In Congress, the Uphill Battle for Gun Control
Why it's been years since significant federal legislation
On the streets of D.C.'s rougher neighborhoods today, it's hard to see how the handgun ban has made much of an impact on crime. Last year, homicides—about 80 percent of which are caused by firearms—were up 7 percent from the year before, to 181. That makes D.C.'s one of the highest per capita murder rates in the country. If the gun ban is struck down, the District will very likely see an increase in firearms ownership and perhaps a rise in burglaries by criminals trying to obtain guns.
But a new police unit formed to target illegal guns may be doing more for public safety than a ban alone. Every day about two dozen officers fan out across the city's roughest neighborhoods, stopping drivers and pedestrians for traffic and other offenses and executing warrants in search of illegal guns. Some days the officers come up dry. But in the first three months of the program, they seized nearly 120 guns, increasing the city's average monthly recovery by about 35 percent from the previous year. The city would have a program without a ban, and judging from those in possession of the guns, the program would most likely work just as well. Says police officer James Boteler Jr.: "Most of the guns we're recovering are from people who, even without the ban, would not be allowed to have one anyway." But, he adds, the ban doesn't hurt, either.
Reader Comments
On Democracy, Tyranny, and Permits
I have to take issue with several things written herein.
First, we are not a "democracy," but a Constitutional Republic. By that, I mean that our Constitution guides the government, with the Bill of Rights limiting what government can do to the individual's rights. In most cases it is nothing whatsoever. Those that try, and succeed, are treading on dangerous ground, acting in a treasonous manner, and against the oath they took to "protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic/" The problem is that once they suggest, vote for, or sign laws which abrogate the rights of the citizenry. they fall into that area which becomes treason to the very government they have sworn to uphold.
Certainly, there are many tragic deaths because of gun control, but as Thomas Jefferson wrote to Archibald Stewart in 1791, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree." The end result of this is further tragedies, played out daily in our media, as rogue elements of criminality use guns to perpetrate criminal acts, often in places where no law abiding citizen could be armed.
Mary May of MO states guns killed those people, not protected them. The problem could be that all those people were either under age based on the laws, or in (law abiding citizen) gun free zones.
She states she wants to control my guns. Well, well, isn't that quite tyrannical of her? When she runs for office, people had better vote against her right away, or the next thing you know you'll only be able to eat mashed up potatoes, and boneless chicken, and fish. Do-gooders are all around us, but those who wish us well through tyrannical means haven't a clue as to where their righteous indignation may lead, nor, do they care.Edmund Burke related, "The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients, and by parts (encroachment: see meaning of infringe)...the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Thus, people like MM of MO, are in essence, tyrannical, evil, and wholly unfit for office, let alone prepared for what life has to offer.
Finally, let me let all of you in on a dirty little secret the government has been hiding, and the major pro-gun groups are unwilling to press. The fact is there are three rulings which have determined that permits for rights are unconstitutional censorships, or prior restraints, on the individual. This means that pistol permit, or other gun permit systems are unconstitutional on their very face, yet, the pro-gun groups keep pressing for these permit systems as if this is suppsed to make them look like such nice fellows. After all, here they are, willing to submit themselves to the government for record, and background checks to determine their worthiness. The founders must be turning over in their graves.
Dems less committed to gun control????
How will the Democrats approach the gun-control issue now that Washington D.C.'s admittedly hard-line gun laws (ban on handgun ownership; rifles and shotguns need to be locked up or disassembled) is up before the Supreme Court? The local ban on functioning firearms will certainly be invalidated, but the high-court justices certainly will provide for an N.A.R. (no-absolute rights) loophole that at least will allow many state, local, and even federal guns laws currently existing to already stay in place.
Note that Democrats appear to be less committed to pushing sweeping federal gun restrictions than they were in the year 2000 (the same year their party lost the White House).
Since the Supreme Court obviously will allow for a N.A.R. loophole in it's interpretation of the Second Amendment, that will encourage Democrats to spport such a constitutional interpretation.
Gun owners should not worry about the mainstream Democrats pushing for federal legislation requiring owners to be licensed or guns be registered, for bth Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in a January debate in Nevada both rejected the twin ideas of national/federal licensing and registration.
There is the question of whether or not Dems should try to renew the old federal ban on military-style semiautomatic weapons (1994-2004). Maybe not.
Certainly, one idea that might gain more adherence is federal funding of gun buyback programs, where people are paid money or some other prize for turning in their firearms-a practical, voluntary approach to gun policy. If it's voluntary, it has to be constitutional.
Buyback programs could not only receive federal funding, such programs could also be narrowly tailored to target (albiet voluntarily) certain types of firearms: the aforementioned, so-called assault weapons; 50-calibre rifles (especially powerful, miltary-style guns), and fully-automatic machine guns.
The 2008 Democratic platform could propose a moderate plant on guns: enforcement of existing federal laws by hiring more federal agents, support for a moderate Supreme Court decision on gun rights to recognize both the rights of private citizens AND an N.A.R. loophole, states' rights on licensing and registration (instead of making them federal policy), and federally-funded, voluntary buyback programs.
The issue is not the diffrence between Democrats and Republicans on guns, but between 2008 Democrats and the same party five-to-10 years ago, or between pre-2000 and post-2000 Dems.
Nonetheless, some gun owners are NOt willing to forgive and forget Democrats for "past sins", and consequently vote Republican.
I am glad
I am glad I didn't buy this magazine to contribute to the biased propaganda I just read for free online.
The author is clearly for gun control. How can she say that the polls show people want to protect gun rights (even if they don't own firearms), and then bash the fact that the government isn't giving gun contol any teeth?
How about enforce the laws we have and let's not government decide whats good/bad for us? I am glad I am from Missouri, a state that recognizes this.
advertisement
