Excerpts From Friend-of-Court Briefs
The D.C. gun case exposes strange bedfellows and internal rifts in the administration
• Association of American Physicians and Surgeons Inc. (.pdf):
"Medical professionals have no more qualifications or basis to opine about the Second Amendment than anyone else. The attempt to shroud political gun control arguments in the white coat of physicians and public health officials is utterly baseless, and constitutional law should not be influenced by it."
• 126 female state legislators and academics (.pdf):
"This case provides the Court an opportunity to advance the ability of women to free themselves from being subject to another's ill will and to counter the commonly-held prejudice that women are 'easier targets' simply because of their gender characteristics. Violence against women in the United States is endemic, often deadly, and most frequently committed by men superior in physical strength to their female victims.
"The District's current prohibition against handguns and immediately serviceable firearms in the home effectively eliminates a woman's ability to defend her very life and those of her children against violent attack. Women are simply less likely to be able to thwart violence using means currently permitted under D.C. law. Women are generally less physically strong, making it less likely that most physical confrontations will end favorably for women."
• A group of criminologists (.pdf):
"Handgun prohibition is simply not effective to produce good and valuable effects in society. Handgun prohibitions such as those enacted by the city council of the District of Columbia appear to be effective only at removing from law-abiding citizens the best means of protecting themselves, their loved ones and others from violent criminals. The District's 30-year social experiment with handgun prohibition has, if anything, illustrated this sad fact. Rather than becoming safer, our Nation's Capital has unfortunately become known as the 'murder capital' of the United States, one of the most violent cities in the country. In light of the District's gun prohibitions, there is little that the residents can realistically do but hope that they do not become victims themselves."
Excerpts from amicus briefs that side with the District of Columbia:
• American Public Health Association and other public-health groups (.pdf):
"The studies detailed below show that the risk of suicide, homicide, and accidental gun death is greater in homes with guns, and in communities with a higher prevalence of guns. Numerous studies indicate that people who have guns in their homes are at a substantially increased risk of suicide. Similarly, the presence of a gun at home increases the risk of homicide for the occupants of that home. And handguns, in particular, are responsible for the majority of all firearm homicides and suicides."
• 18 district attorneys, representing San Francisco, New York, and other areas (.pdf):
"The district attorneys urge the court to consider the potentially negative, unintended and wholly unnecessary consequences of an affirming opinion. In short, an affirmance could inadvertently call into question the well settled Second Amendment principles under which countless state and local criminal firearms laws have been upheld by courts nationwide."
Reader Comments
Gun Control
I support the right for an individual to own a gun. Although I do not own a gun myself, I believe the second amendment should countinue to protect that right, and any outrageous limitations would certainly infringe on the Founding Father's initial idea. However, I believe the right was intended for law-abiding citizens, not those who abuse priviliges.
Second Amendment
The Second Amendment does not grant a right to bear arms. It merely protects the right which is the individual's by virtue of his being human. An individual right to bear arms exists irrespective of government. An individual human being has the right to his life. He therefore has the right to defend his life. And it follows that he also has the right to the means necessary to defend his life. An Individual can delegate his self-defense right to a government, but does not surrender that right. In emergency situations, eg. when there is no time to call the police, an individual has the right to use deadly force to defend himself against an aggressor. A gun is often the best tool to use in defense of his life.
Gun Control
I am sure that the Founding Fathers meant that individuals can bear arms. There is definitely a need to put controls on bearing arms because like anything else, there are always a few people who will push the limits and take things out of control. However, I think that it is an infringement on our rights as citizens of the United States to say that we cannot have guns. There is no need to take something that is necessary away because of the people who misuse it.
advertisement










