D.C. Gun Ban to Be Overturned… Never

|

The capital city is suing to stop the legalization of handguns:

Mayor Adrian Fenty's administration wants D.C.'s gun ban upheld despite a federal appeals court overturning the ban last month.A statement from Fenty's office said that on Monday, they will appeal the decision. They plan to petition for the case to be reheard at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Fenty and many other groups have publicly shown their support for the gun ban in recent weeks.

Someone's eventually got to nail down Jim Webb on this issue, right? Meanwhile, the congressional GOP is perfectly ready to insert anti-gun ban language into next week's returning D.C. voting rights bill, with the knowledge it'll inspire Democrats to scrap the whole thing.

NEXT: Do College Republicans Hate Allah?

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.

  1. There’s a simple way to test the “more guns = more violence” thesis; disarm the largest block of armed individuals in the city – the police.

    Perhaps someone should ask the mayor why he tolerates armed men roaming the street if he truly believes “more guns = more violence” regardless of who has the guns.

  2. Someone’s eventually got to nail down Jim Webb on this issue, right?

    Guy Montag is dancing in the streets! Reason — let alone Dave Weigel — finally mentioned Jim Webb’s gun troubles!

  3. Guy Montag is dancing in the streets!

    Let’s organize a counter-protest to that.

  4. I am a little confused by this story. Since an appellate court issued the ruling in the first place, wouldn’t the city have to appeal to the SCOTUS?

    How can they appeal “sideways”, as it were?

  5. Fluffy,

    They way I read it at http://www.thelibertypapers.org is that it first went before a 3-judge panel. Now, the D.C. government is asking that it be heard by the full appelate court, in the hopes that the full court will overrule the panel. Of course, no matter what happens then, one of the parties will try to appeal to the SCOTUS. That is my understanding of what it going on. If someone else knows more, please put it out there.

    Nick

  6. crimethink-

    You weren’t smug enough there. If we’re going to tweak Guy Montag, we need to maximize the smugness.

  7. I suppose I’ll have to put off buying my Desert Eagle.

    Damn.

  8. thoreau,

    Sorry, I’m not good at being smug outside of abortion threads.

  9. Perhaps someone should ask the mayor why he tolerates armed men roaming the street if he truly believes “more guns = more violence” regardless of who has the guns.

    There’s a big difference: currently, the armed men legally roaming the street are directly under his control. If any so-called “law abiding citizen” not under his commmand could legally do so, that would be a disaster.

  10. If any so-called “law abiding citizen” not under his commmand could legally do so, that would be a disaster.

    As has been proven in every jurisdiction that has liberalized carry laws over the last twenty odd years. Oh, that’s right, it hasn’t been a disaster anywhere, has it?

    Nevermind.

  11. Hitler. Mao. Stalin. Yes they all banned guns as soon as they took power. The 2nd Amendment is the guardian of the Bill of Rights. It balances the power onto the 4th branch of government, We The People. Permanently free socities do not allow their governments to create a monopoly of violence. Power monopoly leads to tyranny, follow history. Use reason.

  12. Gun bans are always third person. It’s never “ban guns,” it’s only “ban THEIR guns.”

  13. Bush did one good thing (and so far as I know, only one good thig) while in office and that was appointing Janice Rogers Brown to the court in question (check out her Wiki page if you’re not familiar with her). I would assume she had something to do with this gun bans demise. I also assume that Bush appointing someone who respects the constitution as being purely accidental.

  14. Translating the last paragraph.

    Someone’s eventually got to nail down Jim Webb on this issue, right?

    Let’s mention Jim Webb while still ignoring his staff issue and we still get to go to his cool parties. Nobody will notice that this is the only story with a gun carry rights angle to be ignored by Reason since 1968.

    Meanwhile, the congressional GOP is perfectly ready to insert anti-gun ban language into next week’s returning D.C. voting rights bill, with the knowledge it’ll inspire Democrats to scrap the whole thing.

    So, how can we blame the vote of a bunch of Democrats on the Republicans? Oh yea! Just word it like David did 🙂 The only time Republicans can “inspire” Democrats to do anything is when Democrats are doing something the author does not want them to do.

  15. The whole issue is nonsense, and purely the fault of Congress. The Constitution gives Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, and does so for a reason: the operation of the Federal Government should not be dependent on or beholden to any other political entitiy. When Congress relinquished their jurisdiction to “home rule”, they brought this and similar problems upon themselves.

    The District of Columbia is not a State, and has no political existence other than that permitted by Congress. Congress should educate those who live in the District of their status: they are there by the sufferance of Congress and have no voice in running the District. They can leave if they wish. They can stay as long as they abide by the rules established by Congress.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.