Trouble in gun-banners’ land
There’s an interesting piece in the Washington Post on the turmoil in D.C. over the city’s defense of its handgun ban. The Supreme Court will consider a challenge to the law this spring. But it looks like the gun-banners are preoccupied with in-fighting instead of prepping their case:
Acting D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles has fired the city lawyer who had been preparing to defend the District’s longtime ban on handguns before the Supreme Court this spring, a move that some city officials fear could harm the case.
Alan B. Morrison, who has argued 20 cases before the high court, was asked to leave his post as special counsel by the end of this week. Morrison had been hired by then-Attorney General Linda Singer and put in charge of arguing the handgun case. Singer resigned two weeks ago.
Nickles declined to elaborate on his decision, but Morrison suggested in an interview that he was fired as part of a feud between Nickles and Singer.
The case is one of the most important in the city’s history, and the court’s ruling could have a national impact, legal experts have said. The city appealed to the Supreme Court to maintain the handgun ban after a lower court overturned it in the spring. The high court agreed to hear the case, probably in March, which would mark the first time the Supreme Court has examined a Second Amendment case in nearly 70 years…
…D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), chairman of the Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary, which oversees the attorney general’s office, said that he spoke with Nickles about the handgun case Tuesday but that Nickles said nothing about the firing.
“It’s like committing hari-kari. We’re in the middle of preparing for a Supreme Court case,” Mendelson said, adding that he has heard “nothing but praise” for Morrison’s work on the brief.
Morrison suggested yesterday that Nickles was interested in purging the attorney general’s office of Singer’s allies. Singer had indicated frustration that Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) relied more heavily on Nickles, who had been his general counsel, to make key legal decisions. Upon Singer’s resignation, Fenty replaced her with Nickles, a former corporate litigator and friend of Fenty’s family.
The phrase “shooting themselves in the foot” comes to mind…
Meantime, states are lining up for or against D.C.:
Virginia, along with Arkansas and Texas, are joining the challenge of the ban.
“This is a case of fundamental importance to the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States that is going to impact every state and every territory in the Union based on how they rule,” Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell says.
Maryland, New York, Illinois and Hawaii are filing briefs backing the law.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Guns
Stop The ACLU
» Obama’s Approval Ratings Tank, But Media Still Love HimNewsBusters.org
» Top Press Secretly Parties With Obama on Fourth of JulyRiehl World View
» Palin In Iowa? Watch The Heads Explode!Pundit & Pundette
» Obama's drop in popularity and Michelle's handbag controversyPundit & Pundette
» Is the tide turning?Riehl World View
» The Three Stooges Now Appearing At HuffPoSister Toldjah
» Quote of the Day – from Carol Browner, climate-czar
…
…because they want to compete with the murder capital of the USA for highest murder rate.
I am 100% sure the criminals will abide by the gun ban ruling. And if they kill someone with a gun, it will be murder.
/maximus sarc off
Oh Illinois has, has it?
Why am I not shocked?
The gun ban is a joke in D.C., as always. Some areas, after the sun goes down, turn into battle zones, with bullets flying. It’s a criminal’s paradise with only them having the weapons. What are they going to argue? That it deters crime? Hilarious!
Long bout time the states got their second amendment trampling ways set right with the world.
Ca. is especially deserving.
SHHHHH. They’ll go after knives next.
Speaking of the Left Coast State, I wonder why CA, or at least San Fran hasn’t filed their brief against the Bill of Rights.
This reiterates the importance of keeping a Republican in the White House.
Had The Goracle or Kerry won, and given the number of appoinments Bush has made, this would be a bad time for gun owners.
Call this a failed liberal effort in taking away the liberties of law-abiding citizens. Guns for everybody who follows the law. Except for the Vice President and Huckabee!! They need proof of marksmanship classes first!!!!
JS Ragman, in Britain, they already are going after machetes. Any knife more than 18″ long is banned is what I heard. I also hear they are looking at banning baseball bats. Not sure how they are going to handle cricket bats though.
I’ve been listening to NRA radio quite a bit. The NRA attorneys seem to think the ban will be modified, but not lifted entirely. Probably get rid of the ludicrous requirement that legally owned long guns have to be completely dismantled, and you need a permit to carry it from one room to another. However, don’t expect the ban on hand guns to be lifted.
Government doesn’t give a rat’s rear if it’s citizen can defend themselves against criminals. Government doesn’t want it’s citizens to defend themselves against government. Thus, the Supreme Court, being an arm of “government”, isn’t going to do too much to keep government from restricting citizen ownership of guns.
I’m not holding my breath waiting for SCOTUS to halt the steady progress of gun banners. I think they will pay lip service to the Second Amendment, but do little to change the gun ban.
The thing to do with DC is to have Congress give it back to Maryland. The only territory that needs to be under exclusive federal jurisdiction should be the physical footprints of the Capitol, the White House, the Supreme Court and the Mall and connecting streets.
#9 Rorschach
So how’s that working out for them?
FYI the former DC Chief of Police, Charles Ramsey, who is now Police Commissioner in Philadelphia, said in a recent interview, that he thought the handgun ban in DC was not working.
I agree with lotm. Unfortunately, I don’t think Maryland wants it back. Well, I can’t blame them.
Illinois has odd gun laws. First of all you need to have a state issued FOID card if you own, transport (in your vehicle), or have in your possession any firearm or ammunition. On top of that different cities and towns have varying rules.
In Chicago you are not allowed to have a handgun in your possession. Period. Ironically you are allowed to have a shotgun or rifle in your home for self-protection if you have that valid FOID card. I assume there is an exemption for police and the members of Mayor Daley’s security detail.
Then there are towns like Skokie where I believe you can also get in trouble if you’re a hunter just passing through town and the cops find your cased and unloaded hunting weapon in the locked trunk, although that law may have been changed. I can’t keep track anymore.
The bottom line is that you have a confusing legal mess in Illinois between different jurisdictions. The same applies to cell phones and foie gras with cell phones banned while driving in Chicago (unless you have a hands free system) and the sale of foie gras simply being banned in Chicago. I really should leave this state!
I always wondered why there are so many minorities on the sugar tit in DC. Is it communism they like, or just free food, housing, and health care on the tax payer dime? Wait a second.
Get a job!
As it stands right now, the only people with guns in DC are the criminals, while the fat-cat political swine oink “We’re here to help you!”
graysonret
ty
The key thing would be to repeal the 23rd Amendment. In fact I believe that anybody who derives over 40% of their income from either the federal or state/local level of government should be barred from voting in any election for an office at that level.
Give San Francisco some time. They’ll join the fun.
They’re still pissed off over THIS.
I just wonder what the crime stats are, seeing how this ban has been on the books for 30 years. Must not be good for pro- gun ban people, otherwise you would hear nothing but how good having no gun’s has been.
Rightnow, I have ready access to a 25mm M242 cannon, an M240C coaxial machine gun (this is my Bradley); an M2 .50 caliber machine gun (that is my HMMWV); an M4 carbine; and my M9 pistol. Eat your hearts out!
Was it the looud popping noises he heard nightly while in DC or the body count?
Yeah, it’s the guns fault. Ban guns! Ban MTV! Ban BET!
I blame Boooosh!
ArmoredCav, sure does a good job of rubbing in it…
Agreed but you can’t hide those like my Kel-Tec .380!!!
30 I’m not going to talk about what’s in my arsenal, let’s just say..I’ll be one of the last ones standing. You can’t have to many guns, or to much ammo…
#19 twiggman
A quick scan of a couple open sources produced this;
TEN WORST LARGE CITIES FOR MURDER, 2002 CITY PER 100,000
(1) Washington, DC 45.8
(2) Detroit 42.0
(3) Baltimore 38.3
(4) Memphis 24.7
(5) Chicago 22.2
(6) Philadelphia 19.0
(7) Columbus 18.1
(8) Milwaukee 18.0
(9) Los Angeles 17.5
(10) Dallas 15.8
2003 statistics weren’t much different. DC came in second with a rate of 44.0 homicides per 100,000. First place that year went to New Orleans with 57.7 per 100,000.
I love .380s. I don’t have one, yet…
J S RAGMAN I guess that says’s it all.
#21 Soap
I’m pretty sure it was the body count.
I hear ya twiggman. Rock on.
ArmoredCav, huge favor to ask. Can you pop into the thread titled ‘USO directors object MoveOn’s cash’? Just want to know your thoughts on the topic.
Thanks.
#11,13 Tough. Giving the excess of DC back to Maryland would also eliminate the “Statehood for DC” movement.
The gun ban hasn’t worked.
Um, DC hasn’t been the murder capital in quite some time. There was a slight uptick in homicides in 2007, but still nothing close to the late-80s and early-90s when the crack cocaine epidemic was in full bloom.
Ragman, you get a +1 from me for comment #5 (well played), but if we’re going to sully the city’s good name, use recent statistics.
Like these.
There’s a severe drop after 2003. Murder capital no more.
Since my blog covers DC affairs, I’ve been paying attention to this for quite a while. Conclusion: The handgun ban is a joke.
It would be one thing if the handgun ban really deterred crime (although I would still oppose it on Constitutinal grounds). But It doesn’t. Hell, the murder rate increased after the ban and then skyrocketed once crack cocaine hit the streets. Then, as DC gentrified and crack became less popular, the murder rate followed suit. Anyone who says the handgun ban prevents crime is being totally disingenuous. The stats don’t back it up.
I want the District to lose this case. But, as a District resident, it is absolutely shameful what has happened here. Firing a legal scholar right after he completes a legal brief that won unanimous raves is the kind of crap that this city always has to deal with. Mayor Fenty claims the ban is about safety. If that’s the case, his Acting Attorney General just put office politics ahead of the safety of his constituents (me).
It’s a disgrace. I wanted DC to lose. But I at least wanted DC to lose with dignity. Why can’t we even achieve that.
30,
Kel-Tec P-3AT .380 is best for the ladies. The wife wants one now!
I will be interested to see if a repeal of the handgun ban changes the stats much. It seems as though most of the homicides in DC are drug-related, criminal-on-criminal.
That doesn’t change the fact that law abiding citizens should have the ability to defend themselves against drug-crazed thugs.
Also, as for DC retrocession into Maryland, you’re preaching to the choir. It’s already pre-dominantly liberal and I’d finally get to have a voting member in Congress and two Senators (like every tax paying American deserves).
Although, I believe MM lives in MD. She may not appreciate the addition of a city of 560,000 where 90% vote Democrat.
ArmoredCAV I would love to have a couple of those goodies mounted on my X-terra along with some car-to-car missiles (can’t get completely away from my Air Force background). We are very happy to be living in a state that allows law abiding citizens to protect ourselves via CCW licenses. I carry a Glock 19 and the wife carries a Ruger SP-101 .357 Magnum to protect ourselves from those that would do use harm.
Rusty, you post the rates for DC but no comparison to the other cities. So if I know the rates have come down in DC, how does that make me believe DC is not still #1? If crack is the culprit and crack use and sales came down across the board, one would have to assume that the murder rate fell across the board as well now wouldn’t one?
J S Ragman posted comparisons not just one city’s stats.
Try again.
DC is too expensive for criminals in most areas these days.
Here in Hawaii the Constitution is regularly ignored…
Well, his stats were out of date. And oh my gracious are you suggesting that DC is still the murder capital of the world!? If you’ve spent any time in DC you know that’s not the case anymore. Portions of the city that were all but abandoned after the ‘68 MLK riots are now flourishing. Gentrification has priced out the criminal element (which has moved into PG County).
According to Time, New Orleans is the worst followed by Detroit and Baltimore.
It’s like committing hari-kari.
One could also say, they shot themselves in the foot.
Fortunately, I live in a state, Oklahoma, where a persons right to keep and bear arms still is honored. I believe like twiggman in #24 that one can’t have too many guns or too much ammo. My gun safe is pretty well full.
WHAAA? Where you getting that pal?
Gun control is constitutional: “A well regulated militia . . . ” is not a private person with a pistol in a drawer.
Crime in New York City has fallen in part because of helpful gun control policies pursued by our recent mayors Koch, Dinkins, Giuliani, Bloomberg: two Democrats and two Republicans. Last year there were fewer murders than in any year since 1963.
I apologize for using 2002 and 2003 data. Here is something from the Washington Times in June, 2006. I am unable to find 2007 compilations, as they may not be available yet. But let’s remember that the DC handgun ban has been in place since the early 70’s.
Murder rate falls, still third of large cities.(METROPOLITAN)
From: The Washington Times Date: June 14, 2006 More results for: homicide rates cities
Byline: Matthew Cella, THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The District’s homicide rate remains among the highest in the nation, but the figure has dropped nearly 20 percent since 2003, when the city was last determined as the “murder capital” of the United States.
The highest homicide rate among the nation’s big cities last year went to Baltimore, which had 269 killings, according to the FBI’s preliminary 2005 Uniform Crime Report, which was released Monday. The preliminary report lists the number of violent crimes and property crimes in U.S. cities with more than 100,000 residents.
Well, we have seen a few trolls here today that did not wish Michelle or Rick Happy New Years or even said “thank you!” Does not stop them from spouting off though!
/vent off
Rusty, you are right, DC is not #1 (thanks for the info) and we agree, the handgun ban is a joke!
A question as a comment: Is the 2nd Ammendment the only element of the Bill of Rights that is not supposed to apply to individuals? Let’s say that the freedom of speech is not an inividual right, but only a collective one. Therefore, only the government as a whole has the right to say what they wish, and lgm does not, because if any one element of the first ten ammendments only applies to the collective, then they all only apply to the collective.
Gun control is not constitutional.
The New York City murder rate did not fall under Dinkins. It was still over 2000 murders per year until Rudy took office. Rudy applied aggressive criminal control, and crime slowed, including Murder, which dropped to under 800 per year by the time he left.
OK, I feel like feeding the trolls just enough to make them hungrier…
Yes, New York is so expensive criminals can’t afford to live there. Same in DC. As for the Second Amendment, “…the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” You know, the right to keep and bear arms they already had - and used on the British - cannot be infringed on by the government. They brought their arms with them from from home. And took them back home after the war.
They are having trouble finding someone who can translate it into English.
I guess I need a little clarification of your meaning here, lotm. As I understand your statement, then my husband, who has served this country as a US Marine for the last 24 years — and one who derives 100% of his income from the federal government — should not be allowed to vote for President, state or national Congressmen, judges, etc.? What about me? As his wife for 20 of those 24 years, my *income* is also 100% derived from the government. Am I to be barred from voting as well?
ArmoredCav, you make me jealous. I have the M2 on one Hummer, the Mk19 on another, and a whole team’s worth of small arms….then again, I have that handy lil Air Farce guy that hangs out with us and calls in the Big Bombs…maybe I’m not so jealous. But i still want my 25mm!
As Ruyard Kipling said, “A man can never have too many good books, too much red wine, or too much ammunition.” Or something like that.
Yes, government can regulate guns; i.e., you can’t have your own “personal nuclear deterent” but you can own a pistol for self protection. No matter what the government says. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness don’t mean much if your life and liberty are constantly threatened by criminals and your pursuit of happiness is just getting through another day without becoming a crime statistic.
Wrong again. See “Freedomnomics” by John Lott, Chapter 4, Crime and Punishment, specifically page 147, but you should read the entire book. Right to carry laws always decrease crime (that is, they have a positive impact on crime prevention) and gun control has either no impact or a negative impact. Always.
Jim M., That would certainly explain why I can’t understand a blasted thing this state tells me. I left my English-Socialist dictionary back in Florida, so I’ve had to rough it. The official state language isn’t actually Spanglish, either. It’s a peculiar mix of Pig Spanglish, Beaurocrititis, Mandarin Chinese, with a little Klingon in the curse words. The letters the state might send for legal briefs (an obvious oxymoron) also must be translated to legalese. The translators are from France. They speak Frog.
Any male citizen was considered part of the militia at the time of the Constitution, and for good reason too, since we didn’t have a real standing army. The other reason for this militia goes back to the revolution; the private citizen picking up his flintlock and going to fight against the English government. It was, and still considered, a right of the citizens to rise up against an oppressive government. One thing a government hates, when it tries to control the citizens, is armed militias.
First thing a government will try to do is gun control. “The tree of liberty must be refreshed occasionally with the blood of patriots.” Thomas Jefferson. Once a government takes away a right or liberty, it very rarely gives it back. Giving up the “right to bear arms” means the end of the right of citizens to dissolve an oppressive government. Maybe today, we don’t need it, but who knows in the future with our grandchildren or great-grandchildren. Are you willing to state that all will be well 50-100 years from now? I’m not willing. I never believe in giving up hard-won rights won by the blood of our ancestors and founding fathers. Already I see our rights diminished by a lot of “yes, but” laws curtailing our freedoms. The Bill of Rights have been under assault and few care. Always some sort of excuse is given. We’re too busy wrapped up in our own lives to care.
My choice is a SigSauer SP2022. It’s about the only 9mm that the socialist CA legislature has deemed fit.
Except of course it’s usually spelled harakiri…but I suppose the Washington Post reporter was too busy singing “Carey-Okie”…
FWIW, since the Bill of Rights was written to restrict the Federal Government, and since the 10th acknowledges the right of the states to legislate in all areas not specified, it would seem to me that the gun ban in DC should be overturned because it is federally controlled, but the decision should be narrowly written so as to have no bearing on state or local gun control laws.
lgm #42, nice try but the reason that homicide in NYC has gone down is that it has become so expensive that the less affluent & more likely to run w/a drug gang demographic have been displaced to the suburbs where guess what, the crime rate is skyrocketing. Kinda like Paris, oui?.
The average price of an apartment in Manhattan is 1.43M & those folks don’t do drive-bys… but if you would like I could recommend some housing projects in Brooklyn where they locals would be more than happy cap you & leave you under a bridge… oh the irony.
Show off!
As for lgm, read/write the complete 2nd Amendment:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The right mentioned, to keep and bear arms, belongs specifically to the people, “…the right of the people…”, the same “people” mentioned in Amendment I and Amendment IV. Are you implying that these amendments (I & IV) refer to rights belonging only to militias as well??? I think not.
PS, I love my HK mk23 .45
Typical DC trashy politics. Remember Marion Barry?
LGM I thought the democrats were for the constitution. Why mess with the 2nd amendment? If you start with one amendment it will be a matter of time before the others are picked off. Unless you want Muslim law or Stalin law I would leave the consitution alone. The murders here where I live are guns brought in from Old Mexico. Law abiders always have a harder time obtaining guns then those who are in the lawless category.
You mean Councilman Marion Barry (D-Ward 8). Show some respect for the Mayor-for-Life.
Mr. Marion Barry. Saw him twice. Once I was with a group that hosted a party for some D.C. businesses back in ‘84. He totally ignored us hosts (white) and stayed with some of the businessmen (black) with newspeople in tow. 2nd time was when I was with a group that worked hard for months, putting together and opening a healthcare clinic for the homeless in ‘89. When we opened, he came “roaring in”, cameras in tow, announcing, “Look what I’ve done.” Felt like saying, “You b*d!”. He didn’t do a darn thing to help, just took the credit. Can’t stand the man.
The 2nd Amendment, like the 1st, refers very specifically to the rights of individuals. It is not a collective right ascribed to some “militia” . . . the militia was understood at the time to include every able-bodied male capable of bearing arms. And the phrase “well regulated” simply means “adequately prepared” in the language of the times. *Any* gun control law is unconstitutional in keeping with “shall not be infringed”. The right to self-defense is absolutely fundamental to a free people.
Seeing as this case only applies to Washington D.C. I don’t see it mattering all that much although I would love to see the Supremes come down in favor of gun rights for law abiding residents of D.C.
I do realize a decision in favor of the current gun restrictions in D.C. would be a major source of political capital for the Brady Bunch!
From Article VI Paragraph 2 of the US Constitution:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
(emphasis added)
This could allow a North American Union to abrogate the Second Amendment if the NAU charter explicitly restricts the RKBA of ordinary citizens.