The U.S. Supreme Court announced today that it will hear the first major 2nd Amendment case in 70 years. The case involves a challenge to Washington, D.C.'s strict hand-gun ban. D.C. has, for many years, been one of the nation's most dangerous cities. The city council, in 1976, passed the ban to reduce violent crime. Rifles and shot guns are still allowed, and businesses can own hand guns for protection. Apparently the council cared about the type of weapon criminals used to shoot people and where those victims were--at home or at work.
Regardless, the ban hasn't worked. D.C. has not freed itself from the violence. There are two things to look for the ban's failure. You should also consider the constitutional merits of the arguments on both sides. As to the effectiveness--which doesn't speak to the constitutionality at all, as something could be meritless and constitutional or vice versa--the ban is ineffective. D.C. was before the ban, and remains after the ban, a high crime area.
Why wouldn't banning hand guns reduce the crime? You should consider two statistics. One, 5 of 6 guns used in crimes are not acquired legally. Criminals have a tendency to ignore the law--including, not suprisingly, gun bans--to get what they want. Guns can be stolen or bought from other criminals. Bans don't reduce the total number of guns in the country. They just limit the places that will sell them. Thus, a perfectly effective ban can only influence--not eliminate--1/6th of the gun crimes. And then, I would assume, the affected 17% would get their weapons elsewhere, or use another weapon.
Two, in a study of prisoners, the top things criminals said they feared during home-invasion crimes were: 1) an armed home owner and 2) the police. Those two items tied for first place amongst the criminals' fears. Thus, by reducing access of home owners to guns, you reduce one of the prime deterrents. You do not, however, significantly reduce the number of guns criminals have.
While the intention behind the ban is noble--reducing violent crime--it is possible that the effect is the exact opposite. One part of the society--the law abiders--lose a deterrent, while the criminals remain, largely, unaffected.
Whether bans are effective, however, does not speak to their constitutionality. You could effectively get rid of slander by banning all public speech; but that would not pass constitutional muster. So, as the Supreme Court will consider, does banning private ownership of hand guns pass violate the Second Amendment?
The argument that it does is that the amendment begins "a well regulated militia..." Hence, the right secured is a group right, the militia's right. There are problems with that idea though. One, the militia was historically all able-bodied, male citizens. Thus, the group was all individuals--there was not a distinction as there is with the modern army soldier versus civilian. Two, the amendment confirms the individual nature of the right in the last clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It is the people's right, not a group's. By reviewing Amendment 10, you can see that "the people" is not the federal or state government. Thus, the government infringing the right should be out of the question. The third problem is not acknowledging that self-defense reasons, and not simply military service, would go without saying in colonial times. It would be a given that the gun over your mantle could and would be used in self defense. What needed to be made explicit was that the government could not take away the militia's role in that self defense--the defense of your rights against an encroaching power.
As such, the argument for the constitutional validity of gun bans seems weak. But the emotional appeals for more gun regulations remain strong. Why is this? Because we all see the terrible results of improper gun use on T.V. every day. Is it possible, that more gun ownership and better training would help reduce these scenes? Are most citizens prone to blood-thirsty rampages, or would they be more likely to stop a crime, if they could? Would someone not prone to armed robbery be tempted to it, merely by having easy access to a gun? Would criminals be less likely to assault, burgle, or try to murder, if they thought there was a high chance that the victim was armed? For a natural example, do predators typically attack the strongest or weakest members of the herd? Out of fear of a bite, blinding, or broken leg, predators seek the weak as their prey.
For statistical confirmation of these ideas, look at the studies of crime in states that have opened up their concealed-carry and overall gun-ownership laws. Here are some thoughts on Florida's experience:
In 1987, when Florida enacted such legislation, critics warned that the "Sunshine State" would become the "Gunshine State." Contrary to their predictions, homicide rates dropped faster than the national average. Further, through 1997, only one permit holder out of the over 350,000 permits issued, was convicted of homicide. (Source: Kleck, Gary Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, p 370. Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.) If the rest of the country behaved as Florida's permit holders did, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate in the world.
David Kopel, Research Director at the Independence Institute comments on Florida's concealed carry experience:
"What we can say with some confidence is that allowing more people to carry guns does not cause an increase in crime. In Florida, where 315,000 permits have been issued, there are only five known instances of violent gun crime by a person with a permit. This makes a permit-holding Floridian the cream of the crop of law-abiding citizens, 840 times less likely to commit a violent firearm crime than a randomly selected Floridian without a permit." ("More Permits Mean Less Crime..." Los Angeles Times, Feb. 19, 1996, Monday, p. B-5)
One homicide, 5 gun crimes, and yet over 300,000 concealed carriers. What is happening? Maybe the Founders were on to something. It seems the best of intentions with these laws actually takes things in the wrong direction. That direction also happens to be irreconcilable with the Constitution. Hopefully the Supreme Court will see that as well. I would prefer that they strike down such bans on the simple language of the Constitution, rather than on some statistical-effectiveness basis. I think they will in fact do just that.
To the people,
Thomas More
Comments