In 1976, the District of Columbia passed one of the nation’s strictest gun laws, prohibiting handguns and severely restricting rifles and shotguns. “It is an important step in the right direction,” then-D.C. mayor Walter E. Washington proclaimed in a statement to Congress, necessary “to reduce the human misery and toll caused by the possession of handguns by certain persons in our community.”
Last Friday, in a 2-1 decision, the D.C. Court of Appeals took a step in the wrong direction, overturning the District’s 30 year-old handgun ban. In opposing the ban, the court undermined the District’s legislative authority and the safety of the District’s residents. Mayor Fenty has rightly pledged to appeal the decision, an effort which must continue so that D.C. can keep benefiting from the security of the gun ban.
The District’s case consists of three points. The first is very shaky: D.C. is not a state, so parts of the second amendment do not apply. The second and third are more legitimate: handguns do not fall within the founders’ definition of “arms” and the second amendment only grants the right to bear arms to militias, not individuals.
The argument that D.C. is not a state is troubling, to say the least. It’s counterproductive to the movement for D.C. representation and sets a dangerous precedent for future decisions. However, the militia argument is supported by the landmark case of Miller v. United States in 1939. Moreover, the Constitution can be interpreted to support either an anti – or a pro-gun control point of view, according to Professor Lewis Seidman, a constitutional law expert at the Georgetown University Law School. Since most D.C. residents back the gun restrictions, the legal interpretation should come down on the pro-control side.
But most importantly, allowing handguns in our nation’s capital would have negative implications in a city with too much crime. While it’s unclear what impact gun control has had on District crime over the years, what the sense in allowing more guns on the streets?
Luckily, Mayor Fenty is committed to fight the decision. “I will instruct my Attorney General and the Solicitor General to explore every legal option that will uphold the City’s gun ban,” he said in a statement reacting to the ruling. With any luck, the gun ban will be upheld, and the District will be safer for it.
Michael J. Bruns recuses himself from this editorial.
