk reactionary if you ever need to use it against another home invader.

  • Jake W||

    I own a P220 .45 and an SP2022 in 9mm. Love them both!

  • Walt Ughes||

    The real War on Women is not allowing them to defend themselves from larger male attackers.
    As the saying goes, "The good Lord made some folks big and he made some folks small. Sam Colt made them equal."

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement