Real gun control - Washington DC had the strictest gun ban in the country until a court recently overturned it.
“So how does it feel to not be the only gun in town?” Cindy asked me the day after the ruling.
She was talking about the 30 year old District law that pretty much outlawed handguns or rifles except for police or security guards, until it was overturned a few days ago.
She was facing me over a chess board, with Monte looking on. We were supposed to be demonstrating, to help him sharpen his game. But I knew she really wanted to win, and had brought up what she figured was one of my hot buttons to distract me.
“Actually, I feel safer with more law abiding citizens getting armed.”
She pushed her king’s pawn forward another space. “So you figure it’s okay that a court decided that the District’s law limiting gun ownership to police and professionals like yourself was useless.”
“Actually, what I think the federal appeals court decided was that DC’s handgun ban was unconstitutional,” I said, putting my queen’s knight out. “It was a violation of our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Surely an officer of the court like yourself must respect the constitution.”
“We both know the founding fathers meant that right to apply only to militias,” Cindy said. She was pulling out her queen way too early.
“We do?” I castled and managed to get into the king’s Indian defense. Let her try to get in there without losing her queen. “The court specifically said that the activities protected by the Second Amendment are not limited to militia service.”
She actually stopped to think about her next move. That was the lesson I wanted Monte to learn. But she kept talking. “So, you don’t mind losing your edge as the only one out there not in uniform but packing a gun.”
“I don’t know,” I said, turning to Monte. “Tell me, do you know anybody else who carries a handgun?”
“You kidding?” Monte barely avoided laughing out loud. “Be easier to ask me who I know who ain’t strapped.”
“Here’s the thing,” I said, almost forgetting about the game. “Crooks don't obey the law, so they got guns. Always have, always will. The law only disarmed law-abiding citizens."
“Oh you know that’s not true.” Cindy was on her feet now. It seemed I had pushed her buttons instead of the other way around. “Just by keeping gun shops out of the city the law helped decrease gun violence here.”
Even Monte had to laugh at that. “This is your idea of a city with reduced gun violence? Sure don’t seem like that to me.”
“And even if that was true, that sounds like you’re saying the ends justify the means, and we can just brush the constitution aside. That’s no way for a lawyer to think.”
“Oh, so you think everybody should have a gun? I can see how that would play out on our streets.”
“Yeah,” Monte said, miming pulling an automatic’s slide back and pointing it sideways, the way movie gangsters do. “Then I’d get some respect.”
“Oh, baby, you know better,” I said, smiling my best conciliatory smile. “Does everyone have the right to own a car? There are reasonable restrictions we should all be able to agree on. I’m good with guns being registered, just like cars, so we know who has what. Like cars, guns should get safety inspections to make sure they’re safe to use. And I’d even support mandatory training, like we require driver’s ed before kids get their license. Of course, no guns for criminals or crazy people.”
That softened her attitude… a little. But it didn’t take her hands off her hips. “I know you’re trying to make this all sound reasonable, but those ideas don’t equal gun control.”
“Gun control?” I quipped. “I’m strongly in favor of gun control.”
“What?”
“True gun control,” I said. “Proper breathing, sight picture and trigger squeeze so the bullets hit their intended target. THAT’S gun control.”
posted by Austin S. Camacho at 3:44 PM
11 Comments:
Wahoo!
How've you been, Hannibal? Listen, Cindy didn't mention it, but The DC gun ban is still in effect, and will be until it's been played out in front of the Supremes. It could go either way. I thought the reason DC was picked as the test case is that it has less legal authority than most cities to enact laws on its own behalf. Because Congress often overrules it, like it did with medical marijuana. Congress also voted to overrule DC's gun ban, and it was a lower Court decision that said DC could keep it. Isn't this a continuation of that legal proceeding? Now I will presume to speak for my people for a moment: All good democrats who think they can be President (and yes, there do seem to be hundreds) say that gun legislation should be decided locality by locality, by the folks who live there or the folks they elect, because the same conditions that prevail in rural Texas aren't so relevant in New York City for example. Maybe it's not so much whether you or I think gun bans are smart, as whether it should be up to DC or some random Florida lawyer to decide on the residents' behalf.
Joan
Hannibal talks back and
Hey, Joan,
How cool to hear from someone who has the courage to engage, and take part in real debate and idea exchange instead of the usual empty rhetoric. Your comments deserve a serious and considered answer.
I know the ban is still technically the law, and I look forward to the Supreme Court finally making a call, like they should have done years ago. After years of tug-of-war about gun rights, somebody finally had the guts to make a ruling based on the Second Amendment. I think both sides have avoided letting the court make a statement about constitutionality, but that IS what this is about.
And yeah, DC DOES get the short end of the authority stick. In fact, I think there was an early effort to dodge this bullet by pointing out that The District isn’t a state and therefore lots of the usual rules don’t apply.
I can get with you on the “locality decision” up to a point. To my little pea brain, these decisions ought to be made like First Amendment laws. First you admit we have the right to free speech, and then you decide how to reasonably limit those rights for the good of the citizenry. So if Congress declares that yes, we all have the right to keep and bear arms, then local governments can decide when that right interferes with the rights of others. I think I gave Cindy some reasonable examples.
And I’ll take a sec to speak for MY people, since I’m kinda conservative. No sane adult thinks every single American should have a loaded machine gun in his back seat. We just think we should trust law abiding citizens to do right until they show us different, not assume every gun legally owned will be used in an argument at the poker table.
Here's what gets me about any gun debate: The issue is so ripe for slicing and dicing, you don't even have to lie to get the numbers to say what you want them to. Just select the time range, the location, and the type of gun-related event that makes your case. And both sides are untrustworthy here. So, are there higher rates of suicide, intra-family homicide, and kid-related accidents where guns are legal? Is it really true that if you have a gun it's more likely to kill you or a family member than to prevent a burglary or a mugging? Depends on whom you ask, and where the parameters are set. Talk about a moving target! Some would argue that the suicidal should get to shoot themselves if they want to, and that Darwinian justice is served when kids get killed from their careless parents' guns. But my brain just won't go there, and safety classes isn't the answer: People pretty much know what they're supposed to do, but they pretty much do what they want.
Good point about no guns for criminals or crazy people, but how would that even work? Most places, I think if you're deemed competent to sign a contract and have the legal right to vote, you're good to go. To which I guess I'd tack on, if you've ever been convicted of a violent crime, no gun for you. And if you're on medication for depression or any other mental illness, you'd need a waiver from the prescribing physician. Naturally, if you're the doc, you're all kinds of liable if you guess wrong. Guess wrong more than twice and you probably lose your malpractice coverage. So here's the thing. I've got this co-worker with a TS-SCI security clearance who's been in treatment for PTSD symptoms for almost as long as it's been an acronym. He says that thanks to the right medicine, it's been more than 10 years since he's head-butted his son in an argument, pulled a guy out of a car, or frightened his wife. Think fast: waiver or no waiver?
Speaking for Hannibal Jones:
First off, Joan, this gun issue ain't even about whether or not there are more or fewer murders, accidents, etc. That's like deciding whether you get free speech based on whether you think there's more hate generated by KKK members being able to express their views. The founding fathers decided that no matter what bad might come of it, the right to express yourself verbally shouldn't be cut off by the government. No matter how harmful a newspaper is, the press has to be free. And regardless of the consequences, people have the right to keep and bear arms. If enough people disagree, we need to change the constitution, but that’s what the debate needs to be about, 'cause that document is the ultimate law of the land, including all the amendments.
And we disagree on one big point. Most people DON'T know what they’re supposed to do with guns. Just as you're not born knowing how to drive, and telling somebody which pedal is the brake doesn't make them okay to get on the highway. However, I do believe that people can be taught to respect firearms and to use them responsibly.
You know, in this country if you're convicted of a crime you lose your right to vote. Permanently! Now, I think that's a terrible injustice (and disenfranchises a disproportionate number of people of color), but since that's already there it shouldn't be hard to get folks to accept that if they're convicted of a crime they lose the right to have a firearm. Surely we can agree that certain medical diagnoses (severe depression, for example) or an IQ below a certain level should take you out of the shooting pool. But if I had my way, and there was mandatory training, then the trainer, just like a driver's Ed teacher, can make a judgment and decide this or that individual just can’t be trusted with a weapon.
OH, did I mention registering ammo? I love to shoot, but nobody needs a warehouse full of bullets. That's kind of a warning sign that somebody's intentions ain’t too cool. Get enough for two trips to the range or two hunting trips and when you use it up, go back to the store.
So… your pal with the clearance? As long as the feds trust him with Special Compartmentalized Information, we should trust him with a gun. Of course, I'd have pulled his clearance long ago….
If we would just do this mean instead of friendly, we could do a good Point/Counterpoint. Tell ya what, I'll be the Ignorant Slut…
The guy who starts the blog is the one who gets to say what the issue is. But I'm sure you've noticed that the Great Debate surrounding gun legislation includes a lot of discourse about death rates and safety issues. I was just bemoaning how hard it is to find an honest broker to give good numbers to inform my opinion (There's lies, damn lies, and statistics), which I base on more than Second Amendment issues. And it's not hard to see why Cindy and some others tie the Second Amendment to militia, since the amendment says "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." Opposing theorists do tend to focus on different parts of that little sentence, which is what keeps the ball in play.
If you're convicted of a crime you don't necessarily lose your right to vote. Misdemeanors, for example. Like Vice President Cheney, long ago convicted of the crime of driving while intoxicated. Not only can he still vote and hold office, I'm sure he legally owns his shotguns. And even if you are convicted of a felony and do time for it, there's a process by which you can usually get your voting rights restored. Easier in some states than others. Which is why I'd tack on the part (if I were queen) about how if you're convicted of a violent crime, getting back the right to vote wouldn't get you back your right to bear arms.
DUI kind of speaks to my point about people who know what they're supposed to do but do what they want anyway. Knowing the rules, even knowing the reasons for the rules, doesn't confer good judgment on people who are more prone to cut corners, or whose judgment is chemically impaired from time to time.
My co-worker got his clearance years after his troubles, which did not include legal troubles, and his doc did have to weigh in. His speaking style is thoughtful, slow and soft, reminiscent of Jimmy Stewart. And he's okay only as long as he keeps taking the medicine. I don't believe he packs heat, and I'm not sure he could if he wanted to. But I'd rather hunt with him, as they say, than ride with at least half the Hyannisport Kennedys.
writing for Hannibal Jones: Hi Joan,
You know, I was tempted to actually do that early on, ("Joan, you ignorant slut!") but wasn't sure you had THAT much of a sense of humor. Hopefully I'm a LITTLE less of a pig than Dan Akroyd in the skit.
And here's a point we can agree on: The gun issue, like many others, has become so polarized that both sides exaggerate and bend the statistics to the point that I can't believe anyone. And I guess the reason I have enemies in both camps is because, while I focus more on "the right...
shall not be infringed" I also can't ignore the wisdom of the "well regulated" concept.
And of course I meant to say "convicted of a felony" when referring to the loss of voting rights. The process of getting those rights back is only a little harder than immigrating legally and becoming a citizen so few actually do it. But we again agree on violent crime convictions - permanent loss of weapons rights makes sense to me there.
This is being fun. I wonder what you'd say if I told you that I am
against abortion on morale grounds, but legally support a woman's right to choose. (Abortion is a wrong choice, but it's not the government's business to decide.) Can I get you to cop to something similar about gun ownership?
And to prove I'm not a right wing fanatic, let me assure you that, while I would never ride with one of the Hyannisport Kennedys, in a car OR helicopter, I would also never go hunting with Dick Chaney.
Yeah, I have qualms about specific abortions but don’t need to see laws made from my opinions. I can be very judgmental about a friend’s basis for making that choice, if their line isn’t where I would’ve drawn it. But my line is “rape, incest, and me.” Not original, not springing from rational thought processes, but there you have it.
For guns, the same squeams kick in: Most people I know who hunt – it’s for fun way more than for food. And I usually like someone a lot less to know that their fun depends on wild animals’ fear and suffering. Unless I know they grew up in a hunting culture. At that point I stop assuming meanness is part of their equation. Likewise: When someone, apropos of nothing, shows me a carry permit and murmurs something about “because our government can’t protect us,” it changes the way I see that individual. If we’ve been flirting, that’s when I notice that it’s time to get another drink, or to go home and let my dog out.
Here’s what I’ll cop to: Unless guns are outlawed nationally, state and city gun laws will always be a joke. And we will never outlaw guns nationally; it’s part of our national character, for good and ill. I feel like guns are the delivery system, but that paranoia is the agent. Our grisly murder rates will go down as our national greed and paranoia subside. Or maybe they’ll just keep getting worse. I’d leave the country before bearing and keeping arms myself. Except at that shooting range behind the ammo store in Front Royal. Man, that was fun.
I'm gonna have to write a new blog so we can beat up a new subject, eh?
The last sentence of your last message clears the clutter and gets to
the real root of the issue. The answer to the question, "why do you
need guns?" is the same as my answer to "why must we allow pornography?"
In our hearts it's not really about the constitution or civil liberties.
The truth is, we don't need these things. We WANT them, because dirty
books are fun. Shooting is fun. And most of us WON'T become sexual
predators or murderers just because they're there. The gut level
resistance I feel to government control comes from not wanting to be
punished because of someone else's weakness or stupidity. It's like
getting grounded because your brother got drunk. Kids DO get in trouble
if they're out at 1 am, but I didn't, most don't, and that makes a
curfew (or gun ban) basically unfair.
But enough about me. Let me say a word about hunting. Most people who
set out to commit Bambicide do indeed get a real thrill out of the hunt,
tracking or waiting, matching wits with the animal and eventually making
a kill. But we don't want that animal to feel fear or suffering. The
height of a good hunt is a clean one-shot kill, and I have known hunters
to drag their butts through the woods all day following a wounded animal
to make sure they end his suffering.
And just so you know, I favor non-lethal forms of self defense. True,
if you come into my home uninvited, drunk or high or armed, you're going
to get a face full of shotgun pellets. But if you can be reasoned with,
or if you're anywhere else giving me grief, I much prefer a taser,
pepper spray, or a truncheon. Sadly, the law seldom differentiates the
use of these items from a knife or gun. (Does this thinking stop your
flirting?)
One final opinion: Most violent criminals are NOT like the guys on TV.
There are no criminal geniuses. Most of these people are the most
ignorant in the nation. I believe that our violent crime rate will only
drop when we raise the education level in this country.
BTW, do YOU have a blog or MySpace page?
I didn't mean that hunters want the animals to suffer. I meant their hunting fun depends on animal suffering. That guy looking all day for the wounded deer is looking for a deer that's been suffering all day because that guy's shot was not, after all, a clean kill.
And I know animals hunt other animals, and that some animals will occasionally bag a human, and I'll cop to loving the taste of well marinated game. I can't lay claim to consistency. Even vegans get called hypocritical if they are also diabetics who use insulin, which is made from animal products. And I'm no vegan.
If I start a blog, I'll send you the link so you can hijack it at will. :o) I'm just trying to come up with a perfect theme that'll cover the range of subjects I like to flog. Till then, it's backseat blogging for Joan You Ignorant Slut!
I just want to say that "Backseat Blogger" is a great idea! You could
read other people's blogs, post a comment, then post both their comment
AND your response on your own blog.
And hey, e-mail me through the website (www.hannibaljonesmysteries.com)
whenever you get the urge.
Post a Comment
<< Home