A thought on the DC Gun Ban Case

The ban comes "nowhere close to disarmament of residents. The District's overwhelming interest in reducing death and injury caused by handguns outweighs respondent's asserted need . . . ." The obvious key here is that DC says people can use rifles and shotguns for self-defense. DC also adds that they don't believe that the regulations that lock up and require the disassembling of guns does not "prevent the use of a lawful firearm in self-defense."

Here is the problem that DC faces. 1) The law is very clear. If you assemble and load a rifle or shotgun, that long gun becomes an illegal weapon. 2) On top of this, DC has won a previously legal victory before the Supreme Court that says that the DC police are not responsible for harm that comes to people. 3) The bottom line is that the DC police are not obligated to protect citizens AND DC will not allow people to defend themselves. I don't know how DC gets out of this. Either people are at least given the option to defend themselves or the city has to bear responsibllity.

Labels: ,


Blogger John said...

Is it illegal for private security services to bear arms? If not, look for the demand for their services to increase.

10/07/2007 5:26 PM  
Blogger Kris said...

Gun control works in the UK, why not try it in the US? Don't forget universal health care, too!

10/08/2007 7:16 PM  
Anonymous Rick said...

Ya well maybe after 31 years of "the Gun ban makes us safer delusion" People might get a look at reality.

10/20/2007 12:39 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home