The Washington D.C. City Council has created so many hoops for handgun owners to jump through before they can exercise their Second Amendment rights, they may require legal counsel just to identify what the hoops are.  This sorry state of affairs is much to the satisfaction of The Washington Post, which called for just such an obstructionist policy in an editorial.

At least one of those hoops is illegal, according to the Supreme Court, but a Post news story spun that fact as the opinion of “opponents of the handgun ban.”  Is editorial policy coloring the news?

Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty (C) speaks to the press alongside legal counsel outside the Supreme Court in Washington March 18, 2008, as the court considered a landmark legal battle over gun rights. The District of Columbia is asking the Supreme Court to preserve the capital’s ban on handguns in a major case that could have a far-reaching impact on gun control laws in the United States, estimated to have the world’s highest civilian gun ownership rate. REUTERS/Jason Reed (UNITED STATES)

The Washington Post is no fan of the Supreme Court’s recently rendered Heller vs. D.C. decision.  Last month when the nation’s highest court told Washington D.C. that its gun ban violated the Second Amendment of the Constitution, a Post editorial called the decision a “misguided ruling.” The Post opined that the District’s mayor and council would be on “solid moral and legal ground” if they re-crafted the District’s gun control laws to make them “as tough as possible” under the Supreme Court’s “puzzling mandate.”

Fast forward 21 days.  The July 18 edition of the paper carried a story about the first day of gun registration in the District in which only one person applied for a license.  That person was not Dick Heller, the man whose case went to the Supreme Court.  In fact, Mr. Heller did show up to apply for his now legal license, but because he did not have his gun with him he could not register it. 

According to the Post this misunderstanding didn’t irk Mr. Heller.  What did irk Mr. Heller was the “strict storage requirements” mandated by the newly revised D.C. gun laws.

But Heller and von Breichenruchardt angrily criticized the city over other aspects of the handgun ownership and registration process, outlined in emergency legislation approved this week by the D.C. Council and Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D).

The new law includes strict storage requirements that opponents of the handgun ban say violate the Supreme Court ruling. Gun owners must keep their pistols at home, unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks. Weapons can be loaded and used only if the owner reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger from an attacker in the home.

Note the spin.  The Washington Post indicates that it is a matter of opinion whether the storage restrictions violate the high court’s ruling.

It’s not opinion.  It’s fact.  Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, stated, “In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.”

It is clear that the D.C. restrictions requiring the gun to be “unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks” render the gun inoperable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.

Further, as reported by Jeff Johnson of One News Now.com (a former NRA employee) but not reported by the Post,  the District’s requirement that every gun submitted for licensing be test-fired by police ballistics experts violates a congressional ban on federal agencies creating any kind of gun owner registry.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Heller case did leave room for municipalities and states to put reasonable restrictions on gun ownership.  But it also made clear that excessive regulation would violate the Constitution. The Second Amendment-loathing folks as the Post need to set their anti-gun bias aside and report the facts as facts.  

Kristen Fyfe is senior writer at the Culture and Media Institute, a division of the Media Research Center.

Source: KTKZ

A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND SOME DOMESTIC EVIDENCE

DON B. KATES AND GARY MAUSER

Excerpts:

“International evidence and comparisons have long been offered
as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that
fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths.1 Unfortunately, such
discussions are all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and
factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative.
It may be useful to begin with a few examples. There is a compound
assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United
States compared with other modern developed nations, which is
why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate.
Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement
(b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so…

…If the mantra “more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less
death” were true, broad based cross‐national comparisons
should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita
consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun
ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide
rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many
high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates.
Consider, for example, the wide divergence in murder rates
among Continental European nations with widely divergent
gun ownership rates…

…In sum, though many nations with widespread gun ownership
have much lower murder rates than nations that severely restrict
gun ownership, it would be simplistic to assume that at all times
and in all places widespread gun ownership depresses violence by
deterring many criminals into nonconfrontation crime. There is
evidence that it does so in the United States, where defensive gun
ownership is a substantial socio‐cultural phenomenon. But the
more plausible explanation for many nations having widespread
gun ownership with low violence is that these nations never had
high murder and violence rates and so never had occasion to enact
severe anti‐gun laws. On the other hand, in nations that have experienced
high and rising violent crime rates, the legislative reaction
has generally been to enact increasingly severe antigun laws.
This is futile, for reducing gun ownership by the law‐abiding citizenry—
the only ones who obey gun laws—does not reduce violence
or murder. The result is that high crime nations that ban guns
to reduce crime end up having both high crime and stringent gun
laws, while it appears that low crime nations that do not significantly
restrict guns continue to have low violence rates.

Thus both sides of the gun prohibition debate are likely
wrong in viewing the availability of guns as a major factor in
the incidence of murder in any particular society. Though
many people may still cling to that belief, the historical, geographic,
and demographic evidence explored in this Article
provides a clear admonishment. Whether gun availability is
viewed as a cause or as a mere coincidence, the long term
macrocosmic evidence is that gun ownership spread widely
throughout societies consistently correlates with stable or
declining murder rates. Whether causative or not, the consistent
international pattern is that more guns equal less murder
and other violent crime. Even if one is inclined to think
that gun availability is an important factor, the available international
data cannot be squared with the mantra that
more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less
death. Rather, if firearms availability does matter, the data
consistently show that the way it matters is that more guns
equal less violent crime…

CONCLUSION

This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence
from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual
portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the
general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific
evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of
conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the burden
of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal
more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially
since they argue public policy ought to be based on
that mantra.149 To bear that burden would at the very least
require showing that a large number of nations with more
guns have more death and that nations that have imposed
stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions
in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are
not observed when a large number of nations are compared
across the world.”

Over a decade ago, Professor Brandon Centerwall of the University
of Washington undertook an extensive, statistically sophisticated
study comparing areas in the United States and Canada to
determine whether Canada’s more restrictive policies had better
contained criminal violence. When he published his results it was
with the admonition:

If you are surprised by [our] finding[s], so [are we]. [We] did
not begin this research with any intent to “exonerate” handguns,
but there it is—a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative
finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us
where not to aim public health resources.

To download the complete study in PDF form, click here.

WASHINGTON — The District of Columbia Council approved new firearms legislation Tuesday that will allow residents to begin applying for handgun permits this week.

The council’s unanimous vote comes as officials try to comply with last month’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down the city’s 32-year-old ban on handguns.

The emergency legislation will allow handguns to be kept in the home if they are used only for self-defense and carry fewer than 12 rounds of ammunition.

Handguns, as well as other legal firearms such as rifles and shotguns, also must be kept unloaded and disassembled, or equipped with trigger locks — unless there is a “reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm” in the home.

“This is not perfect legislation,” said D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson, who worked with the mayor’s office on the bill. “The first step is what we have before us today so that we maintain important provisions in our gun registration law while we continue look at how we can further refine our gun registration law.”

Gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Association, said at least some of the new regulations will likely be challenged.

The emergency legislation will remain in effect for 90 days, and the council expects to begin work in September on permanent legislation.

Though residents can begin applying for handgun permits this week, city officials have said the entire process could take weeks or months.

“It depends on what your situation is — whether you owned the gun before or purchased it outside the District of Columbia,” police Chief Cathy Lanier said.

The process involves a written exam, proof of residency and good vision. Successful applicants must pay a registration fee and agree to fingerprinting and a criminal background check before obtaining a weapon.

Even with Tuesday’s vote, Washington’s gun regulations will remain among the strictest in the country, said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

He said Chicago, where it is illegal to possess or sell handguns, now has the toughest ordinance, though the city is facing a legal challenge following the Supreme Court ruling.

It remains to be seen how much of the district’s new regulations will withstand constitutional challenges, Helmke said, adding that it could take years for the courts to sort it all out.

The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision June 26 that affirmed the right to have guns for self-defense “raised more questions than it’s probably answered,” Helmke said. “They haven’t explained where you draw the line.”

Source: Fox News

…Barack Obama specifically voted four times in the Illinois Legislature to allow criminal charges against a homeowner who used a firearm in self-defense of their person and home — specifically what the Supreme Court says is a constitutional right. Obama may say he supports it, but his record says exactly the opposite.

In 2004, the Illinois Senate considered S.B. 2165 (IL 2004), sponsored by Senator Ed Petka (R-Plainfield). The bill came about because of an arrest in Wilmette, IL in late December of 2003. A 54-year-old businessman shot and wounded a man who had broken into his home for the second time in 24 hours. Cook County prosecutors found the shooting justified, but the businessman, Mr. DeMar, faced a fine and possible destruction of two guns under a 1989 village ordinance prohibiting handgun possession.

S.B. 2165 would allow residents to use self-defense as a basis for seeking dismissal of criminal charges stemming from local gun ordinances if they used the banned weapon in an act of self-defense in their home, business or property.

Obama voted no on third reading March 25, 2004, and voted no on concurrence to a House amendment on May 25, 2004. In fact, Obama voted no four times: in the Judiciary Committee, on Third Reading, in the Judiciary Committee’s vote on concurrence with the House, and on the final concurrence.

Luckily for the people of Illinois, the legislation passed despite Obama’s opposition. Had he had his way, people in Illinois could still be prosecuted for defending themselves against crimes.

But that’s not the only time Obama has voted against the people’s right to keep and bear arms.

In 1999, Obama voted in favor of S.B. 177 (IL 1999). The legislation required guns to be secured by trigger locks, placed in a lock box, or placed in a location that a reasonable person would believe to be secure from a minor. Likewise, in 2003, Obama voted for H.B. 2579 (IL 2003) for a law that restricted the rights of Illinois’s citizens so that they could only buy one gun a month. The law created the offense of “unlawful acquisition of handguns.”

In 2001, Obama voted against S.B. 604 (IL 2001), which would have allowed individuals who have valid orders of protection against other individuals to carry concealed weapons for their protection. The bill would have created an affirmative defense against a charge of violating Illinois’s concealed carry law if the person had a lawfully issued protection order against someone seeking to do harm to the person.

In 2002, Obama voted against S.B. 397 (IL 2002), which amended the Firearms Owners Identification Card Act. The legislation was specifically crafted for sporting events and allowed a non-resident participating in a sanctioned competitive shooting event in Illinois to purchase a shotgun or shotgun ammunition in Illinois, but only at the site where the event is being held, for the purpose of participating in the event.

My faith goes much deeper than his superficial explanation and I love my guns even when I’m not frustrated. And I am not by myself. I was going to church and shooting guns before Mr. Obama was even born and come from a long line of good people who have been doing it for generations. To me this latest Obama blunder only helps reveal the depth of condescension the far left wing of the Democrat party has for the folks out here in flyover country. Mr. Obama’s remarks are insulting to a lot of folks. It’s kind of like Abraham Lincoln said, “God must love the common people because he made so many of them”.
His remarks make me think that Obama doesn’t know the people of this country very well. I’m sure he knows the jet set and the Hollywood bunch, the limousine liberals and the save the whales, kill the babies crowd, but does he think that the ordinary people don’t count? Does he think that they’re so stupid that they don’t know who he’s talking about when he says these things? Does he think their opinions aren’t important? Apparently.

How can a man stand in front of America and tell people what he wants to do for them and have so little respect for a whole segment of the population. In fact, a very large segment. Does that mean that he would only represent the high-minded liberal ideals of the far left and ignore the rest of us? What kind of Commander and Chief would he make if he doesn’t respect the very people who make up the lion’s share of the armed forces. You may say I’m over reacting, but I’m getting sick and tired of him making these elitist statements and saying that he had been taken out of context or some other flimsy excuse.

After his wife’s remark about not being proud of this country and his pastor’s statements calling America the U.S.K.K.K.A. and his own statement about not wanting his daughter punished with a baby, it makes me wonder what kind of a man Obama really is and what kind of a president he’d make. Would he be an antigun advocate pushing the effort to take the firearms out of innocent citizen’s hands? Would he not respect the religious beliefs of America, not taking them into account in his agenda? I really don’t know much about the man and neither does America. He basically came from out of nowhere and as the facts come out little by little, they don’t make a particularly confident picture. I have a great fear that if our military gets broken by another president, this time we’re not going to have time to fix it again and what that spells for America, I don’t even want to contemplate. Oh well, I guess I’ll grab my gun and go to church.

Pray for our troops.

What do you think?

God Bless America

Shamelessly lifted from A Disgruntled Republican

A Note to the Obama Trolls: Don’t waste everyone’s time trying to post comments here. I read Doonsebury. I’ll whack your drivel the minute you post it. Only patriotic Americans who love the Constitution of the United States have a right to post comments on this blog.

In the July newsletter we mentioned that about half of the shootings FBI agents are involved in are not line of duty shootings. Rather, a thug mistakes the agent for a private citizen and tries to rob or assault them, not realizing that the plain clothes agent has a concealed gun on him.  This happened again last week in Greenville, SC.  A female agent and 2 friends were at a restaurant downtown, and had just exited. An SUV pulled up, and a passenger got out wearing a ski mask and brandishing an Uzi. The thug fired a shot into the ground to intimidate his “victims”, and in the course of events, the agent drew her gun and shot Dude, who fled back to the SUV.  Police later arrested a suspect they believe was the get-away driver, and a body found nearby is believed to be that of the Uzi armed stick-up man, shot through the heart.  The lessons from this are obvious:

1. Just because you’re only planning a quiet dinner with friends DOES NOT mean that someone else is not planning a violent robbery, rape, or other crime against you.
2. Parking lots and the area right in front of stores, restaurants, and other businesses may be among the most hazardous places you go. Thugs can drive right up, commit their crimes, and drive away quickly and easily. This easy access makes these places the favorite operational areas for many violent criminals.
3. Regardless of location or activity, be alert, be aware, be armed.

HOW TO INSTALL A HOME SECURITY SYSTEM IN THE SOUTH

1. Go to a second-hand store and buy a pair of men’s used size 14-16 work

boots.

2. Place them on your front porch, along with a copy of Guns &Ammo

Magazine.

3. Put a few giant dog dishes next to the boots and magazines.

4. Leave a note on your door that reads:

Hey Bubba,

Me, Big Jim, Duke and Slim went for more ammunition. Back in an hour.

Don’t mess with the pit bulls– they attacked the mailman this morning and

messed him up real bad. I don’t think Killer took part in it but it was

hard to tell from all the blood. Anyway, I locked all four of ‘em in the

house. Better wait outside.

‘Cooter’

The following is a memo sent to Washington, DC residents by Cathy Lanier, Washington, DC Chief of Police:

From: Lanier, Cathy (MPD)
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 6:35 PM
Subject: Supreme Court Update

Residents,

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court today struck down part of the District of Columbia’s handgun ban. I wanted to drop you a note to let you know the immediate impact of this decision.

The Supreme Court’s ruling is limited and leaves intact various other laws that apply to private residents who would purchase handguns or other firearms for home possession. It is important that everyone know that:

a.. First, all firearms must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department’s Firearms Registration Section before they may be lawfully possessed.
a.. Second, automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal and may not be registered.
a.. Third, the Supreme Court’s ruling is limited to handguns in the home and does not entitle anyone to carry firearms outside his or her own home.

Lastly, although the Court struck the safe storage provision on the ground that it was too broadly written, in my opinion firearms in the home should be kept either unloaded and disassembled or locked.

I will comply with the Court’s reading of the Second Amendment in its letter and spirit. At the same time, I will continue to vigorously enforce the District’s other gun-related laws. I will also continue to find additional ways to protect the District’s residents against the scourge of gun violence.

Residents who want additional information can visit the Metropolitan Police Website at www.mpdc.dc.gov/gunregistration. Residents with questions are encouraged to contact the Firearms Registration Section at 202-727-9490.

Sncerely,

Cathy Lanier
Chief of Police

Memo Source: WashingtonPost.com

Contact: Alan Gottlieb (425) 454-7012

BELLEVUE, WA – Following Thursday’s (5-4) ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual civil right to keep and bear arms, and that a municipal gun ban violates that right, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) filed a federal lawsuit (complaint) challenging the City of Chicago’s long-standing handgun ban.

“Chicago’s handgun ban has failed to stop violent crime,” SAF founder Alan Gottlieb stated. “It’s time to give the Constitution a chance.”

In addition to SAF and ISRA, plaintiffs include Chicago residents Otis McDonald, a retiree who has been working with police to rid his neighborhood of drug dealers, and who wants to have a handgun at his home; Adam Orlov, a former Evanston police officer; software engineer David Lawson and his wife, Colleen, a hypnotherapist, whose home has been targeted by burglars. Attorney Alan Gura, who argued the District of Columbia challenge before the high court, and Chicago area attorney David G. Sigale, represent the plaintiffs.

“Our goal,” Gura said “is to require state and local officials to respect our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Chicago’s handgun ban, and some of its gun registration requirements, are clearly unconstitutional.”

“The right to defend our homes and families against those who would do them harm, whether a random criminal, violent ex-domestic partner, or other wrongdoer, is one of the principles upon which America was founded,” Sigale said. “It is time the City of Chicago trust its honest, law-abiding residents with this Constitutional right.”

“The city has been denying gun owners their civil rights for a long time and I think this lawsuit could have a profound effect on their registration law,” ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson added.

Under the gun law currently in place, firearms must be re-registered annually.

“Each time,” Gura said, “a tax is imposed, forms must be filled out, photographs submitted. A person who owns more than one gun will find herself or himself constantly in the process of registering each gun as it comes due for expiration. If registration is to be required, once is enough.”

He further noted that Chicago’s bizarre requirement that guns be registered before they are acquired often times makes registration impossible. The penalty for failure to comply with the registration scheme is that a gun not re-registered on time can never be registered again. Gura likened it to a requirement to dispose of a car if it is not re-registered on time with the Department of Motor Vehicles. Source: ChicagoGunCase.com